Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-21923

Notice2024-21923

General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers

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

September 25, 2024

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Transit Administration

Abstract

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a General Directive to address the significant and continuing national-level safety risk related to assaults on transit workers. The General Directive requires each transit agency subject to FTA's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) Final Rule to conduct a safety risk assessment, identify safety risk mitigations or strategies, and provide information to FTA on how it is assessing, mitigating, and monitoring the safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers. Each transit agency serving a large urbanized area must involve the joint labor-management Safety Committee when identifying safety risk mitigations.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78431-78449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21923]

[[Page 78431]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[Docket No. FTA-2023-0032]
RIN 2132-ZA10

General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding Assaults on
Transit Workers

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

ACTION: General directive.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a General
Directive to address the significant and continuing national-level
safety risk related to assaults on transit workers. The General
Directive requires each transit agency subject to FTA's Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) Final Rule to conduct a
safety risk assessment, identify safety risk mitigations or strategies,
and provide information to FTA on how it is assessing, mitigating, and
monitoring the safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers.
Each transit agency serving a large urbanized area must involve the
joint labor-management Safety Committee when identifying safety risk
mitigations.

DATES: Responses to this General Directive are due December 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host
a webinar to discuss the requirements of General Directive 24-1. Visit
<a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults">https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults</a> for more information and to RSVP.
FTA is committed to providing equal access for all webinar
participants. If you need alternative formats, options, or services,
contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9effde884e2c7c6dec5cccdcecce9cdc6dd87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7c6e7b177154554d565f5e5d5f7a5e554e145d554c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> at least three business days prior to the
event. If you have any questions, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105644513d5b7e7f677c7574777550747f643e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="531507127e183d3c243f3637343613373c277d343c25">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Stewart
Mader, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-9677 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89fafdecfee8fbfda7e4e8edecfbc9ede6fda7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9eedeafbe9ffeceab0f3fffafbecdefaf1eab0f9f1e8">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. For legal matters, contact Heather Ueyama,
Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-7374 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8b0bdb9acb0bdaaf6adbda1b9b5b998bcb7acf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8808d899c808d9ac69d8d91898589a88c879cc68f879e">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Summary of General Directive and Changes From Proposed General
Directive
III. Notice of Proposed General Directive and Response to Comments
A. General
1. Support
2. Opposition
B. National Level Hazard/FTA's Safety Risk Assessment Process
C. Assault as an Issue Not Exclusive to Public Transportation
D. Compliance Timeframe
E. Burden
F. Funding and Technical Assistance
G. Applicability
H. Definition of Assault on a Transit Worker
I. Safety Risk Mitigations
J. Role of the Safety Committee
1. Role of the Safety Committee in Safety Risk Assessment
2. Role of the Safety Committee in Safety Risk Mitigations
3. Role of the Safety Committee in Monitoring Mitigation
Effectiveness
4. Role of the Safety Committee in Required Reporting
5. Other Comments Pertaining to Safety Committee
K. Required Actions
1. Conduct a Safety Risk Assessment
2. Identify Safety Risk Mitigations
3. Submit Required Information to FTA
L. Follow-Up Reporting
M. Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA)
N. Oversight and Enforcement
1. Federal Enforcement
2. State Safety Oversight Agency Role

I. Executive Summary

FTA is issuing a General Directive to address the significant and
continuing safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers.\1\
FTA has identified a national-level hazard that transit workers must
interact with the public and, at times, must clarify or enforce agency
policies, which can present a risk of transit workers being assaulted
on transit vehicles and in revenue facilities. FTA has determined that
the national-level hazard and potential consequences discussed above
constitute an unsafe condition or practice presenting a risk of death
or personal injury for transit workers. Accordingly, pursuant to 49 CFR
670.25, FTA is issuing a General Directive that directs transit
agencies to take action to address the identified national-level hazard
and the potential consequences of the hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Please refer to the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans (PTASP) Final Rule for definitions of ``assault on a transit
worker'' and ``transit worker'': <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-673">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-673</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This General Directive is part of FTA's ongoing comprehensive
efforts to improve transit worker safety. FTA is also undertaking other
actions related to transit worker safety, including funding research,
sponsoring training, soliciting public input, and providing technical
assistance. FTA intends to use information submitted to it pursuant to
the General Directive and other FTA initiatives to inform future FTA
actions, including rulemakings such as the planned Transit Worker and
Public Safety rule (RIN 2132-AB47).

II. Summary of General Directive and Changes From Proposed General
Directive

This General Directive requires each transit agency that is subject
to the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) Final Rule (49
CFR part 673) to use the Safety Management System (SMS) processes
documented in its Agency Safety Plan (ASP) to conduct a safety risk
assessment related to assaults on transit workers on the public
transportation system it operates. If a transit agency has conducted a
safety risk assessment related to assaults on transit workers in the
twelve months preceding the date of issuance of this General Directive,
and if the transit agency continues to believe that the results of that
safety risk assessment are relevant, the transit agency need not
conduct a new assessment. This General Directive also requires each
transit agency to use the SMS processes documented in its ASP to
identify safety risk mitigations or strategies necessary as a result of
the agency's safety risk assessment. As required by 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(5) and the PTASP Final Rule at 49 CFR 673.25(d)(1), each
transit agency serving a large urbanized area must involve the joint
labor-management Safety Committee when identifying safety risk
mitigations to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences
identified through the agency's safety risk assessment.
This General Directive also requires each transit agency to provide
information to FTA on how it is assessing, mitigating, and monitoring
the safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers within 90
days of issuance of this General Directive.
FTA has chosen this approach as part of the effort to address
assaults on transit workers, as it is grounded in SMS principles and
methods, which FTA has adopted as the basis for enhancing public
transportation safety. See 49 CFR 670.3. Further, this approach will
ensure that each transit agency is taking a formal evaluation of the
safety risk related to assaults on transit workers on their system. FTA
believes this approach will contribute to transit agencies and their
joint labor-management Safety Committees identifying scalable and
effective mitigations across the range of services they provide and
situations that contribute to the risk of assaults on transit workers.

[[Page 78432]]

FTA is finalizing the General Directive largely as proposed.
However, in the Notice of Proposed General Directive published on
December 20, 2023 (88 FR 88213), FTA proposed a 60-day timeframe for
transit agencies to comply with this General Directive. In response to
public comments, FTA has increased the compliance timeframe to 90 days
in this General Directive. In response to public comments, FTA also has
removed the term ``written plan'' from the Enforcement section of the
General Directive. Additional information about these changes is
provided in Section III below.
FTA notes that this directive is intended to work in conjunction
with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protections
and is not intended to preempt OSHA's standards or other enforcement
authority.
The General Directive contains binding obligations, which 49 U.S.C.
5334(k) defines as ``a substantive policy statement, rule, or guidance
document issued by the Federal Transit Administration that grants
rights, imposes obligations, produces significant effects on private
interests, or effects a significant change in existing policy.'' Under
49 U.S.C. 5334(k) FTA is authorized to issue binding obligations if it
follows notice and comment rulemaking procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553.

III. Notice of Proposed General Directive and Response to Comments

FTA published a Notice of Proposed General Directive in the Federal
Register on December 20, 2023, which is available on the FTA website at
<a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-general-directives">https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-general-directives</a> and in Docket No. FTA-2023-0032. The public comment
period closed on February 20, 2024.
FTA received 66 comment submissions to the docket. Commenters
included transit agencies, labor unions, State Safety Oversight
Agencies (SSOAs), and individuals. FTA has considered these comments
and addresses them in the corresponding sections below. Some comments
were outside the scope of this General Directive, and therefore, FTA
does not respond to those comments.
FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration
when developing the General Directive. Below, the comments and
responses are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the General
Directive and subject matter.

A. General

1. Support
Comments: Several commenters expressed general support for the
General Directive, including transit agencies, labor unions,
individuals, an industry association, and an SSOA. In general, these
commenters emphasized the importance of efforts to address assaults on
transit workers and voiced appreciation that FTA is taking action to
address this issue.
Several commenters noted that assaults negatively impact the safety
of workers and other individuals interacting with the transit system.
Some provided anecdotal examples of assaults, while others noted
factors that contribute to the problem.
One individual and two labor organizations stated that the General
Directive is a step in the right direction but that additional FTA
action is needed to address the issue.
FTA response: FTA appreciates the comments that expressed support
for the General Directive. FTA acknowledges the efforts taken to date
by the transit industry to address assaults on transit workers and
looks forward to receiving submissions in response to the General
Directive.
FTA acknowledges the comments that noted examples of assaults that
negatively impact the safety of transit workers and comments that
argued for additional action to address the issue. FTA notes that the
General Directive requires each applicable transit agency to provide
FTA information on how the transit agency is assessing, mitigating, and
monitoring the safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers,
which FTA intends to use to inform future Federal action to protect
transit workers, including rulemakings such as the planned Transit
Worker and Public Safety rule.
2. Opposition
Comments: Some comments opposed FTA's proposal generally. One
individual argued that the General Directive does not offer concrete
ideas for how transit agencies should combat assault. Another
individual expressed that while FTA's recognition of assaults on
transit workers is overdue, the General Directive is burdensome and
would do little to improve safety for transit workers.
One individual specifically addressed a statement in FTA's Federal
Register notice, which articulated FTA's concern that transit agencies
may not have completed safety risk assessments despite the presence of
the assault risk on their systems. This commenter questioned FTA's
statement, arguing that the likelihood of assault is remote for many
transit agencies and that it is reasonable to conclude that some
agencies did not identify it as an unacceptable risk in need of further
mitigation. This commenter further questioned why FTA believes further
action is necessary, stating that FTA appeared to be changing its
position that assault is best addressed through the scalable PTASP
process. This commenter argued that FTA should use the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) as FTA's formal
mechanism for communicating hazard information and directing transit
agency action, as opposed to issuing directives.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that expressed
opposition to the General Directive and notes that the General
Directive is intended to ensure transit agencies assess and mitigate
the risk associated with assaults on transit workers and to help FTA
better understand the use of SMS processes to address this risk. FTA
has limited the reporting required by the General Directive to that
which is necessary to support FTA's understanding, in order to minimize
the burden associated with responding to the General Directive.
As stated in the Notice of Proposed General Directive, FTA is
concerned that transit agencies may not have completed a safety risk
assessment despite the presence of the risk of assaults on the systems
they operate. FTA has reason to believe this is the case based on an
analysis of Special Directives on transit worker assault that FTA
issued to nine transit agencies on October 4, 2022. Only four of these
agencies reported completion of a safety risk assessment prior to
issuance of the Special Directives. FTA understands the commenter's
argument that a transit agency may have completed a safety risk
assessment and determined that mitigation is not necessary. If that is
the case, and the safety risk assessment was completed within 12 months
prior to the issuance of this General Directive, the transit agency
need not complete another safety risk assessment to comply with this
General Directive.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who states that FTA appeared to be
changing its position that assault is best addressed through the
scalable PTASP process, and notes that the General Directive reinforces
PTASP processes by ensuring that agencies are carrying them out to
mitigate the risk associated with assaults on transit workers.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that suggested FTA should use the

[[Page 78433]]

National Safety Plan to direct transit agency action to address
assaults on transit workers instead issuing a General Directive. FTA
notes that the recently updated National Safety Plan serves as FTA's
primary guidance document to improve transit safety performance. The
National Safety Plan identifies safety performance measures to support
PTASP safety performance target setting, which includes measures
related to assaults on transit workers. FTA does not believe that the
National Safety Plan is the appropriate mechanism to require the
actions outlined in this General Directive.
FTA notes that per 49 U.S.C. 5329(f), Congress has provided FTA
with authority to issue directives with respect to the safety of a
recipient's transit system or the public transportation industry
generally. In 49 CFR 670.25(a), FTA has defined the situations in which
FTA may issue General Directives. These include when the FTA
Administrator ``determines that an unsafe condition or practice, or a
combination of unsafe conditions and practices, exists such that there
is a risk of death or personal injury, or damage to property or
equipment.'' As explained in FTA's proposal and in this General
Directive, FTA has determined that the national-level hazard and
potential consequences relating to assaults on transit workers
constitute an unsafe condition or practice presenting a risk of death
or personal injury for transit workers. FTA therefore believes that a
General Directive is an appropriate further step to address assaults on
transit workers. This General Directive is intended to ensure that all
transit agencies subject to the PTASP Final Rule will complete a safety
risk assessment and mitigate the risk of assaults based on FTA's
identification of a national-level hazard regarding assaults on transit
workers.

B. National Level Hazard/FTA's Safety Risk Assessment Process

Comments: Two commenters provided feedback on FTA's identification
of a national-level hazard regarding assaults on transit workers. One
individual expressly disagreed that this is a national-level hazard,
arguing that being in a customer-facing position is not itself a
hazard. This individual argued that FTA's identified hazard is not
consistent with FTA's definition of ``hazard'' at 49 CFR 673.5. The
commenter requested that FTA work with the transit industry to define
the hazard in a way that is more accurate, actionable, and consistent
with FTA guidance and training. Further, the commenter requested
additional information on likelihood determinations made during FTA's
safety risk assessment on this topic, specifically how FTA concluded
that 185 major assault events from 2008-2019 is a ``very high''
likelihood.
A transit agency commenter agreed that there is a national-level
hazard but stated that transit agencies need a better understanding of
how to deploy the Safety Risk Management (SRM) process and implement
successful mitigation measures.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenter that disagreed with
FTA's identification of a national-level hazard related to assaults on
transit workers and that argued the hazard identified by FTA for this
concern is not consistent with FTA's definition of hazard in 49 CFR
part 673. FTA disagrees with the commenter's assertion and notes that
the fact that transit workers must interact with the public and, at
times, must clarify or enforce policies is a ``real or potential
condition that can cause injury, illness, or death,''. As such, it is
not in conflict with FTA's definition of hazard at 49 CFR 673.5, and
FTA does not believe additional revision is necessary.
Regarding the likelihood determinations made during FTA's safety
risk assessment on this topic, as explained in FTA's proposal, to
assess the likelihood of assaults on transit workers on vehicles, FTA
reviewed 2,225 National Transit Database (NTD) major event reports
matching the potential consequence and found an average of 185 events
per year. Due to the frequency of events happening on average every
other day, FTA determined a likelihood rating of Very High (5).
Similarly, to assess likelihood of assaults on workers in facilities,
FTA reviewed 674 NTD major event reports from 2008 through 2020 that
involved assaults on transit workers in revenue facilities throughout
the country and found an average of 56.17 events per year. Due to the
rate of occurrence, FTA determined a likelihood rating of Very High
(5).
FTA acknowledges the commenter who agreed that there is a national-
level hazard and stated that transit agencies need a better
understanding of how to deploy the SRM process and implement successful
mitigation measures. FTA notes that it provides comprehensive technical
assistance to help the transit industry meet PTASP requirements and
implement SMS processes. FTA's PTASP Technical Assistance Center (TAC)
provides one-on-one technical assistance, conducts voluntary ASP
technical reviews, maintains a technical assistance resource library,
and facilitates peer-sharing via an ASP Directory. More information is
available at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC">https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC</a>.

C. Assault as an Issue Not Exclusive to Public Transportation

Comments: Several commenters noted that assault is a broad societal
issue that is not exclusive to public transportation, with some noting
that the General Directive does not acknowledge the many societal
factors contributing to assaults.
One industry association argued that assaults should be viewed
through a broader community-based lens, as opposed to a sole focus on
public transportation. A transit agency suggested that FTA should form
collaborative partnerships with other stakeholders, such as state
agencies, local law enforcement agencies, and community members, to
address assaults on transit workers. Another individual requested that
the General Directive acknowledge the importance of coordinating with
other stakeholders to combat crime generally.
Four commenters expressed concern with using SRM processes to
address assaults on transit workers. An industry association argued
that assaults on transit workers are random acts and that this
unpredictability makes it nearly impossible to use assault data as part
of an agency's SRM processes. One individual argued that a transit
agency risk assessment will not solve the problem and urged FTA to
focus on actions that FTA can control.
A separate individual commenter argued that FTA should address
transit security as a separate area of focus from safety and clarify
the distinction between these two areas. This commenter argued that
risks related to assaults cannot be regulated through a safety lens or
safety risk assessment, but instead should be addressed through a
transit security and enforcement lens. The commenter argued that the
General Directive should require the implementation of solutions that
deliver change instead of measuring events in the context of a safety
target. In addition, the commenter argued that Federal action on this
topic is better addressed by Transportation Security Officials from the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It recommended that FTA engage
with DHS regarding the General Directive. Similarly, an SSOA asked what
collaboration FTA has undertaken with security-focused agencies such as
the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) when developing its
strategy for addressing assaults on transit workers.

[[Page 78434]]

This commenter stated that the focus of the General Directive should be
sharing information and research relating to mitigation strategies, and
providing assistance to agencies that are struggling to effectively
mitigate assaults.
FTA response: FTA agrees with the commenters who argued that
assault is a broader issue not exclusive to public transportation. FTA
recognizes that social, economic, health-related, and other factors
external to transit are contributing factors to assaults on transit
workers, and that transit agencies alone cannot eliminate the hazards
associated with these contributing factors. However, FTA notes that the
PTASP Final Rule requires transit agencies to implement mitigations
when a safety risk assessment determines that safety risk is at an
unacceptable level. FTA also notes that mitigations can include
collaboration with community partners who can help address factors
external to transit that contribute to assaults on transit workers.
FTA acknowledges the commenters who argued against using SRM
processes to address assaults on transit workers. FTA notes that the
use of SRM to address assault risk is not new. FTA originally clarified
that the transit industry should use the SRM processes required by 49
CFR part 673 to address the safety risk associated with assaults on
transit workers through a Federal Register Notice published on May 24,
2019, titled ``Protecting Public Transportation Operators from the Risk
of Assault'' (84 FR 24196). Since that time, FTA has reiterated the
requirement for agencies to utilize existing SRM and Safety Assurance
(SA) processes to address risk related to assaults on transit workers.
Notably, the updated 49 CFR part 673, published on April 11, 2024,
includes SRM- and SA-related requirements that pertain to assaults on
transit workers. Further, the National Safety Plan published on April
10, 2024 (89 FR 25316) establishes safety performance criteria for all
public transportation providers that includes safety performance
measures related to assaults on transit workers. In addition, the
National Safety Plan identifies safety performance measures related to
assaults on transit workers for the safety risk reduction programs of
transit agencies serving urbanized areas with a population of 200,000
or more.
FTA notes that the perceived randomness or unpredictability of
certain concerns, such as assault, does not preclude safety risk
assessments from being effective. To the contrary, FTA believes that
the safety risk assessment process and subsequent SA activities allow
transit agencies to address risk, even when it appears random or
unpredictable, that a transit agency may not have the ability to
eliminate by identifying mitigations or strategies that can lower the
likelihood of a negative consequence or reduce the severity of such a
consequence when it occurs.
FTA disagrees with the commenter who argued that it is
inappropriate to conduct a safety risk assessment for a concern that is
outside of the jurisdiction or sphere of control of a single transit
agency. The SRM process may be applied effectively to safety concerns
and hazards that may not have originated within the transit agency. The
goal of SRM and SA is not to eliminate a hazard but to reduce the
likelihood and severity of potential consequences to an acceptable
level. SRM effectively addresses safety concerns, including those that
involve forces outside of the transit agency's control, by working to
reduce how often a potential consequence may occur, and to reduce the
severity of the consequence if it does occur. For example, to mitigate
assaults on transit workers, transit agencies may identify, implement,
and monitor the effectiveness of mitigations, including, but not
limited to, changes to policies and procedures, de-escalation training,
crisis intervention and social outreach, increased surveillance, or
modifications to operator compartments.
As noted in the response to comments on the PTASP Final Rule, 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. The PTASP Final Rule carries out the
Congressional mandate to address assaults on transit workers through
PTASP, and the General Directive reinforces and leverages the
requirements of the PTASP Final Rule.
In response to the commenter that recommended that the General
Directive should require the implementation of solutions instead of
measuring events in the context of a safety performance target, FTA
notes that the General Directive does not prescribe mitigations for
transit agencies, and instead relies on the transit agency's
established SRM processes to understand the assault on transit worker
risk and to identify appropriate safety risk mitigations. Further, FTA
notes that the General Directive does not establish any new requirement
for safety performance target setting. Through this General Directive,
FTA will collect information on how the transit agency is monitoring or
plans to monitor the effectiveness of any mitigation identified to
address the risk of assaults on transit workers.
FTA also acknowledges the commenters that suggested this topic is
better addressed by Transportation Security Officials from DHS, and
that FTA should collaborate with DHS/TSA. FTA appreciates the
commenter's suggestion but notes that Congress directed FTA to address
assaults on transit workers through FTA's safety program as part of
FTA's work to improve safety at transit systems across the country.

D. Compliance Timeframe

Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters, including
transit agencies, a state safety oversight agency, labor unions, and
individuals, regarding the General Directive's proposed 60-day
compliance timeframe. One transit agency that previously received a
Special Directive on Transit Worker Assault stated that it was prepared
to submit the required information to FTA within the proposed
timeframe. One labor union urged that the General Directive go into
effect by July 2024, noting that most agencies' ASP review and update
processes will be completed by December 2024. The commenter argued that
mitigations therefore should be identified no later than September. Two
labor organizations urged FTA to obtain information collected through
the General Directive without delay so that it can inform FTA's
rulemaking on Transit Worker and Public Safety.
In contrast, several commenters asked FTA to allow additional time
for agencies to carry out the required activities and submit responses.
Some commenters expressed that 60 days is insufficient time to comply
but did not suggest an alternative timeframe. Commenters stated that
the timeframe is unrealistic for agencies that must involve their
Safety Committee, with one noting that Safety Committee meetings may
not align with the proposed 60-day timeframe. This commenter also noted
that agencies need more time to coordinate with other stakeholders,
such as police departments and city officials. One transit agency
stated that its Safety Committee will only have two meetings during the
60-day reporting window, and that compliance with the General Directive
could delay other Safety Committee business and result in required
overtime for Safety Committee members. This commenter also argued that
the Safety Committee process is not

[[Page 78435]]

fully matured at many transit agencies. One transit agency commenter
noted a potential overlap in the General Directive and a State law in
California and asked FTA to consider potential conflicts with local
legislation and extend the 60-day timeframe.
Three commenters recommended extending the compliance timeframe
from 60 days to 120 days. One transit agency recommended a timeframe in
the range of 90 to 120 days. These commenters argued that more time
would allow agencies to conduct a thorough data-driven analysis, avoid
overburdening agency resources, and allow for coordination with Safety
Committees.
Two transit agencies recommended extending the compliance timeframe
to six months. One of these agencies stated that this additional time
is needed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of mitigations. The
other agency argued that more time is needed to involve the Safety
Committee effectively and ensure all required activities are conducted
adequately.
One transit agency recommended a timeframe of at least one year,
noting that transit agencies face unique challenges based on their
resourcing and operation type.
One transit agency recommended a phased submission timeframe of up
to five years, citing the need for a grace period to secure funding,
train staff, and implement technology. This commenter further noted
that regional transit agencies face challenges during off-cycle budget
and planning periods.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that provided a
rationale for extending the 60-day compliance deadline in the proposed
General Directive and has reviewed each comment submitted on this
topic. Further, FTA acknowledges the urgency of the assault on transit
workers concern as articulated by the labor union commenters. To
balance the challenges that commenters raised with the need to maintain
a schedule for identifying mitigations that recognizes the urgency of
the assault on transit workers safety concern, FTA is adjusting the
compliance timeframe to 90 days in this General Directive. The 90-day
timeframe provides additional flexibility to agencies to coordinate
with Safety Committees, supports annual ASP review and update processes
in 2024, and enables the information collected to inform FTA's Transit
Worker and Public Safety rulemaking.

E. Burden

Comments: FTA received comments from transit agencies, one
individual, and one industry association related to burden associated
with the General Directive. Two transit agencies and an industry
association expressed concerns at the potential financial and staffing
burden associated the General Directive and asked for clarity on how
FTA expects transit agencies to fund the required activities,
particularly for smaller transit agencies. An industry association
noted that the transit industry has faced resource challenges and a
fiscal cliff in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This commenter
requested that FTA identify resources and funding that agencies can use
to complete the General Directive's required actions and reporting. An
additional transit agency expressed that FTA should ensure that
agencies with limited resources are not inundated with reporting
mandates that leave little time for deploying mitigations and
strategies to combat assaults. One individual urged FTA to ensure that
actions to protect transit operators are implementable in a quick and
cost-effective way across transit systems of all modes and sizes.
One individual stated that the General Directive's reporting
requirements are especially burdensome. This commenter asked how FTA
would use the reported information to make transit workers safer. The
commenter also argued that the General Directive would divert resources
away from safety initiatives and that Federal funding for security
improvements would be a better use of resources. One transit agency
outlined burden-related challenges associated with the requirements of
the General Directive for agencies that do not have automated methods
of capturing the data. Specifically, the agency cited the burden
related to manual data collection; acquisition, implementation, and
maintenance of automated data collection methods; training expenses;
and data analysis and reporting. The commenter also expressed concern
about liability that could result from inaccurate data reporting and
appropriate safety measures, including legal consequences, damaged
public reputation, financial burden, and negative impact on transit
worker well-being.
In contrast, one labor organization stated that the General
Directive is not burdensome or unwarranted, given the scale of the
assault issue.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the comments submitted regarding the
burden associated with the General Directive. FTA notes that the
General Directive is leveraging existing SRM and SA processes that
transit agencies already carry out to meet the requirements of the
PTASP Final Rule. Specifically, the General Directive requirement for
transit agencies to conduct SMS activities to address the risk of
assaults on transit workers is the same as the SMS processes required
under PTASP. These processes are scalable and flexible and enable
efficient implementation of mitigations at transit agencies of all
sizes. To further minimize burden, the General Directive permits
agencies to submit the results of a safety risk assessment conducted
within 12 months prior to issuance of the General Directive.
The General Directive imposes an additional requirement to submit
information about how transit agencies are assessing, mitigating, and
monitoring the safety risk related to assaults on transit workers. To
minimize burden associated with this reporting requirement, FTA has
developed a reporting tool called Safety Management System (SMS) Report
to streamline the submission of information required by the General
Directive. This new tool is built using the Transit Integrated Appian
Development (TrIAD) platform that houses other applications transit
agencies already use, such as Transit Award Management System (TrAMS)
and the NTD reporting tool.
FTA notes that transit operators may use a variety of FTA funding
sources for the implementation of their ASPs and SMS processes,
including Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307), State of Good
Repair (Section 5337), and Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339) funds.
Those funding sources may be used for activities that are eligible
under the applicable grant program. FTA encourages transit agencies to
contact their FTA Regional Office for confirmation of specific project
eligibility. FTA notes that the General Directive does not establish
new NTD requirements for data collection and ongoing data reporting.
Further, the General Directive does not require the implementation of
any specific mitigation.
FTA also notes and agrees with the labor organization that
commented stating that the General Directive is not burdensome or
unwarranted given the scale of assaults on transit workers as an issue
for the industry.
In response to the commenter that asked how FTA would use
information collected by this General Directive to make transit workers
safer, FTA notes that the General Directive helps FTA confirm that
transit agencies are assessing and mitigating risk associated with
assaults on transit workers. Additionally, the General Directive
enables FTA to collect information on

[[Page 78436]]

mitigation effectiveness from a wide range of transit agencies, which
will allow FTA to better address the safety concern at a Federal level,
enable FTA to disseminate information to the transit industry regarding
mitigations that have proven effective for specific transit
applications, and inform future Federal action to protect transit
workers, including rulemakings such as the planned Transit Worker and
Public Safety rule.

F. Funding and Technical Assistance

Comments: One individual and four transit agencies argued that
additional Federal funding is needed to address assaults on transit
workers. An industry association and a transit agency recommended that
FTA allow transit agencies to use Section 5307 funds for implementation
of mitigations identified through the safety risk assessment.
Similarly, several commenters stated that funding is needed for
measures such as increased security patrols on buses, new technology,
and other safety and security measures. One transit agency and an
industry association urged FTA to allow transit agencies to use Section
5307 funds for consultant support for the safety risk assessment. A
separate agency suggested that FTA establish grant programs to support
agencies' acquisition and implementation of automated data capture
technology. This commenter also recommended that FTA should establish
emergency financial assistance packages to support transit agencies
facing data collection challenges and to help agencies bridge financial
gaps during off-cycle budget periods.
Two transit agencies suggested that FTA provide personnel to patrol
transit systems, similar to the use of Federal Air Marshals or airport
security officials. One transit agency, a city department of
transportation, and an industry association urged FTA to consider
funding a pilot program for the design and manufacture of buses with
fully enclosed bus operator compartments. The industry association
further clarified that it supported a pilot program to gather data, but
it did not support the use of prototype buses in rehabilitation or new
procurements.
One transit agency requested training about how to implement the
General Directive through SMS. One transit agency commented that
agencies may not have the training, resources, or ``know-how'' about
how to turn risk assessments into action and requested further guidance
from FTA. Another transit agency recommended that FTA should establish
technical assistance, training, resources, and capacity building
programs to assist transit agencies with issues such as data reporting
and analysis. The agency further suggested that FTA establish a regular
review process with input from transit agencies to evaluate the
effectiveness of assault data reporting guidelines and funding
programs, as well as a public awareness campaign about assault data
reporting
One commenter suggested that FTA provide training regarding how the
General Directive works in conjunction with standards and protections
of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
suggested creating a forum for agencies to discuss possible conflicts
between the General Directive and other directives.
Two transit agencies, a labor union, and an SSOA submitted comments
requesting that FTA encourage collaboration between Federal, State, and
local entities to facilitate the collection and sharing of best
practices related to assaults, including information on safety risk
mitigations and their effectiveness. The SSOA and one transit agency
suggested that FTA engage transit agencies that have fewer incidences
of assault, noting that they may be implementing mitigations that are
informative to other transit agencies. Another transit agency
recommended that FTA fold the results of the General Directive into the
data collected from FTA's 2021 RFI on assaults on transit workers.
FTA response: FTA appreciates comments received regarding the need
for Federal funds and resources to address the General Directive and
other activities related to addressing assaults on transit workers. As
explained above, FTA notes that the General Directive is leveraging
current SMS processes required under the PTASP Final Rule and does not
establish any new process requirements related to SRM and SA
activities. Instead, the General Directive requires transit agencies to
conduct a safety risk assessment regarding assaults on transit workers
and identify safety risk mitigations or strategies, and submit to FTA,
via form, the results of these SMS activities relating to assault.
Transit operators may use a variety of FTA funding sources for the
implementation of the SMS processes defined in their ASPs, including
Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307), State of Good Repair
(Section 5337), and Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339) funds. Those
funding sources may be used for activities that are eligible under the
applicable grant program. FTA encourages transit agencies to contact
their FTA Regional Office for confirmation of specific project
eligibility. FTA appreciates the commenters' suggestions for additional
Federal resources, including a transit version of TSA's Air Marshal
program and additional assault prevention infrastructure focused
grants, but notes that these suggestions are outside of the scope of
this General Directive.
FTA appreciates the commenters' suggestions regarding technical
assistance and training related to the General Directive and data
reporting relating to assaults on transit workers. FTA will deliver a
webinar to communicate the General Directive requirements, as well as a
demonstration of Safety Management System (SMS) Report, the tool
developed by FTA to facilitate reporting required by this General
Directive. FTA also appreciates the commenters' suggestions to
facilitate the collection and sharing of best practices and effective
mitigations on this topic, including engagement with agencies that have
fewer incidences of assault, aligning results from the General
Directive with the 2021 RFI on assaults on transit workers, a review
process for mitigations and funding, and a public awareness campaign.
An outcome of the General Directive is FTA's collection of information
on mitigations related to assaults on transit workers and their
effectiveness. FTA will explore ways to share this information with the
transit industry to support industry mitigation efforts.

G. Applicability

Comment: FTA received comments from transit agencies and
individuals regarding the applicability of the General Directive. One
individual urged FTA to exclude rural and small urban transit systems
from the General Directive, arguing that these systems experience
minimal assaults and that compliance with the General Directive would
be burdensome for them. Another transit agency requested that FTA apply
the General Directive only to Tier I providers, reasoning that the
PTASP Final Rule adequately addresses assaults for Tier II providers
and that Federal requirements are burdensome for smaller agencies.
One individual stated that measures to protect transit workers from
assault should apply to all transit agencies, not just large systems.
Another commenter stated that FTA should clarify that a large urbanized
area is defined as having a population greater than 200,000. An
operator of an automated rail system stated that it does not have
operators on board and therefore has no

[[Page 78437]]

potential of assaults on transit workers. This commenter asked how it
should respond to comply with the General Directive.
FTA response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding General
Directive applicability. In response to the commenter that suggested
FTA exclude Tier II providers (as defined by FTA's Transit Asset
Management rule, 49 CFR part 625) and rural and small urban systems
from the General Directive requirements, FTA notes that the General
Directive applies only to agencies that are subject to the PTASP Final
Rule. Thus, recipients that receive funds only under 49 U.S.C. 5310
and/or 49 U.S.C. 5311 are excluded from the General Directive, unless
they operate a rail fixed guideway public transportation system. FTA
notes that the General Directive applies to all transit agencies
subject to the PTASP Final Rule based on FTA's identification of a
national-level hazard regarding assaults on transit workers, which
exists at transit agencies of all sizes and across all modes of public
transportation, not just those in large urbanized areas.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who suggested that measures to
address assaults should apply more broadly than just large transit
systems. FTA confirms that the General Directive applies to small
providers that are recipients or subrecipients of Section 5307 funds.
FTA notes that these small providers are already required to have the
SRM and SA processes in place that the General Directive draws upon.
Further FTA notes that the SRM and SA process requirements are flexible
and scalable and that nothing in the General Directive establishes new
or more rigorous SRM or SA process requirements. Some smaller transit
agencies may reach very different conclusions than some larger transit
agencies based on their own operating realities and risk exposure.
Regarding clarification of a large urbanized area, FTA notes that
the commenter slightly misstated the definition. As stated in the
General Directive summary section, a large urbanized area is an
urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more. In response to the
commenter that asked how an automated rail system that has no potential
for assaults on transit workers should respond to comply with the
General Directive, FTA notes that the General Directive applies to all
transit agencies that are subject to the PTASP Final Rule, including
those that provide automated rail service with no operators. FTA
clarifies that the risk associated with assaults on transit workers is
broader than just transit operators. For instance, a car cleaner or
maintenance worker onboard an automated rail vehicle in revenue service
may face a risk of assault similar to that of an operator on a staffed
vehicle. A safety risk assessment can help an agency and its Safety
Committee determine whether the level of risk is acceptable, and
therefore that mitigation is not requited, or that the level of risk is
unacceptable, and mitigations must be identified.

H. Definition of ``Assault on a Transit Worker''

Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters regarding
the definition of ``assault on a transit worker,'' including transit
agencies, individuals, and a transit industry association. Commenters
expressed concern regarding a lack of clarity related to the
definition, and many argued that this may impact the effectiveness of
assault data collection and analysis. Three transit agencies and one
transit industry association requested guidance, such as illustrative
examples, about how to interpret the phrase ``interferes with'' to
ensure the definition is applied consistently and effectively. One of
the transit agencies requested that FTA work with the industry to
develop a more precise definition of the phrase. In addition, one
transit agency specifically requested guidance about how to apply the
``knowingly'' and ``with intent'' elements of the definition.
Two transit agencies requested clarification regarding whether the
definition includes non-physical assaults. One industry association
commented that if the definition includes verbal abuse, this could
result in an increase in worker compensation applications, which could
negatively impact costs and transit worker availability.
Several commenters urged FTA to develop guidance or technical
assistance and training resources to help the industry interpret and
apply the definition. Some commenters recommended that FTA collaborate
with transit agencies and transit workers when developing such
guidance. One individual requested that FTA provide guidance on the
definition before requiring additional reporting through the General
Directive.
One transit industry association and one transit agency urged FTA
to consider and address how differences in State laws could affect a
transit agency's ability to respond to the General Directive. The
industry association noted that in some States, ``interference with a
transit worker's duties'' may not be a crime at all. The commenter
further noted that many states require agencies to consult with
prosecutors when an assault occurs, and that it is unclear how the
actions proposed in the General Directive would work in these
situations. One transit agency asked FTA to clarify whether agencies
should use their State law definition of ``assault'' for purposes of
the General Directive. One transit agency argued that FTA should
encourage transit agencies to adopt assault definitions established in
law enforcement contexts, such as the definition used by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
One individual requested that FTA define ``transit employee'' in
the General Directive to include all transit employees.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the comments received regarding the
definition of ``assault on a transit worker'' and appreciates the
challenges associated with implementing new definitions. FTA notes that
the General Directive uses the same definition of ``assault on a
transit worker'' that is used for purposes of 49 CFR part 673, the
National Safety Plan, and NTD reporting. This is consistent with the
statutory definition in 49 U.S.C 5302. FTA confirms that this statutory
definition includes non-physical assaults. FTA disagrees with the
commenter who suggested that FTA delay the General Directive reporting
requirements until issuing guidance. FTA's NTD program already has
developed training and published guidance to support transit agency
compliance with reporting requirements and associated definitions. FTA
may consider providing additional guidance on specific aspects of the
definition, and additional technical assistance in collaboration with
transit agencies to support compliance with the assault on transit
worker reporting requirements in the General Directive.
FTA considered the comments regarding the varied definitions and
treatment of assault on a transit worker by States across the country,
and the suggestion to adopt assault definitions established in law
enforcement contexts. FTA understands that State and local law
enforcement may have varied approaches and classification systems for
handling assault data. However, FTA does not believe that this impacts
a transit agency's ability to comply with the requirements of the
General Directive because a transit agency can use assault data, as
reported to the NTD using the statutory definition, as inputs to a
safety risk assessment. FTA also notes that transit

[[Page 78438]]

agencies should not use state law assault definitions for purposes of
responding to the General Directive. As noted above, transit agencies
should use the definition of ``assault on a transit worker'' in 49
U.S.C. 5302, which is the same definition for purposes of PTASP, the
National Safety Plan, and NTD reporting.
FTA notes that the General Directive does not use the term
``transit employee,'' but rather ``transit worker.'' This term has the
same definition as the one provided in the PTASP Final Rule at 49 CFR
part 673.

I. Safety Risk Mitigations

Comments: FTA received several comments from individuals, transit
agencies, labor unions, an SSOA, and a transit industry association
that suggested specific mitigations to address assaults on transit
workers. In addition, some transit agency commenters provided examples
of mitigations and other actions they are already implementing.
Commenters recommended a variety of mitigations, including physical
barriers to separate operators from passengers; fare collection
technology and enforcement policies; revised operating procedures;
surveillance technologies; policing/patrol strategies; public awareness
campaigns; signage; autonomous technology; and de-escalation training.
One commenter suggested that the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) hierarchy of controls is a useful tool for
assessing and controlling exposure to hazards. This commenter expressed
that in the long-term, FTA should focus on actions in the
``elimination'' category of the NIOSH framework, such as increasing
autonomous technology to eliminate or reduce transit workers' exposure
to safety hazards.
A labor organization specifically recommended that FTA mandate
certain mitigations, including fully enclosed protective barriers,
signage, personal security training, surveillance technologies, and
additional de-escalation training. This commenter also advocated for
federal regulations giving transit workers the right to take personal
security actions, as well as the creation of voluntary programs for
transit workers to obtain personal security training and to become
auxiliary law enforcement officers. One transit agency suggested that
FTA require a minimum amount of safety and mental health first aid
training hours, and that transit agencies promote their safety and
security reporting and intervention systems publicly. An individual
commenter advocated that FTA require transit agencies to perform
security self-assessments about the need for uniformed resources, and
that FTA explore creating national law enforcement partnerships and
investigate issues related to authorities for transit police.
One individual expressed concern that some mitigations may conflict
with other regulations such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (49 CFR part 571), noting also that manufacturers do not
offer an off-the-shelf option for operator barriers.
FTA response: FTA appreciates the examples of safety risk
mitigations provided through comment submissions and looks forward to
reviewing the mitigation-related information submitted in response to
the General Directive. FTA also notes that it is not mandating that
transit agencies implement specific mitigations through the General
Directive. Transit agencies and their Safety Committees must use the
SRM process to identify mitigations appropriate to their agencies,
which may include mitigations such as those suggested by the
commenters. FTA notes that it does not intend for mitigations to
conflict with other regulations, and transit agencies should ensure
that mitigations identified as a result of their safety risk assessment
are in compliance with other regulations to which they are subject. FTA
is also exploring mandatory standards, and FTA intends to use responses
to the General Directive to inform future Federal action to protect
transit workers, including rulemakings such as the planned Transit
Worker and Public Safety rule.

J. Role of the Safety Committee

Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters, including
labor unions, individuals, and transit agencies, regarding the role of
the Safety Committee in the activities required by the General
Directive. One individual noted the importance of involving the voice
of frontline transit workers in addressing safety issues affecting
workers. One transit agency voiced that its Safety Committee has been
an effective forum to discuss safety information and has enabled the
agency to better partner with and empower its frontline workers.
1. Role of the Safety Committee in Safety Risk Assessment
Three labor unions and one individual recommended that FTA require
the Safety Committee to conduct the required safety risk assessment. In
contrast, one individual and one transit agency voiced that the Safety
Committee should not perform safety risk assessments, arguing that the
Safety Committee does not have the training or time to do so. The
individual argued that the risk assessment should be created by the
transit agency, and that the Safety Committee's role should be to vet
the risk assessment and contribute to mitigation strategies.
2. Role of the Safety Committee in Safety Risk Mitigations
Regarding the safety risk mitigation process, one labor
organization argued that language requiring agencies to ``involve''
Safety Committees is not strong enough, and that the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law requires that Safety Committees ``identify and
recommend'' mitigations. A transit agency stated that the language in
the proposed directive appeared to indicate that the Safety Committee
is an advisory body and asked FTA to clarify the Safety Committee's
role. One individual recommended that FTA consult with bus operators
and their respective union leadership for recommendations regarding
mitigations.
One labor organization and two individuals stated that Safety
Committees should be given access to the transit agency's budget and
grant information so that it is empowered to propose effective
mitigations. Two of these commenters also stated that Safety Committees
need access to safety incident documentation, with one commenter
recommending that this should be done on a weekly basis.
One individual expressed concern about Question (c)(7) of the
proposed General Directive, which would require agencies to explain why
the Safety Committee did not identify or recommend safety risk
mitigations identified through the agency's safety risk assessment. The
commenter argued that this question allowed agencies to exclude their
Safety Committee from the process and asked FTA to explain the reason
for this. The commenter further argued that the Safety Committee's
involvement in the process needs to be substantive. One labor
organization recommended that FTA should clarify that if a transit
agency's answer to this question indicates that the Safety Committee
did not identify or recommend mitigations, the agency will be out of
compliance with the General Directive and subject to enforcement action
unless the transit agency comes into prompt compliance.
One labor organization argued that FTA should use the General
Directive as a mechanism to confirm compliance with the Safety
Committee-related requirements established in the PTASP

[[Page 78439]]

Final Rule. Specifically, the commenter urged FTA to require transit
agencies that serve large urbanized areas to note for each anti-assault
infrastructure mitigation, whether the Safety Committee previously
found that the mitigation would reduce assaults on transit workers. It
also stated that if the Safety Committee previously opined that the
mitigation would reduce assaults, FTA should consult the transit
agency's ASP to ensure that the safety risk reduction program includes
a plan for implementing the mitigation. The commenter further stated
that if the Safety Committee did not previously opine on the
mitigation, then FTA should require prompt revision and resubmission of
the safety risk reduction program.
3. Role of the Safety Committee in Monitoring Mitigation Effectiveness
Regarding monitoring mitigation effectiveness, a labor union
commented that FTA should specify that the Safety Committee must
evaluate the effectiveness of all completed anti-assault mitigations.
This commenter further argued that the statement concerning such
effectiveness required in Question (c)(17) must come from the Safety
Committee itself, not from management.
4. Role of the Safety Committee in Required Reporting
Three labor organizations and one individual urged that FTA require
Safety Committees to approve any agency submission made to FTA in
response to this General Directive. One of these labor organizations
voiced that Safety Committee approval is a mechanism for frontline
workers to hold management accountable and is necessary to ensure the
accuracy of reporting. This commenter urged that FTA should at a
minimum require transit agencies to provide each Safety Committee
member, or a frontline transit worker representative if no Safety
Committee exists, with a copy of the report that is submitted to FTA in
response to the General Directive. Two of these labor organizations
voiced that if an agency does not have a Safety Committee, a frontline
transit worker representative should be required to review and approve
the report.
5. Other Comments Pertaining to Safety Committee
One labor organization and two individuals argued that the General
Directive must address whistleblower and retaliation protections for
frontline transit worker representatives serving on Safety Committees.
The labor organization also stated that if a transit agency is subject
to state sunshine laws, there should be public access to Safety
Committee meetings. One individual suggested that FTA add release time
for Safety Committee members to attend transit agency meetings, such as
meetings of the Board of Directors.
Several commenters addressed other Safety Committee-related issues,
including tiebreaking mechanisms and transit agency implementation of
mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. One individual
requested that FTA require documentation of Safety Committee meetings,
involvement of frontline workers, and evidence that the transit agency
acted on the Safety Committee's recommendations.
FTA response: FTA appreciates the comments received regarding the
role of the Safety Committee and agrees that Safety Committees are an
important way for frontline workers to improve safety at their transit
agency.
FTA acknowledges the comments regarding the Safety Committee's role
in the required safety risk assessment. FTA notes that the General
Directive relies on the Safety Committee and SMS requirements of 49 CFR
part 673. Transit agencies should use the safety risk assessment
process defined in their ASP to conduct the required risk assessment.
FTA agrees with the commenter that stated that Safety Committees
must ``identify and recommend'' mitigations through the transit
agency's SRM processes. However, it does not agree that any changes are
necessary to the General Directive to clarify this. Section B of the
General Directive cites 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5), which requires Safety
Committees to ``identify and recommend'' mitigations. Given that the
General Directive cites the statutory requirement, FTA does not believe
it is necessary to restate the requirement in the General Directive. As
FTA has communicated clearly through the PTASP Final Rule, the Safety
Committee's role is not merely an advisory one. Safety Committees must
perform the responsibilities defined in statute and the PTASP Final
Rule, including the responsibility to identify and recommend
mitigations. FTA appreciates the comment that recommended FTA consult
with bus operators and their respective union leadership for
recommendations. FTA notes that the PTASP requirement for Safety
Committee involvement in identifying mitigations provides a venue for
frontline transit worker representatives to recommend mitigations.
FTA acknowledges the suggestions that the Safety Committee have
access to a transit agency's budget and grant information and safety
incident documentation. FTA notes that the General Directive does not
create a new role or requirement for the Safety Committee and relies on
the Safety Committee, SMS, and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR
part 673. The PTASP Final Rule includes a requirement for Safety
Committee procedures to include how the Safety Committee will access
transit agency information, resources, and tools, as required by 49 CFR
673.19(c)(5), which is inclusive of all data reasonably necessary for
the Safety Committee to carry out its statutory responsibilities.
FTA acknowledges the comments regarding Question (c)7 of Section
(c) of the General Directive, including the concern that this question
allows transit agencies to not involve their Safety Committee in the
General Directive process. FTA disagrees with this interpretation. As
explained above, Section B of the General Directive explicitly requires
Safety Committee involvement by stating that ``each transit agency
serving a large urbanized area must involve the joint labor-management
Safety Committee when identifying safety risk mitigations to reduce the
likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's
safety risk assessment.'' FTA clarifies that Question (c)7 is intended
merely to accommodate situations where the agency's Safety Committee
chooses not to recommend a safety risk mitigation based on the results
of the safety risk assessment. This question should not be interpreted
to mean that an agency may exclude the Safety Committee from the
General Directive process. FTA confirms that if a large urbanized area
provider does not involve its Safety Committee in the safety risk
mitigation process, the transit agency would be out of compliance with
the General Directive and subject to appropriate enforcement action.
FTA acknowledges the suggestions that FTA require the Safety
Committee or frontline transit workers to approve any submission made
by the transit agency in response to the General Directive, or at a
minimum receive a copy of the report submitted to FTA. While transit
agencies and their Safety Committees may voluntarily adopt these
mechanisms, FTA declines to require them. The Safety Committee's
minimum responsibilities are provided by statute and regulation in 49
U.S.C. 5329(d) and 49 CFR part 673. Transit agencies should use
existing PTASP Safety Committee, SMS, and recordkeeping

[[Page 78440]]

processes to address General Directive requirements.
FTA acknowledges the comments suggesting that FTA use the General
Directive to confirm compliance with the PTASP requirements for Safety
Committees, such as requiring transit agencies that serve large
urbanized areas to note whether the Safety Committee previously found
that each anti-assault infrastructure mitigation would reduce assaults
on transit workers, and require transit agencies to include such
mitigations in their ASPs as part of the safety risk reduction program.
FTA also acknowledges the commenter that recommended that FTA specify
that the Safety Committee must evaluate the effectiveness of all
completed anti-assault mitigations and recommended that the statement
concerning such effectiveness required in Question (c)(17) must come
from the Safety Committee itself, not from management. As noted above,
the General Directive does not create a new role or requirements for
the Safety Committee and relies on the Safety Committee and SMS
requirements of 49 CFR part 673 that agencies subject to the PTASP
Final Rule are already required to implement. FTA notes that transit
agencies that are out of compliance with PTASP Final Rule or the
requirements of this General Directive are subject to appropriate
enforcement action.
FTA appreciates the suggestions regarding additional Safety
Committee-related issues, but FTA notes that these are outside the
scope of the proposed General Directive. FTA refers commenters to the
PTASP Final Rule for requirements regarding tiebreaking mechanisms,
Safety Committee responsibilities, and recordkeeping.

K. Required Actions

1. Conduct a Safety Risk Assessment
I. Exemption
Comments: Two transit agency commenters asked for clarification
regarding the safety risk assessment exemption for transit agencies
that have conducted a safety risk assessment in the twelve months
preceding the issuance of the General Directive. One of these
commenters specifically requested clarification about what would exempt
a transit agency from the requirement, and the time period for the
exemption. The other commenter asked FTA to clarify whether other types
of reviews or assessments could trigger an exemption from conducting a
full safety risk assessment. This commenter requested that the
exemption window should be expanded to 24 months, arguing that the
findings of a safety risk assessment conducted prior to the 12-month
window will most likely yield the same results as a safety risk
assessment conducted within the window. This commenter stated that it
has conducted several safety risk assessments within the 24-month
window, and that requiring it to repeat them would be unduly
burdensome.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that requested
clarification on the safety risk assessment exemption for transit
agencies that have recently conducted a safety risk assessment on
assaults on transit workers. FTA confirms that if a transit agency has
completed a safety risk assessment for assaults on transit workers in
the 12 months preceding the publication of this General Directive, and
if the transit agency continues to believe that the results of that
safety risk assessment are relevant, the transit agency need not
conduct a new safety risk assessment for the purposes of this General
Directive. FTA established this exemption to reduce the burden of
conducting another safety risk assessment if an agency has already
completed one within the last year. In these situations, General
Directive submissions should contain information on the results of the
assessment and on the implementation and effectiveness of any
mitigations identified through the safety risk assessment.
FTA notes that this exemption applies only to a safety risk
assessment conducted using the processes established under 49 CFR
673.25(c) and defined in a transit agency's ASP. Finally, FTA disagrees
with the commenter who recommended extending the exemption timeframe
from 12 months to 24 months. FTA believes that given the seriousness of
the assaults on transit workers concern and industry trends that show
increasing numbers of assaults, a safety risk assessment conducted more
than 12 months before the publication of the General Directive may not
reflect the agency's current risk levels for assaults on transit
workers. FTA therefore disagrees that a safety risk assessment
conducted during a 24-month window would yield the same results as one
conducted within the 12-month window. FTA understands the commenter's
concern regarding burden, but as explained in Section E, FTA believes
that any burden imposed by this General Directive is justified.
II. Process
Several commenters, including transit agencies and one labor union,
submitted comments related to the safety risk assessment process. One
transit agency noted that it already has completed a safety risk
assessment that is being reviewed by its Safety Committee. One transit
agency supported the proposed requirement to complete a safety risk
assessment, stating that hazard analysis and safety risk assessments
are imperative to understand what works and to see what the industry is
doing.
One labor union argued that FTA should require the safety risk
assessments to be conducted by an independent third party to ensure
that there will be a more objective assessment of risk and actions
taken to protect workers.
One transit agency supported the requirement to perform a safety
risk assessment but requested that FTA provide training to clarify the
difference between this requirement and the PTASP SRM process. Another
transit agency noted that the General Directive's collection of
specific data in Section C could indicate that FTA is requiring
agencies to use a process different from the SRM process defined in a
transit agency's ASP. The commenter requested clarification on this
point. One commenter recommended that FTA create a checklist and
defined process regarding safety risk assessments for assaults on
transit workers, including a conflict resolution process for
disagreements between management and labor.
Two transit agencies requested that FTA provide definitions or
thresholds for the likelihood and severity categories in an agency's
safety risk assessment matrix, with one specifically expressing
confusion about how to distinguish minor first aid from minor injury
events. The other transit agency argued against using unmeasurable
quantifiers such as ``significant'' or ``minor,'' in the assessment as
they leave room for interpretation when considering monetary loss,
noting it may be more effective to quantify this with tangible measures
such as vehicle loss rather than subjective monetary calculations. One
labor union requested clarity on how agencies should calculate overall
risk ratings. The commenter asked FTA to confirm whether agencies
should average the numerical ``likelihood'' values for potential
consequences, and how an agency should calculate the overall letter
``severity'' values. One transit agency commenter recommended that FTA
use a different safety risk matrix for collecting General Directive
results, arguing that the matrix used in the proposed General Directive
differs from matrices published in other FTA technical assistance
materials.

[[Page 78441]]

One transit agency commenter argued that the required information
in the General Directive is too broad for a single safety risk
assessment and asked FTA to clarify whether the data should be
aggregated by different modes of operation or as an agency-wide
assessment. This commenter noted that in their experience, the
associated risk is higher for bus modes than rail, and combining bus
with rail for the purposes of the assessment would trigger additional
reporting requirements established by the transit agency's SSOA. One
transit agency proposed that FTA allow agencies to either conduct a
single safety risk assessment of the risk associated with assaults on
transit workers or compile the results of multiple safety risk
assessments with the risk of assaults on transit workers to provide the
information requested in the directive.
One transit agency argued that the General Directive should require
or encourage the assessment of physical assault and non-physical
assault separately, noting that there is likely to be a difference in
both likelihood and severity for each.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenter that noted that it
already has completed a safety risk assessment that is being reviewed
by its Safety Committee, and notes that if the safety risk assessment
falls within 12 months of issuance of the General Directive, then in
falls within the exemption for a transit agency to submit the results
of that safety risk assessment as part of the response required by the
General Directive. FTA appreciates the commenter that expressed support
for the proposed requirement to complete a safety risk assessment and
agrees that safety risk assessments are valuable.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that argued FTA should require the
risk assessments to be conducted by an independent third party to
ensure that there will be a more objective assessment of risk and
actions taken to protect workers. FTA notes that the General Directive
requires transit agencies to follow their own SRM and SA processes, as
established under the PTASP Final Rule and defined in their ASP, to
minimize the burden associated with complying with the General
Directive. FTA notes that the PTASP Final Rule includes requirements
for conducting safety risk assessments and for establishing and
carrying out safety risk reduction programs, but the PTASP Final Rule
does not require agencies to conduct safety risk assessments through
independent third parties. The process defined in a transit agency's
ASP may rely on an independent third party, but FTA does not require a
transit agency to do so.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that asked for clarification and
training on the difference between the General Directive requirements
and the SRM requirements in the PTASP Final Rule, and the commenter
that asked whether FTA's collection of information could indicate that
FTA is requiring transit agencies to use a different process from the
SRM process defined in a transit agency's ASP. FTA notes that the
General Directive does not require a specific safety risk assessment
methodology beyond what is required by the PTASP Final Rule, and FTA
confirms that it expects agencies to use the safety risk assessment
processes documented in their ASP to conduct the safety risk assessment
required by the General Directive. FTA encourages agencies to visit the
PTASP website at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp">https://www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp</a> for technical
assistance resources on SRM requirements. In response to the commenter
who argued that FTA should provide a checklist for conducting safety
risk assessments for assaults on transit workers, including a conflict
resolution process, FTA notes that the General Directive relies on the
processes established by transit agencies under 49 CFR part 673. This
provides significant flexibility to transit agencies in the development
and deployment of safety risk assessment processes. Transit agencies
and their Safety Committees should refer to the dispute-resolution
requirement at 49 CFR 673.19(c)(8) for the resolution of Safety
Committee disputes.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that asked FTA to provide
definitions or thresholds for the likelihood and severity categories in
the matrix presented in the General Directive, and noted confusion
about how to distinguish between minor first aid and minor injury
events. FTA disagrees with providing additional likelihood or severity
criteria in the General Directive as transit agencies may use different
methods or measures for quantifying likelihood and severity. By
defining specific criteria in the General Directive, FTA could
introduce conflicts with the safety risk assessment processes developed
and used by transit agencies. FTA notes that the General Directive does
not prescribe a matrix or quantifiers for purposes of conducting the
safety risk assessment. Transit agencies should use the matrix or
matrices they have adopted as part of their safety risk assessment
process documented in their ASP. However, when agencies submit
information in response to the General Directive, FTA is asking the
transit industry to normalize their assessment results according to the
scales in the matrix presented in the General Directive.
For example, a transit agency may use a matrix in which a middle
tier of the severity scale is labeled medium, whereas in FTA's matrix
the middle tier of the severity scale is labeled moderate. Normalizing
by agencies at the point of submission allows for agencies to use their
own varied processes for conducting safety risk assessments while
submitting assessment results in a manner that supports industry-wide
analysis and perspective. FTA has added the matrix to the General
Directive and will add it to the Safety Management System (SMS) Report
tool for submitting required responses to the General Directive. FTA
acknowledges the comment that recommended that FTA use a different
safety risk matrix for collecting General Directive results and noted
that the matrix used in the proposed General Directive differs from
other matrices published in FTA technical assistance materials. FTA
disagrees with providing a different matrix because, as noted above,
FTA's matrix sets the stage for normalizing results in a manner that
supports industry-wide analysis and perspective.
In response to the commenter that asked for clarification on how
agencies can average likelihood and severity ratings to report an
overall risk rating for two potential consequences, FTA recommends that
agencies select the rating reflecting the worst outcome among the
potential consequences assessed to represent the overall risk rating.

[[Page 78442]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE24.000

FTA agrees with the commenter that recommended that the General
Directive allow for transit agencies to conduct mode-specific safety
risk assessments and notes that the General Directive requires transit
agencies to conduct safety risk assessments according to the safety
risk assessment processes defined by their ASP. Similarly, FTA
acknowledges the commenter that suggested the General Directive should
require or encourage the assessment of physical assault and non-
physical assault separately and the commenter that proposed that FTA
allow agencies to either conduct a single safety risk assessment of the
risk associated with assaults on transit workers or compile the results
of multiple safety risk assessments with the risk of assaults on
transit workers. FTA notes that transit agencies may take into account
the distinction between non-physical and physical assaults when
performing their safety risk assessment and determining likelihood and
severity of the risk, and may take into account multiple safety risk
assessments of the risk associated with assaults on transit workers.
For purposes of reporting, agencies will need to enter overall risk
ratings into the Safety Management System (SMS) Report tool for
submitting required responses to the General Directive.
2. Identify Safety Risk Mitigations
Several commenters, including three individuals and a transit
agency, expressed concerns related to mitigation requirements and the
ability for a mitigation to be effective across all transit
applications, given varied operational characteristics, resource
availability, existing mitigation landscapes, and need for coordination
with local and State authorities. One transit agency asked for
clarification on how the General Directive requirements differ from
using the SRM processes required by 49 CFR part 673, including
requirements to assess, track, monitor, and report data to FTA. One
commenter asked FTA to include specific language that would allow for
mitigations to be scalable to fit the size of an agency.
One transit agency suggested that FTA provide a categorized list of
mitigations identified through its 2021 Request for Information (86 FR
53143), and that transit agencies should then document in their ASP
which of those mitigations they are implementing.
One industry association and one transit agency commenter argued
that informed strategies and mitigations to address assaults on transit
workers come from a diversity of areas within a transit agency and
recommended that FTA expand the responsibility for identifying and
implementing mitigations beyond the role of the Safety Committee and
Chief Safety Officers. The industry association noted further that FTA
should coordinate with operations and police/security departments to
ascertain the best information and data as it pertains to the General
Directive.
FTA response: FTA reiterates that the General Directive does not
mandate any specific mitigation, and a transit agency or Safety
Committee may determine, as a result of the safety risk assessment,
that no mitigation is necessary to address the risk of assaults on
transit workers. The General Directive requires transit agencies to use
existing SRM and SA processes required by the PTASP Final Rule and
defined in their ASP to assess safety risk related to assaults on
transit workers, to identify any necessary safety risk mitigations, and
to provide FTA with information about how they are assessing,
mitigating, and monitoring the safety risk. As such, the General
Directive reinforces the flexibility of the PTASP Final Rule and the
ability of each transit agency and Safety Committee to determine risk
at their transit agency and to identify mitigations that may be
appropriate for their unique operations. In response to the commenter
that requested clarification on how the General Directive differs from
using the SRM and SA processes required by 49 CFR part 673 to assess,
track, monitor, and report data, FTA confirms that the General
Directive leverages the SRM and SA processes required by the PTASP
Final Rule. In response to the commenter that asked FTA to include
specific language that would allow for mitigations to be scalable to
fit the size of an agency, FTA declines to do so, because the General
Directive reinforces the flexibility of the PTASP Final Rule.
In response to the commenter that suggested FTA provide a
categorized list of mitigations identified through its 2021 Request for
Information, and that transit agencies should then document in their
ASP which of those mitigations they are implementing, FTA notes that
the General Directive lists mitigation categories. Further, Safety
Management System (SMS) Report, the tool developed by FTA to facilitate
reporting required by this General Directive, will allow transit
agencies to select mitigation categories that represent the mitigations
they have identified, and provide additional detail about how
mitigations apply to their unique operations.
FTA agrees with the commenter who argued that the identification of
mitigations and strategies to address risk associated with assaults on
transit workers benefits from a wide perspective. For the purposes of
identifying mitigations, transit agencies may leverage any number of
sources within their agency, such as operations, service planning,
hiring, and others, as well as external sources, such as industry
associations, academia, and

[[Page 78443]]

consultants. The General Directive does not limit the use of sources
for this purpose. FTA also notes that it remains the responsibility of
the transit agency and Safety Committee to conduct the actions required
by the General Directive.
FTA acknowledges the commenter who noted that a transit agency's
safety office should coordinate with operations and police/security
departments to ascertain the best information and data as it pertains
to the General Directive. FTA agrees with the commenter's position that
a transit agency can benefit from a wide perspective across the
organization and community. FTA encourages transit agencies to use the
appropriate subject matter experts and information sources when
conducting safety risk assessments and identifying safety risk
mitigations. FTA notes that the General Directive does not limit the
use of subject matter expertise.
3. Submit Required Information to FTA
I. Mitigations Identified or Implemented
Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters, including
transit agencies and labor unions, in response to the proposed General
Directive requirements for transit agencies to provide information
related to mitigations transit agencies have identified or implemented
to address the safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers
(Questions (c)(8) through (c)(14)).
Two transit agency commenters noted that the General Directive did
not appear to allow transit agencies to provide information related to
assault mitigations that were developed prior to the required safety
risk assessment. One of these agencies recommended that the General
Directive include a mechanism to acknowledge three years of prior
mitigations that agencies have implemented. Both commenters recommended
that FTA collect implementation and effectiveness information on these
existing mitigations.
One industry association commented that many of the mitigations
listed in Question (c)(8) already are being implemented at many transit
agencies, and some are too costly. This commenter requested that FTA
consider if any of the listed mitigations should be removed or added.
It noted that self-defense training is another possible mitigation but
would require extensive training and should be used only as a last
resort.
One transit agency commenter recommended that FTA require transit
agencies to include mitigations that jurisdictional partners are
implementing. The agency noted that it has been actively working
internally and with its jurisdictional partners to find holistic relief
to the issue of assaults on transit workers. This commenter also
recommended that the mitigations be limited to things over which a
transit agency has control and authority.
A labor organization commented on two of the listed mitigations
under ``operating policies and procedures.'' First, it stated that
permitting discharging passengers between designated stops is
ineffective and creates additional problems. Second, it noted that
there is a need for policies and procedures permitting transit workers
to discharge passengers when they engage in behavior that endangers
workers or passengers.
Two transit agency commenters suggested that FTA should clarify or
define ``personal security training'' in Question (c)(8). One of these
commenters also suggested that FTA provide recommended training content
for this type of training.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that voiced opinions
about the mitigations listed in Question (c)(8), including concerns
that the mitigations are already being implemented, may be too costly
to implement, or that transit agencies would not be able to report
mitigations developed prior to the latest safety risk assessment. FTA
reiterates that it is not mandating any of the mitigations listed in
Question (c)(8). As explained above, transit agencies and their Safety
Committees will use the existing SRM process defined in their ASP and
have flexibility to recommend mitigations that are appropriate to a
transit agency's unique circumstances. In addition, FTA notes that
effective safety risk assessments take into account existing safety
risk mitigations. Transit agencies can report safety risk mitigations
that were in place prior to the safety risk assessment as part of their
General Directive submission. FTA agrees that collection of information
related to the effectiveness of these mitigations is important
information to help transit agencies address the risk of assaults on
transit workers and shape future FTA action. Similarly, FTA does not
discourage transit agencies from including mitigations that may be
implemented by jurisdictional partners external to the transit agency.
FTA encourages transit agencies to report information on the
mitigations that they actively monitor for effectiveness under the SA
requirements of 49 CFR part 673.
FTA acknowledges the comment regarding policies and procedures
permitting transit workers to discharge passengers between designated
stops. FTA disagrees that discharging passengers between designated
stops is ineffective, and notes that transit agencies are increasingly
testing policies to permit discharging passengers between designated
stops to increase safety and comfort for passengers by letting them
disembark closer to their intended destination than a designated stop.
FTA also notes that policies permitting transit workers to safely
discharge passengers that endanger transit workers or other passengers
can increase safety for transit workers and passengers. The General
Directive does not require that transit agencies adopt specific
mitigations such as policies and procedures for discharging passengers,
but transit agencies and their Safety Committee may identify the need
for specific policies and procedures for discharging passengers as a
safety risk mitigation.
FTA appreciates the comments received requesting clarification on
the ``personal security training'' mitigation category used in
Section(c)(8) of the General Directive. For purposes of this mitigation
category, transit agencies can include any personal safety or security
training that the agency has or plans to administer to mitigate safety
risk associated with assaults on transit workers in addition to de-
escalation training, which should be captured under the ``de-escalation
training'' mitigation category.
II. Implementation Status
FTA received comments from transit agency commenters and one labor
union commenter in response to General Directive requirements for
transit agencies to report the status of a transit agency's
implementation of mitigations chosen to address risk related to
assaults on transit workers. One commenter argued that providing
accurate mitigation completion dates in Questions (c)(11)-(12) would be
extremely challenging in certain situations (e.g., installation of two-
way radio and camera systems that have been in place for decades). It
also argued that providing approximate percentages of completion in
Question (c)(13) can be seen as arbitrary and will result in quickly
outdated information. The commenter suggested instead that reporting a
mitigation as ``Planned,'' ``In Progress,'' or ``Complete'' would be
sufficient for the FTA to gain a high-level understanding of mitigation
implementation status.
Another transit agency commenter argued that the proposed questions
capturing information on mitigation

[[Page 78444]]

implementation status would not capture situations where an agency
pivoted away from a mitigation shown to be ineffective or not viable.
Further, the commenter argued that if an agency reported a 100%
implementation status for mitigations, they would give the false
impression that there would no longer be any instances of assaults on
transit workers.
One transit agency requested that FTA expand Question (c)(14) to
include information about external issues related to governance and the
interaction between a transit agency and its jurisdiction.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the comments received regarding the
General Directive's requirement for transit agencies to report the
implementation status of mitigations to address assaults on transit
worker risk. FTA confirms that transit agencies will report the
implementation status of each mitigation being implemented by the
agency to address the risk associated with assaults on transit workers.
FTA understands that it may be challenging to provide exact start and
completion dates for mitigations that have been in place for several
years, and asks that transit agencies provide the best available data
in their responses to Questions (c)(11) and (c)(12). FTA disagrees with
the commenter that argued that reporting implementation statuses such
as ``Planned,'' ``In Progress,'' or ``Complete'' would be sufficient
and that FTA should not ask for percentages in Question (c)(13). FTA
notes that the use of percentages to approximate the level of
implementation provides FTA with useful implementation data because it
enables FTA to better quantify and analyze the implementation progress
for mitigations throughout the industry. In response to the commenter
that expressed concern regarding how FTA will interpret the
implementation data submitted by transit agencies, FTA notes that it
does not equate 100% mitigation implementation with 100% prevention of
assaults on transit workers. Further, Safety Management System (SMS)
Report, the tool developed by FTA to facilitate reporting required by
this General Directive, will allow transit agencies to provide
supporting context in response to Question (c)(17) to describe
situations where an agency or its Safety Committee has identified a
mitigation as ineffective and has slowed or stopped implementation as a
result.
In response to the commenter that requested FTA expand Question
(c)(14) to include information about external issues related to
governance and the interaction between a transit agency and its
jurisdiction, FTA clarifies that the language ``any external rate-
limiting factors affecting implementation'' in the question includes
information about issues related to governance and interaction between
a transit agency and external organizations.
III. Monitoring Effectiveness of Mitigations
Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters, including
from a labor union and transit agencies in response to General
Directive requirements for transit agencies to report information
related to mitigation effectiveness monitoring (Questions (c)(15)
through (c)(17)). One transit agency requested that FTA clarify its
expectations for the requested effectiveness information. Another
agency expressed concern at the challenge of evaluating the
effectiveness of individual mitigations, noting that many agencies are
implementing multiple interventions to address assaults. This commenter
suggested that FTA instead should require that agencies provide an
analysis of ``before'' and ``after'' assault data related to their
collective interventions. Another agency argued that effectiveness
measurement will be difficult unless agencies have access to historic
assault on transit worker data, and effectiveness strategies therefore
may look different in the short-term versus long-term.
One transit agency argued that FTA should not require agencies to
report performance information or data used to make effectiveness
determination in Question (c)(15), stating that it should instead rely
on the assault on transit worker data the agencies already report to
the NTD. This agency further argued that the effectiveness category
options in Question (c)(16) are arbitrary, and agencies should not be
required to report the information. This commenter noted that if
transit agencies are required to report on effectiveness, then FTA
should provide more details and/or guidelines to evaluate
effectiveness, so each agency is using the same criteria to make this
determination. Similarly, one transit agency commented that
effectiveness metrics may not have measurable quantification.
One labor organization stated that mitigative effectiveness data
should not be limited to barriers. It urged FTA to clarify that transit
agencies must report the information in Questions (c)(11) through
(c)(17) for each of its reported mitigations.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the comments received regarding the
General Directive's requirement for transit agencies to report
mitigation effectiveness information to FTA. FTA expects transit
agencies and their Safety Committees to use their existing SA
processes, required by 49 CFR 673.27(b)(2), to monitor the
effectiveness of their safety risk mitigations.
FTA disagrees with the commenter that argued the options provided
for mitigation effectiveness in Question (c)(16) are arbitrary and
should be more quantifiable. FTA believes that the options provided in
the question (``Effective'', ``Ineffective'', and ``Not Yet
Determined'') are self-explanatory. Similar to the question regarding
risk ratings, FTA declines to provide more specific criteria, as
transit agencies may use different measures for evaluating
effectiveness. By defining specific criteria in the General Directive,
FTA could introduce conflicts with the SA processes developed and used
by transit agencies. In Question (c)(16), FTA asks that transit
agencies normalize the reporting of their effectiveness determinations
by reporting using the three categories listed in the question. This
normalization will ensure that transit agencies report using consistent
metrics. If an agency has not yet been able to make a determination
that a mitigation is either effective or ineffective using its existing
processes to monitor effectiveness, the agency can respond with ``Not
Yet Determined.''
FTA acknowledges the commenters that raised concerns about the
challenge of effectiveness determinations, and suggested that
effectiveness should be based solely on the assault data that an agency
reports to the NTD. FTA disagrees with these commenters. FTA notes that
transit agencies and their Safety Committees may use assault event data
reported to the NTD to measure mitigation effectiveness. However, they
may also identify other information to determine if a specific
mitigation is achieving a goal to reduce the risk associated with
assaults on transit workers to an acceptable level. For example,
agencies and their Safety Committees may measure effectiveness by
leveraging information from transit worker safety reporting systems,
customer feedback channels, technology-specific data outputs, and many
other sources. FTA believes that transit agencies and their Safety
Committees can efficiently leverage existing SMS processes to make
effectiveness determinations.
In response to the commenter that urged FTA to clarify that transit
agencies must report the information in Questions (c)(11) through
(c)(17) for each of its reported mitigations, FTA

[[Page 78445]]

confirms that the General Directive requires agencies to report the
information for each reported mitigation. Further, Safety Management
System (SMS) Report, the tool developed by FTA to facilitate reporting
required by this General Directive, will require transit agencies to
enter responses for questions (c)(11) through (c)(17) for each reported
mitigation before the agency's General Directive response can be
submitted to FTA.
IV. Collection of Additional Information
Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters including a
labor union, transit agencies, a transit association, and an individual
recommending FTA expand or modify data collection requirements. One
individual suggested that the General Directive collect more detailed
information about mitigations, including the type of barriers
identified and deployed. This commenter also noted that the type and
length of de-escalation training varies across transit agencies. The
labor union suggested that FTA require transit agencies to report
detailed information on specific mitigations related to assaults on
transit workers, including barriers, post-incident counseling and
employee assistance programs, de-escalation training, and workplace
violence prevention policies. The labor union also recommended that FTA
collect data and information related to work hours lost and
resignations due to assaults, related compensation and benefits costs,
communications and security emergency response times, and the absolute
numbers and the percentages of victims of assaults on transit workers
who have been subject to discipline in connection with assaults since
October 2022. This labor union recommended that FTA maximize the
General Directive to collect any and all information that will be
relevant to the FAST Act rule and other future rulemaking. In addition,
this commenter urged FTA to require transit agencies to compare and
report assault data for each mitigation that the agency lists in
Question (c)(8), and to submit any reports from transit workers about
the effectiveness of the mitigation.
One transit agency requested that FTA require transit agencies to
report a separate category on sexual harassment, noting that female
transit workers face unique challenges in the workplace that makes it
difficult to retain diverse staff.
FTA also received comments related to the current level of assault
reporting to the NTD. One individual suggested that transit agencies
provide an updated statistic of assaults on an annual basis. A transit
agency and an industry association recommended that the NTD capture
assaults on transit workers on a more granular level by breaking down
reporting for additional categories of transit workers, arguing that
this would provide more accurate data and assist in mitigation. One
transit agency suggested that small agencies should report assaults on
transit workers only once they reach a defined threshold number of
assaults. This commenter noted that assaults at smaller agencies are
typically non-physical assaults.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that requested FTA
require the collection of detailed data from respondents on specific
mitigations and response activities for assaults on transit workers.
FTA declines to add data collection requirements beyond the questions
in the proposed General Directive to minimize the burden on transit
agencies to respond to the General Directive. FTA understands the
importance of the information reported through the General Directive to
inform future FTA action, such as the planned Transit Worker and Public
Safety rulemaking. FTA believes that the reporting required through the
General Directive will provide FTA with necessary and useful
information to inform these actions.
In response to the commenter requesting clarification, FTA confirms
that it expects that if an agency has identified and implemented a
safety risk mitigation in response to assaults on transit workers, the
transit agency will provide this in its General Directive submission
and include information on the effectiveness of the mitigation.
In response to the commenters requesting changes to NTD reporting
requirements, FTA notes that changes to the NTD reporting requirements
are outside of the scope of this General Directive.

L. Follow-Up Reporting

Comments: A transit agency and a labor union submitted comments
regarding follow-up reporting after an agency's initial required
response to the General Directive. One labor union argued that FTA
should require transit agencies to conduct a safety risk assessment
related to assaults on transit workers and provide information to the
FTA on a regular basis, suggesting every two to four years. One transit
agency noted that it would be useful to FTA if agencies annually update
their safety risk assessments. Similarly, the transit agency suggested
it would be beneficial for FTA to require ongoing re-assessment at
annual intervals and to include a mechanism and schedule for follow-up
reporting.
FTA response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding requirements
for additional follow-up reporting following the initial response
required by the General Directive. FTA is not establishing additional
follow-up submission requirements for transit agencies at this time to
minimize the burden associated with responding to this General
Directive. In the future, FTA may choose to request additional related
information as necessary.

M. Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)

Comments: One industry association commenter expressed concern that
the information that transit agencies are required by the General
Directive to report to FTA may be Sensitive Security Information (SSI).
The commenter also expressed concern about Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests and whether the information and data submitted to FTA
would be subject to FOIA. This commenter noted concern that transit
agency submissions to FTA could create unwarranted exposure to
liability and lawsuits that would incentivize transit agencies to limit
the scope of their actions under the General Directive. This commenter
urged FTA to consider how agencies can protect the analysis that FTA is
requiring through the General Directive, including a recommendation
that FTA preempt state sunshine laws.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the commenter and notes that if
transit agencies believe their submissions contain SSI, they should
contact FTA to discuss an appropriate transmission method.
U.S. Department of Transportation statute at 49 U.S.C. 40119 and
regulations at 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520 prescribe procedures for
recipients to protect SSI in their possession, through adequate
storage, marking, and transmission of protected records only to persons
with a need to know. In the event FTA receives a FOIA request for SSI,
FTA may withhold SSI records that are specifically exempted from FOIA
disclosure by law. See, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3); 49 CFR 7.23(c)(3).
Recipients reduce the risk of mishandling SSI by segregating and
marking SSI in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 15.13.

N. Oversight and Enforcement

1. Federal Enforcement
Comments: FTA received several comments regarding FTA's enforcement
of the General Directive, including from

[[Page 78446]]

labor unions and a transit industry association. One SSOA commenter
requested clarification on how FTA plans to approach oversight and
enforcement of this directive. One individual stated that it supported
increased Federal oversight of transit agencies and that transit
agencies should face regulatory consequences if they fail to reasonably
safeguard transit workers. A labor union commenter requested that FTA
strengthen language within the directive to say that ``will'' take
enforcement action rather than that FTA ``may'' take enforcement action
related to violation of the General Directive. This labor union
commenter also requested that FTA change language regarding its
authority to ``withhold up to 25 percent'' of financial assistance to
recipients to ``withhold 25 percent.'' A separate labor union commenter
stated that FTA would likely have to take enforcement action based on
the General Directive and should begin preparing for this possibility.
One local labor union commenter stated that FTA should establish
punitive measures for transit agencies that fail to take adequate
measures to protect transit workers and that FTA should seek authority
to take enforcement action if it determines that it does not have the
necessary legal authority.
One labor union argued that FTA should strengthen the General
Directive's enforcement provisions by establishing a mechanism for
frontline workers and their representatives to notify FTA of
noncompliance with the General Directive and defining a procedure by
which FTA will accept and investigate reports of such noncompliance.
The commenter also requested FTA define the phrase ``written plan,''
that FTA used in the proposed General Directive when describing FTA's
enforcement authority.
One transit agency asked whether FTA will deem an agency to be out
of compliance if the reporting is too simplistic, noting that
mitigations will either be in infancy or not yet started and the
General Directive does not address follow-up reporting.
One transit agency suggested that FTA should provide recognition or
rewards for agencies that demonstrate exceptional compliance with
reporting requirements and that have launched innovative approaches to
addressing safety issues and data reporting.
Some commenters suggested that FTA explore changing laws and
increasing penalties related to assaults on transit workers, with some
commenters requesting FTA provide guidance to States on this topic.
One transit agency commenter asked how FTA will measure the success
of this General Directive, noting that many transit agencies already
implement safety risk mitigations for assaults on transit workers.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the comments received regarding
oversight and enforcement of the General Directive. FTA plans to use
its existing authorities to ensure that transit agencies are completing
the required actions of the General Directive. Title 49 U.S.C. 5329 and
CFR part 670 identify FTA's safety enforcement authorities, which
includes the withholding of up to 25 percent of a recipient's Section
5307 funds to address situations where a ``recipient has engaged in a
pattern or practice of serious safety violations, or has otherwise
refused to comply with the Public Transportation Safety Program, as
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329, or any regulation or directive issued under
those laws for which the Administrator exercises enforcement authority
for safety.'' 49 CFR 670.23(b). FTA exercises discretion when enforcing
the Public Transportation Safety Program and will take enforcement
action as appropriate. FTA therefore declines to revise the General
Directive to state that it ``will'' take enforcement action. FTA also
notes that the enforcement language specifying withholding of ``up to''
25 percent of funds is rooted in statutory language, which provides
that FTA may withhold ``not more than'' 25 percent of Section 5307
funds. 49 U.S.C. 5329(g)(1)(E). FTA also acknowledges the commenter
that asked FTA to consider exploring harsher penalties on individuals
that assault transit workers but notes that FTA does not have authority
to impose civil or criminal penalties.
FTA acknowledges the commenter that suggested establishing
additional General Directive enforcement provisions and mechanisms. As
noted above, FTA intends to exercise its existing enforcement
authorities to ensure compliance with the General Directive. However,
as noted in the PTASP Final Rule response to comments, FTA is
considering the development of a mechanism to receive allegations of
non-compliance with the PTASP requirements.
FTA appreciates the comment that requested clarity regarding the
use of the term ``written plan'' to support the description of FTA's
enforcement authority. In the proposed General Directive, the
enforcement section noted that ``FTA may take enforcement action for
any violation of this General Directive or the terms of any written
plan adopted pursuant to this General Directive in accordance with
FTA's authorities under 49 U.S.C. 5329, including but not limited to
(1) directing a recipient to use Federal financial assistance to
correct safety deficiencies; and (2) withholding up to 25 percent of
financial assistance to a recipient under 49 U.S.C. 5307.'' FTA
generally includes this reference to ``written plan'' in Special
Directives where recipients are required to develop corrective action
plans in response to required actions of Special Directives. This
reference is not necessary for this General Directive, and FTA has
removed the term ``written plan'' from the enforcement section of the
General Directive.
FTA appreciates the comments that asked how FTA would measure
success for this General Directive, asked whether FTA will deem an
agency to be out of compliance if it reports on mitigations either
early in implementation or not yet started, and suggested that FTA
should provide recognition or rewards for agencies that demonstrate
exceptional compliance or innovative approaches to addressing safety
issues and data reporting. Success will be primarily based on full
compliance with the General Directive, which will show that the
industry is using SRM and SA to address and monitor safety risk.
Additional success measures for the General Directive will be an
improved understanding of mitigation effectiveness to allow FTA to
focus attention on specific mitigations and strategies that are shown
to be effective in mitigating assaults on transit workers. FTA also
notes that the General Directive includes specific options for
reporting that a mitigation is in planning or in progress, and an
agency may use these options to report on the status of any mitigation.
2. State Safety Oversight Agency Role
Comments: Three commenters requested clarification on the role of
the State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) related to the General
Directive, including two SSOAs and one transit agency. One SSOA
commenter was supportive of the directive, but requested clarity as to
the role of the SSOA in ensuring actions are taken or incorporated into
the transit agencies' monitoring activities. A separate SSOA commenter
asked if FTA is assuming oversight responsibility of rail transit
agencies on behalf of SSOAs for assaults on transit workers through the
directive. One transit agency asked for clarification about State
oversight and enforcement, noting that assaults disproportionately
affect bus operators but SSOAs only oversee rail transit.

[[Page 78447]]

FTA response: FTA appreciates the comments received regarding
clarification of the role of the SSOA related to the General Directive.
FTA notes that while the General Directive does not establish any new
oversight requirements for SSOAs, it does not remove any existing SSOA
oversight responsibility. Safety Management System (SMS) Report, FTA's
tool to collect responses required by this General Directive, will
provide SSOAs with read-only access to the General Directive
submissions made by the transit agencies they oversee under the State
Safety Oversight Program, in order to support ongoing SSOA oversight
activities. The General Directive does not establish any reporting or
submission requirements for SSOAs. As the General Directive does not
establish new reporting or oversight activities for SSOAs, SSOAs may
choose to handle oversight of multimodal agency data in the same manner
they currently conduct oversight activities for these agencies.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR 1.91, 670.25.

Veronica Vanterpool,
Deputy Administrator.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

General Directive No. 24-1

Required Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers

Summary

FTA is issuing a General Directive to address the significant and
continuing safety risk associated with assaults on transit workers. FTA
has identified a national-level hazard that transit workers must
interact with the public and, at times, must clarify or enforce agency
policies, which can present a risk of transit workers being assaulted
on transit vehicles and in revenue facilities.
Each transit agency that is required to have an Agency Safety Plan
(ASP) under the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) Final
Rule (49 CFR part 673) must use the Safety Risk Management (SRM)
processes required by 49 CFR 673.25(c) and documented in its ASP to
conduct a safety risk assessment related to assaults on transit workers
on the public transportation system it operates unless the agency has
conducted a safety risk assessment related to assaults on transit
workers in the twelve months preceding the date of issuance of this
General Directive. Each transit agency must use the SRM processes
required by 49 CFR 673.25(d) and documented in its ASP to identify
safety risk mitigations or strategies necessary as a result of the
agency's safety risk assessment to reduce the likelihood and severity
of the potential consequences. The joint labor-management Safety
Committee of each transit agency serving an urbanized area with a
population of 200,000 or more (large urbanized area) is responsible for
identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations to reduce the
likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's
safety risk assessment per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5). Each covered transit
agency must also provide information to FTA on how it is assessing,
mitigating, and monitoring the safety risk associated with assaults on
transit workers.

General Directive and Required Actions

As authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(2), 49 CFR 670.25, and Office of
Management and Budget Control Number 2132-0580, FTA directs each
transit agency that is required to have an ASP under the PTASP Final
Rule at 49 CFR part 673 to take the following actions within 90 days of
the publication of this General Directive in the Federal Register:

(a) Conduct a Safety Risk Assessment

The transit agency must use the SRM process documented in its ASP,
as defined at 49 CFR 673.25(c), to conduct a risk assessment related to
assaults on transit workers on the public transportation system it
operates unless the agency has conducted a safety risk assessment
related to assaults on transit workers in the twelve (12) months
preceding the date of issuance of this General Directive.

(b) Identify Safety Risk Mitigations

The transit agency must use the SRM process documented in its ASP,
as defined at 49 CFR 673.25(d), to identify safety risk mitigations or
strategies necessary as a result of the agency's safety risk
assessment. As required by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5), each transit agency
serving a large urbanized area must involve the joint labor-management
Safety Committee when identifying safety risk mitigations to reduce the
likelihood and severity of consequences identified through the agency's
safety risk assessment.

The transit agency must submit to FTA responses to the following
questions:
1. Date of completed safety risk assessment.
2. Hazard assessed: Transit workers must interact with the public
and, at times, must clarify or enforce agency policies.
3. Potential Consequence: Transit workers are assaulted on transit
vehicles.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE24.001

[[Page 78448]]

<bullet> Likelihood (choose the rating from FTA's scale that most
closely matches your agency's scale)
<bullet> Severity (choose the rating from FTA's scale that most closely
matches your agency's scale)

4. Potential Consequence: Transit workers are assaulted in revenue
facilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE24.002

5. Risk Rating (provide overall risk rating resulting from safety
risk assessment).
6. For transit agencies serving a large urbanized area, did the
joint labor-management Safety Committee identify and recommend safety
risk mitigations to reduce the likelihood and severity of the potential
consequences of assaults on transit workers identified through the
agency's safety risk assessment?

<bullet> Yes
<bullet> No

7. If you answered no to Question 6, please explain.
8. Please share the safety risk mitigations the transit agency and/
or Safety Committee (at agencies serving large urbanized areas) has
identified as a result of the agency's safety risk assessment to reduce
the likelihood and/or severity of assaults on transit workers:

<bullet> Operator Area Protective Barriers
<bullet> Signage Informing Riders of Surveillance/Penalties
<bullet> Personal Security Training
<bullet> De-Escalation Training
<bullet> Operating Policies and Procedures (e.g., policies governing
operator barrier deployment; policies and procedures to permit
discharging passengers between designated stops upon request; policies
that operators should only state the agency fare policy once and not
attempt to enforce fare payment; policies on response to interference;
policies on taking de-escalatory action during incidents)
<bullet> Video/Audio Surveillance
<bullet> Covert/Overt Emergency Alarms (e.g., silent button to contact
operations control center, a system for coded/covert operator
communication with operations control center, exterior bus signage
alerting the public to emergency onboard/call law enforcement)
<bullet> Automatic Vehicle Location
<bullet> Patrol Strategies (e.g., fare enforcement, security, transit
police, local law enforcement)
<bullet> Communication Protocols (e.g., only request fare payment once)
<bullet> Public Awareness Campaigns
<bullet> Other

9. Please provide any additional information that would help FTA
understand the details of your mitigation.
10. Implementation status for each safety risk mitigation

<bullet> Planned
<bullet> In Progress
<bullet> Complete

11. Safety risk mitigation implementation start date (actual or
projected).
12. Safety risk mitigation implementation completion date (actual
or projected).
13. If implementation is in progress, provide approximate
percentage toward completion.
14. Please provide any additional information that would help FTA
understand the progress of your mitigation (e.g., any external rate-
limiting factors affecting implementation).
15. Performance information or data that the agency is using or
will use to make effectiveness determination.
16. Effectiveness of safety risk mitigation:
<bullet> Effective
<bullet> Ineffective
<bullet> Not yet determined
17. If effectiveness of mitigation has been assessed by the agency
or Safety Committee (at agencies serving large urbanized areas), a
statement explaining why mitigations are either effective or
ineffective.
Transit agencies must submit the required information to FTA within
90 days of the issuance of this General Directive via the FTA Safety
Management System (SMS) Report on the Transit Integrated Appian
Development (TrIAD) Platform. Instructions on how to use the platform
and submit the required information can be found at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults">https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults</a>.

[[Page 78449]]

Enforcement

FTA may take enforcement action for any violation of this General
Directive in accordance with FTA's authorities under 49 U.S.C. 5329,
including but not limited to (1) directing a recipient to use Federal
financial assistance to correct safety deficiencies; and (2)
withholding up to 25 percent of financial assistance to a recipient
under 49 U.S.C. 5307.

Contact

For program matters, Stewart Mader, Senior Program Analyst for
Safety Policy, FTA Office of System Safety, telephone (202) 366-9677 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4a7809183958680dab995909186b4909b80da939b82">[email&#160;protected]</a>; for legal matters, Heather Ueyama, Attorney-
Advisor, telephone (202) 366-7374 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c34191d0814190e522919051d111d3c181308521b130a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

[FR Doc. 2024-21923 Filed 9-24-24; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 25, 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.