Notice2025-12813
National Transit Database Reporting Changes and Clarifications for Report Years 2025 and 2026
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
July 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Transit Administration
Abstract
This Notice finalizes and responds to comments on proposed changes to the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2024.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 130 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 130 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30771-30776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12813]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2024-0013]
National Transit Database Reporting Changes and Clarifications
for Report Years 2025 and 2026
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final notice; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice finalizes and responds to comments on proposed
changes to the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2024.
DATES: Some changes will apply in calendar year (CY) 2025 while other
changes will apply in NTD report year (RY) 2025 or 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Champlin, National Transit
Database Program Manager, FTA Office of Budget and Policy, 202-366-
1651, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17547f727b64727639547f767a677b7e795773786339707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efac878a839c8a8ec1ac878e829f838681af8b809bc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed Changes to the NTD Reporting Requirements and Responses
to
[[Page 30772]]
Comments
A. Additional Data Within Publicly Hosted General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) Datasets
B. Changes to Passenger Stations and Maintenance Facilities
Reporting
C. A-20 NTD/TERM Alignment Form
D. Safety and Security--Cyber Security Event Reporting
E. Safety and Security--Disabling Damage
F. Reduced Reporter Exemption for Operators Serving
Predominantly Rural Areas
G. Voluntary Reporter Tag
H. General and Miscellaneous Comments
I. Background
The National Transit Database (NTD) is the nation's primary
database for statistics on the transit industry. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5334(k), FTA published a notice in the Federal Register on October 31,
2024, (89 FR 86907), seeking public comment on seven (7) proposed NTD
reporting changes and clarifications. The comment period originally
closed on December 30, 2024, but was reopened until January 29, 2025,
to accommodate further input from commenters. FTA received timely
comments from thirty (30) unique commenters. In addition, FTA received
one comment several months after the comment period closed. This Notice
does not address this comment, as it was not timely received.
FTA proposed the updates to NTD reporting requirements to improve
reporting standards and ensure data alignment and consistency with
FTA's final rule for State Safety Oversight published on October 18,
2024 (89 FR 83981).
II. Proposed Changes to the NTD Reporting Requirements and Responses to
Comments
A. Additional Data Within Publicly Hosted General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) Datasets
Agency ID/NTD ID Alignment: FTA received 18 comments on FTA's
proposal to require reporters to align the agency_id field to the
agency's National Transit Database Identification Number (NTD ID), with
15 commenters opposed to the change and three supportive.
One of the commenters supporting the proposal stated that it would
be feasible to implement the change by the proposed implementation
timeline.
Many commenters who opposed the proposal stated that the change
would pose challenges, including for agencies that have multiple GTFS
datasets or different brandings, rural agencies that share a regional
dataset, and third-party users of GTFS data. Several commenters argued
that the proposal would increase burden for reporting agencies. Some
stated that the change would necessitate software or vendor changes and
that software products might not support the change. Many commenters
argued that the proposal would be inconsistent with the global GTFS
specification and GTFS best practices, with some stating that it would
require agencies to create a separate GTFS file just for NTD purposes.
One commenter stated that the proposal might increase burden for
agencies with NTD IDs that contain leading zeros, and another similarly
noted that agency_id is a text field, not a numeric field.
Several commenters suggested that instead of adopting the proposed
change, FTA should either (1) include NTD ID as a separate field within
the agency.txt, routes.txt, and/or feed_info.txt files, or (2) require
a distinct NTD ID.txt file. Commenters argued that these alternatives
were preferable to FTA's proposal, as they would minimize disruption to
existing processes. One commenter stated that agencies should have
flexibility to choose between these two options. Several commenters
recommended that FTA should require an NTD ID text input in a separate
field or in a separate file outside the GTFS specification, and another
voiced that FTA could use an already existing GTFS feed repository to
align agency_id with NTD ID. Three commenters stated that FTA should
engage with the International Data Organization for Transport
(MobilityData) and the GTFS community regarding GTFS specification
discussions.
FTA Response: FTA recognizes the concerns regarding potential
disruptions to current GTFS workflows and acknowledges that agency
identification methods vary across different implementations. FTA also
appreciates the alternatives proposed by commenters and the flexibility
they would provide. As such, FTA will not adopt the proposed change.
FTA will instead internally conduct the alignment of agency_id and NTD
ID through the existing P-50 form (General Transit Feed Specification
Data for Fixed Route Modes). This form, used by NTD reporters with
fixed route modes, already collects GTFS feeds, agency_id, and
organization name. FTA can leverage this data to align agency_id with
NTD ID, notably for reporters that share GTFS feeds. To support this
alignment effort and ensure good data quality collection, FTA will
enhance the P-50 form by:
<bullet> Providing clearer guidance on the contents needed for each
field.
<bullet> Encouraging proper formatting and submission of GTFS feed
URLs or GTFS files.
Since the P-50 form is already in use, there will not be any
additional burden on reporters, nor will there be disruptions to
existing GTFS-based tools or workflows. FTA believes this approach
addresses its underlying data alignment objective while remaining
responsive to the operational realities and feedback shared by
stakeholders. FTA will work with reporters to resolve discrepancies and
maintain data accuracy.
FTA clarifies that it actively engages with MobilityData and
welcomes feedback from them and the GTFS community as whole when FTA
proposes changes to the NTD requirements through the public notice and
comment process.
agency_id as a Non-Conditional Requirement: FTA received seven
comments regarding its proposal to make the agency_id data field a non-
conditional requirement. Six comments were in support, and one was
opposed. The commenter who opposed the change stated that requiring the
agency_id field in routes.txt and fare_attributes.txt was unnecessary,
since the information is already in the GTFS feeds.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the feedback received. FTA disagrees
that this requirement is unnecessary and clarifies that there are
reporters to the NTD with GTFS feeds that contain multiple different
agency_id entries. The inclusion of agency_id in the routes.txt and
fare_attributes.txt files would help FTA, and its data users, to better
leverage the data received and distinguish between reporters in these
cases. FTA will move forward with this change as proposed. The change
will take effect beginning in RY 2025.
Shapes.txt: FTA received 11 comments in support of the proposed
change to make the shapes.txt file mandatory. Commenters argued that
this change will enhance trip planning, as well as data analysis,
quality, and visualization. A few commenters noted that they already
include this file in their GTFS feeds, with one noting that it is
nearly ubiquitous in their State. One commenter, although in support of
the change, stated that the quality of the shapes.txt file can vary.
One commenter suggested that FTA should ensure that the data provided
by the agency is the definitive source of this file, and two commenters
recommended that FTA include guidance from MobilityData to assist
agencies with generating a shapes.txt file.
[[Page 30773]]
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the support for this change and
recognizes the value of providing agencies with guidance to facilitate
compliance. FTA agrees that inclusion of shapes.txt in GTFS feeds
submissions will enhance trip planning for riders by enabling more
accurate route visualizations in trip planners, improve data
completeness in the NTD and other transit planning tools, and support
stronger decision-making for agencies, researchers, and policymakers.
In response to the comments received, FTA will adopt the change as
proposed and will link the MobilityData Guide as a reference on the NTD
website to assist transit agencies with generating shapes.txt files.
Regarding the possible variance in the quality of shapes.txt files, FTA
will work with reporters on a timely basis to ensure accurate and
precise reporting. FTA agrees that maintaining accurate data is
critical. FTA already conducts data validation processes and requires
executive-level certification from reporter leadership (i.e. CEO
certification on the D-10 form) as part of NTD reporting. This
certification serves as an assurance that the data submitted, including
any GTFS files such as shapes.txt, is accurate and represents a
definitive source of information from the agency. These procedures help
uphold data integrity and support the use of GTFS data in analysis and
reporting. FTA is adopting this change as proposed. FTA remains
committed to supporting transit agencies throughout these transitions
and will provide guidance as necessary. The change will go into effect
in RY 2025 for full reporters and RY 2026 for reduced, rural, and
tribal reporters.
B. Changes to Passenger Stations and Maintenance Facilities Reporting
FTA received five comments in support of FTA's proposal to
eliminate the Stations and Maintenance Facilities (A-10) form and
collect all station information on a single, consolidated Transit Asset
Management Facilities (A-15) form. Commenters voiced that the proposal
would result in more efficient reporting, reduced burden, and fewer
reporting errors. One commenter expressed specific support for FTA's
proposal to include maintenance facilities on the A-15, regardless of
capital responsibility, while maintaining the exception for incidental
use.
Two commenters responded to FTA's solicitation of feedback on the
definition of ``passenger station'' for purposes of uniform reporting
on the A-15 form. Both commenters supported FTA's proposal that
stations spanning both sides of the right-of-way would be inventoried
as a single facility. However, one commenter expressed concern that the
requirement for a station operating in mixed traffic to have a
``significant structure'' (i.e., with a minimum roof square footage of
150 feet) would exclude certain streetcar and bus rapid transit (BRT)
stops that lack a canopy. They requested FTA consider revising the
definition to include such stops. The second commenter urged FTA to
consider including bus shelters in future guidance updates.
One commenter suggested potential refinements to NTD definitions
and policy guidance regarding maintenance facilities reporting.
Specifically, the commenter requested that FTA add infrastructure
maintenance facility guidelines to the NTD Policy Manual with specific
categorizations for certain maintenance activities.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the support from commenters and
agrees that consolidation of the A-10 and A-15 forms would result in
more efficient and accurate NTD reporting. Additionally, FTA recognizes
the commenter's concern regarding the potential exclusion of mixed-
traffic transit services, such as certain streetcar and BRT stops from
the definition of ``passenger station'' in current guidance. FTA would
require additional research to assess and quantify the implications of
expanding the definition and potential impacts on data collection
practices. FTA will retain the current definition, which includes a
minimum roof size criterion. However, FTA will consider this feedback
for a potential future update to explore refinements to the definition
of ``passenger station.'' FTA acknowledges the additional
recommendations regarding potential refinements to NTD definitions and
policy guidance and will consider them in future updates to the NTD
reporting requirements as well. After consideration of comments
received, FTA will proceed with the changes as proposed, which will
take effect at the beginning of RY 2025.
C. A-20 NTD/TERM Alignment Form
Three commenters addressed FTA's proposed changes to the A-20
Transit Way Mileage form. One commenter supported the changes generally
but noted that the proposal would conditionally increase, or slightly
increase, the reporting burden for transit agencies. One commenter
requested clarification on the specific components that constitute the
``Pump Rooms'' and ``Fan Plants'' proposed categories. The commenter
also expressed concern that these changes would impact reporting on the
A-15 Transit Asset Management Facilities Inventory form. Another
commenter requested clarification on whether FTA defines ``Fan Plants''
to mean individual fans or systems. FTA did not receive any specific
comments on the proposed new ``Track-Turntable'' category, or on the
proposed clarification related to reporting the decade of construction
for rebuilt assets.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the support received for the proposed
changes to the ``Track'', ``Power and Signal'', and ``Construction''
sections of the A-20 form and will proceed with the changes as
proposed. FTA acknowledges the concern regarding a potential increase
in reporting burden for transit agencies. However, FTA believes that
aligning the A-20 form with the Transit Economic Requirements Model
(TERM) will enhance consistency and reliability of the data collected.
Both NTD and TERM are inputs in the Conditions and Performance Report
to Congress. This alignment enables the production of high-quality data
products and public data releases that support decision makers in
Congress. Further, FTA will provide guidance on what constitutes a
distinct ``Pump Room'' or ``Fan Plant.'' The requirement to collect
counts of ``Pump Rooms'' and ``Fan Plants'' on the A-20 form would not
impact the A-15 form. FTA recognizes agencies have been inventorying
Pump Rooms and Fan Plants on their A-15 forms as ``Other Administrative
and Maintenance'' facilities. Pump rooms and Fan Plants are high value
and discrete assets that can be easily counted with minimal burden to
reporters. The proposed changes are also supported by the overall
objective of the Transit Asset Management (TAM) Program to plan for the
replacement or repair of transit capital assets. FTA further clarifies
that the Power and Signal section of the A-20 form is not used for
performance measures on the A-90 Transit Asset Management Performance
Measure Targets form, and as such, there is no concern about data being
double-counted. The changes will take effect at the beginning of RY
2025.
D. Safety and Security--Cyber Security Event Reporting
FTA received eight comments on the proposed clarifications
regarding cyber security event reporting. Four commenters opposed the
proposals generally, three were supportive, and one requested
additional clarification.
A few commenters voiced concern about cyber security event
reporting to the NTD generally. One commenter
[[Page 30774]]
stated that their IT department gathers cyber security events for the
county as a whole and does not distinguish transit specific events,
thus making it difficult to separate the data in an accurate and timely
manner for NTD reporting. Three commenters expressed concern that
requiring cyber security event reporting would be duplicative and
burdensome, as some agencies report cyber security events to other
Federal agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration
(CISA). These commenters expressed particular concern that FTA's
proposed clarifications would require reporting of ``substantial
damage'' that includes disruptions to systems that do not directly
impact safety or operational technology.
These commenters urged FTA to remove cyber security reporting from
the NTD and suggested FTA instead coordinate with other Federal
agencies to obtain cyber security event data. One commenter
additionally suggested FTA harmonize definitions and requirements with
such agencies. A separate commenter expressed concern about FTA's
communication about cyber security reporting requirements and urged FTA
to conduct outreach with the industry before proposing cyber security
reporting requirements.
One commenter sought clarification on the reporting responsibility
for cyberattacks targeting the dispatch/communications system of newer
demand response technology platforms, particularly when these platforms
assign rides to both dedicated and non-dedicated vehicles and
facilitate two-way data exchange, including GPS tracking of passenger
pickups and drop-offs.
FTA Response: FTA will proceed with the changes to cyber security
event reporting as proposed. While FTA understands commenters' concerns
about cyber security reporting generally, FTA clarifies that the NTD
already collects cyber security events; this is not a new reporting
requirement. In its proposal, FTA merely sought to clarify that
``infrastructure'' for purposes of cyber security major event reporting
includes information, computer, and telecommunications systems that
exist in any transit facilities (i.e., in the facilities reported on
annual form A-15). It also proposed clarifying which mode to select
when reporting a cyber security event, and to provide additional
guidance on how to apply the ``substantial damage'' threshold to cyber
security events.
FTA recognizes concerns regarding agencies that aggregate cyber
security data at the county level rather than distinguishing transit-
specific events. While FTA expects agencies to report transit-related
cyber security incidents, FTA acknowledges that some agencies may
require additional time to refine their data collection processes. FTA
will work with affected agencies to support implementation and meet
reporting requirements. If an event affects a county-wide facility and
transit-specific details cannot be separated, NTD reporting may include
aggregate data about the incident. For shared infrastructure, a
reportable cyber security event is one that occurs on infrastructure
(i.e., underlying framework) in any transit facility, meets a major
event reporting threshold, and is due to malicious actions of a third-
party.
FTA also acknowledges concerns regarding potential duplication of
cyber security event reporting to other Federal agencies, such as TSA
and CISA. While FTA understands that transit agencies may already
report certain cyber security incidents to other entities. FTA
reiterates again that NTD reporting of cyber security events is not
new. FTA proposed clarifications to the existing requirements to give
reporters clear guidance on cyber event reporting. These clarifications
are intended to improve data collection; strengthen FTA's policy
development, safety oversight, and safety risk management programs; and
provide NTD data users greater insight into cyber security events
within public transit. Cyber security threats can directly impact the
operational safety of transit services. It is therefore critical to
FTA's statutory safety mission that the NTD collect data about these
events. FTA recognizes its proposed clarifications could result in
reporting of some disruptions to systems that impact safety or
operational technology only indirectly. However, consistent reporting
of this data through the NTD enables FTA to identify trends, work with
agencies and reporters to respond to emerging threats, and develop
targeted technical assistance and policy guidance. FTA therefore
declines to remove cyber security reporting requirements from NTD
reporting. FTA also intends to provide guidance and work with reporters
on a timely basis to ensure this reporting is minimally burdensome. FTA
notes that it conducted industry outreach on its clarification of cyber
security reporting requirements through the public notice and comment
process associated with these proposals. FTA has thoroughly considered
all feedback received prior to adopting this change.
FTA appreciates the comment received regarding the reporting
responsibility for cyberattacks. FTA is not seeking changes regarding
the entities responsible for reporting cyberattacks. As is currently
required, the primary reporter or contract holder should be the one
that reports the cyber security event.
The clarifications will take effect beginning in calendar year 2025
as soon as practicable following publication of this final notice.
E. Safety and Security--Disabling Damage
FTA received five comments on its proposals regarding capturing the
``disabling damage'' event category defined in FTA's State Safety
Oversight (SSO) final rule at 49 CFR part 674. FTA proposed two options
to capture this data--Option 1 would replace the ``substantial damage''
threshold with ``disabling damage'' for major safety event and personal
security event reporting. Option 2 would add ``disabling damage'' as a
subset of ``substantial damage'' for rail collision events.
Two commenters supported Option 1. Of these, one stated that
replacing the threshold with ``disabling damage'' would better align
with requirements of the SSO final rule and State Safety Oversight
Report (SSOR) system. Three commenters were in support of Option 2,
arguing that it would assist State Safety Oversight agencies (SSOAs)
and other stakeholders better understand collision events and hazards.
One commenter also stated that this option would enable SSOAs to better
manage their risk-based inspection programs.
One transit industry association commenter stated that most of its
members supported Option 2, as it would align with current NTD
reporting requirements and have the lowest burden on reporters.
However, the commenter expressed several concerns with both proposed
options due to the potential increased administrative burden,
complexity, and confusion, especially for bus-only and multi-modal
agencies. This commenter suggested FTA provide clear guidance about
several aspects of the proposed requirement, including confirming that
the ``substantial damage'' threshold still applies to bus modes and
system security events, and clarifying which threshold applies when
agencies add rail modes to their system in the future. It also
expressed concern that multi-modal agencies would require extensive
assistance in managing differing damage
[[Page 30775]]
thresholds for bus and rail modes. The commenter also requested
guidance about ``disabling damage'' to infrastructure and stated that
FTA's proposals would conflict with State Safety Oversight agency
program standards. It recommended FTA delay implementation of this new
requirement by 12 months to ease the transition for reporters.
FTA Response: FTA will proceed with Option 2. FTA notes that most
commenters supported Option 2, including the majority of members of a
transit industry association. FTA agrees with commenters who stated
that this change will support SSOAs and other stakeholders to better
understand collision events. This change is intended to support SSO
program requirements by ensuring FTA and SSOAs can more accurately
identify major NTD events that require investigation. FTA also agrees
that adding ``disabling damage'' as a subset of substantial damage
(Option 2) aligns more closely with current NTD reporting, proving a
lower burden on reporters than Option 1. Option 2 will also prevent
data reconciliation issues and threshold changes that could impact
other programs. The proposed changes will be incorporated into the NTD
Manual.
FTA acknowledges the concerns regarding the potential for increased
administrative complexity, particularly for bus-only and multi-modal
agencies. To clarify, the ``substantial damage'' threshold remains
applicable to bus modes and system security events as is written in the
current Safety and Security reporting manual. The introduction of
``disabling damage'' as a subset of substantial damage will apply only
to rail vehicle types. The threshold does not include infrastructure
damage.
FTA agrees with the commenter who suggested FTA provide clear
guidance in the NTD Reporting Manual about the new threshold and how it
applies to different modes. FTA will incorporate guidance in the NTD
reporting manual on this topic, including for multi-modal agencies to
ensure they can understand and effectively manage the differing damage
thresholds for bus and rail modes. Importantly, thresholds will not
change under the selected approach, and historic reconciliation will
not be negatively impacted. FTA acknowledges that individual SSOAs may
maintain internal thresholds and criteria that may differ from
``disabling damage.'' However, the NTD is a national data reporting
program, and its thresholds are established to ensure consistency
across all its reporters. The proposed adoption of `disabling damage'
is grounded in the definition in 49 CFR part 674. This change is not
intended to alter or to supersede individual SSOA program standards.
FTA clarifies that the changes to the NTD reporting threshold do not
affect an SSOA's authority to investigate events that meet their own
thresholds, standards, and criteria.
FTA declines to delay implementation of this requirement by 12
months given the importance of capturing the new ``disabling damage''
event category defined in the SSO final rule (49 CFR part 674) in a
timely manner. The SSO rule has been in effect since January 1, 2025,
and as of March 20, 2025, FTA has been enforcing its provisions (90 FR
10464). Further delaying alignment of NTD data with the SSO rule would
lead to safety data inconsistencies. FTA strives to provide accurate
data to users and decision makers, and the timely collection of
disabling damage will enable FTA to gather accurate data and provide
targeted technical assistance. The implementation of these changes will
proceed as proposed beginning in calendar year 2025, following
publication of this final notice, and FTA will provide technical
assistance and updated guidance to facilitate a smooth transition.
F. Reduced Reporter Exemption for Operators Predominantly Serving Rural
Areas
FTA received several comments regarding the proposed exemption for
operators predominantly serving rural areas. Five commenters supported
the proposal, with some stating that it would reduce burden on rural
providers. One of these commenters agreed that the waiver should be
automatic but recommended that it be expanded to operators that meet
four of the five proposed criteria.
One commenter expressed concern that the waiver would result in
potential loss of data reported to FTA. However, the commenter stated
that the number of agencies qualifying for the waiver and the resulting
data loss appeared to be small. The commenter stated that the Reduced
Reporting form (RR-20) contains the most common reporting errors and
recommended FTA provide incentives for agencies to become full
reporters voluntarily. Although not explicitly in response to this
proposal, one commenter expressed concern about their reporter type,
specifically that they receive funding under 49 U.S.C. 5311 but report
to the NTD urban module.
FTA Response: FTA will adopt the waiver as proposed. FTA reiterates
that the number of agencies thought to be affected by this change is
small, estimated to be between 10 and 15. FTA understands the
importance of maintaining robust transit data and acknowledges concerns
regarding the potential reduction in available data resulting from this
change. While FTA remains committed to ensuring comprehensive data
collection, it also seeks to balance reporting requirements with the
administrative burden on smaller transit agencies.
Furthermore, FTA appreciates the recommendations regarding
incentives for voluntary full reporting and will consider it in the
future. FTA recognizes the commenter's concern regarding the RR-20 form
containing common reporting errors. FTA will work closely with transit
agencies to ensure the proper submission of the RR-20 form is minimally
burdensome. At this time, FTA will not provide additional incentives
for voluntary reporting beyond the benefit of reduced reporting burden
through the implementation of this waiver. FTA reiterates that there is
a built-in incentive for full reporting in that certain data submitted
by full reporters is used in the calculation of the Section 5307
formula apportionments for urbanized areas (UZAs). Depending on the
size of the UZA, the data would either be used in the calculation of
the incentive tier of the formula or, if the UZA qualifies, through the
Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) factors involving Passenger Miles
Travelled (PMT). FTA also appreciates the recommendation to expand
eligibility for the reporting waiver. FTA will not expand the
eligibility, as it believes applying all five criteria strikes an
appropriate balance of positively identifying reporters who
predominantly serve rural areas without carving out too broad an
exemption, while maintaining consistency and data integrity. In
response to the commenter that expressed concern with its reporter
type, FTA confirms it will work closely with transit agencies to
discuss their reporting status and how this waiver may apply to them.
These changes will take effect at the beginning of RY 2025.
G. Voluntary Reporter Tag
FTA received one comment expressing support for the proposed
requirement that NTD reporters identify their voluntary reporting
status.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the support and will move forward
with this change as proposed. The proposed changes will take effect
beginning RY 2025.
[[Page 30776]]
H. General and Miscellaneous Comments
FTA received two comments requesting that FTA delay implementation
of all proposed reporting requirements. One commenter requested a 12-
month extension due to the potential burden for agencies to implement
the changes. The second commenter requested all requirements be delayed
until RY 26, given the timing of FTA's proposals and the notice and
comment process.
FTA received several comments outside the scope of its proposals,
including recommendations that FTA should make the feed_info.txt. file
mandatory and provide certain additional guidance about hosting and
reporting GTFS feeds. One commenter asked FTA to collect more accurate
data distinguishing trespassers from suicides, and another requested
certain changes to the NTD financial data reporting requirements.
FTA Response: FTA declines to extend the implementation timeline
for the reporting changes and clarifications. Certain changes,
including the predominantly rural reporting waiver and the
consolidation of the A-10 and A-15 forms, are intended to reduce
reporting burden. FTA acknowledges that implementation of some of the
new NTD reporting changes may present challenges for some agencies.
However, FTA does not believe that this warrants a delay in
implementation. FTA reiterates that the changes to cyber security
reporting are clarifications to NTD reporting requirements that already
exist. In addition, FTA reiterates the need to align NTD reporting with
the new definition of ``disabling damage'' under 49 CFR part 674 as
quickly as practicable. As stated previously, FTA will provide guidance
and work closely with reporters as necessary to ensure the transition
to implement these changes is minimally burdensome. FTA encourages
reporters to engage with FTA for any technical assistance or
clarification during the transition. FTA therefore declines to provide
an extension and will implement each change according to the timeline
originally proposed.
FTA acknowledges the recommendations that are outside the scope of
the proposal. FTA will consider this feedback in future updates to the
NTD reporting requirements.
Tariq Bokhari,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-12813 Filed 7-9-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 10, 2025.
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.