[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78431-78449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults 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 [email protected] at least three business days prior to the 
event. If you have any questions, please email [email protected].

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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'': https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-general-directives 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 https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC.

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 https://www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp 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.

(c) Submit Required Information to FTA

    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]]


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

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

    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?

 Yes
 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:

 Operator Area Protective Barriers
 Signage Informing Riders of Surveillance/Penalties
 Personal Security Training
 De-Escalation Training
 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)
 Video/Audio Surveillance
 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)
 Automatic Vehicle Location
 Patrol Strategies (e.g., fare enforcement, security, transit 
police, local law enforcement)
 Communication Protocols (e.g., only request fare payment once)
 Public Awareness Campaigns
 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

 Planned
 In Progress
 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:
 Effective
 Ineffective
 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 https://www.transit.dot.gov/assaults.

[[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 
[email protected]; for legal matters, Heather Ueyama, Attorney-
Advisor, telephone (202) 366-7374 or [email protected].

[FR Doc. 2024-21923 Filed 9-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P