Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans

As Enacted ( Federal Register)

Cited in

Published date	11 April 2024
Record Number	2024-07514
Court	Federal Transit Administration,Transportation Department

25694

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 83

FR 34418 (2018) (Codified at 49 CFR part 673).

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/

07/19/2018-15167/public-transportation-agency-

safety-plan.

Protecting Public Transportation Operators

From the Risk of Assault, 84 FR 24196 (May 24,

2019). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/

2019/05/24/2019-10281/protecting-public-

transportation-operators-from-the-risk-of-assault.

Federal Transit Administration (March 2020).

‘‘Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to

Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and

Passenger Accessibility (Bus Operator

Compartment) Program.’’ https://www.transit.

dot.gov/research-innovation/redesign-transit-bus-

operator-compartment-improve-safety-operational-

efficiency.

Federal Transit Administration (October 2021).

‘‘Enhanced Transit Safety and Crime Prevention

Initiative.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-

and-programs/safety/enhanced-transit-safety-and-

crime-prevention-initiative.

Federal Transit Administration (September

2021). ‘‘Federal Transit Administration Announces

Request for Information on Transit Worker Safety.’’

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/federal-

transit-administration-announces-request-

information-transit-worker-safety.

Federal Transit Administration (October 2023).

‘‘FTA-Sponsored Training Courses.’’ https://

www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/

safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.

Federal Transit Administration (February 17,

2022). ‘‘Dear Colleague Letter: Bipartisan

Infrastructure Law Changes to PTASP

Requirements.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/

public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-

colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 673

[Docket No. FTA–2023–0007]

RIN 2132–AB44

Public Transportation Agency Safety

Plans

AGENCY

: Federal Transit Administration

(FTA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION

: Final rule.

SUMMARY

: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) is publishing a

final rule for Public Transportation

Agency Safety Plans (PTASP). This final

rule includes requirements for Agency

Safety Plans (ASP), Safety Committees,

cooperation with frontline transit

worker representatives in the

development of ASPs, safety risk

reduction programs, safety performance

targets, de-escalation training for certain

transit workers, and addressing

infectious diseases through the Safety

Management System (SMS) process.

This final rule also finalizes revisions to

the regulation to coordinate and align

with other FTA programs and safety

rulemakings.

DATES

: The effective date of this rule is

May 13, 2024.

ADDRESSES

: FTA’s Office of Transit

Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host a

webinar to discuss the requirements of

the Public Transportation Agency Safety

Plans (PTASP) final rule. Visit https://

www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp for more

information and to RSVP. Please visit

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

about future webinars. FTA is

committed to providing equal access for

all webinar participants. If you need

alternative formats, options, or services,

contact FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov at least

three business days prior to the event.

If you have any questions, please email

FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

program matters, contact Stewart Mader,

Office of Transit Safety and Oversight,

(202) 366–9677 or stewart.mader@

dot.gov. For legal matters, contact

Heather Ueyama, Office of Chief

Counsel, (202) 366–7374 or

heather.ueyama@dot.gov.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. FTA Efforts To Address Transit Worker

Safety

B. Statutory Authority

C. Summary of Key Provisions

D. Benefits and Costs

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Response to Comments

A. Section 673.1—Applicability

B. Section 673.5—Definitions

C. Section 673.11—Agency Safety Plans

D. Section 673.13—Certification of

Compliance

E. Section 673.17—Cooperation With

Frontline Transit Worker Representatives

F. Section 673.19—Safety Committee

G. Section 673.20—Safety Risk Reduction

Program

H. Section 673.23—Safety Management

Policy

I. Section 673.25—Safety Risk Management

J. Section 673.27—Safety Assurance

K. Section 673.29—Safety Promotion

L. Section 673.31—Safety Plan

Documentation

M. Other Topics

N. Regulatory Impact Analysis

O. Regulatory Burden

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

This final rule amends the Public

Transportation Agency Safety Plans

(PTASP) regulation at 49 CFR part 673

with new requirements that implement

statutory changes in the Bipartisan

Infrastructure Law, enacted as the

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

(Pub. L. 117–58; November 15, 2021).

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

amends FTA’s safety program at 49

U.S.C. 5329 and adds to the PTASP

requirements for public transportation

systems that receive Federal financial

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53

(Chapter 53). This final rule also builds

on the existing PTASP final rule

published in 2018 to enhance the Safety

Management System (SMS) process and

finalizes revisions to the regulation to

coordinate and align with other FTA

programs and safety rulemakings.

A. FTA Efforts To Address Transit

Worker Safety

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

amended the PTASP requirements by

adding a risk reduction program that

addresses, at a minimum, transit worker

safety and reduction of pedestrian/bus

collisions. Transit worker safety is a top

priority for FTA. Since the previous

PTASP Final Rule became effective in

2019,

FTA has taken a series of actions

to improve transit worker safety and

address the risk of assaults on transit

workers. In 2019, FTA issued a notice

in the Federal Register advising transit

agencies subject to the PTASP

regulation that where instances of

operator assault are identified, transit

agencies should, as required by the

PTASP regulation, take steps to identify

mitigations or strategies necessary to

reduce the likelihood and severity of

occurrences of operator assault.

In 2020, FTA launched the Bus

Operator Compartment Redesign

Program

to improve safety, operational

efficiency, and passenger accessibility.

In 2021, FTA launched the Enhanced

Transit Safety and Crime Prevention

Initiative,

issued a Request for

Information (RFI) on Transit Worker

Safety,

and used its Safety Risk

Management (SRM) process to assess

the safety risk of the potential

consequences of identified hazards

associated with assaults on transit

workers. Also in 2021, the National

Transit Institute began offering Assault

Awareness and Prevention for Transit

training courses sponsored by FTA.

In 2022, shortly after enactment of the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, FTA

issued a Dear Colleague Letter

informing transit agencies of the

statutory changes to PTASP

requirements and establishing

compliance dates for transit agencies to

establish joint labor-management Safety

Committees and revise Agency Safety

Plans (ASP) in cooperation with

frontline employee representatives to

address Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

requirements that strengthen frontline

transit worker involvement in transit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25695

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

National Transit Database Safety and Security

Reporting Changes and Clarifications, 87 FR 42539

(July 15, 2022). https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2022/07/15/2022-15167/national-

transit-database-safety-and-security-reporting-

changes-and-clarifications.

Federal Transit Administration (October 2022).

‘‘Special Directives on Required Actions Regarding

Transit Worker Assault.’’ https://www.transit.

dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-

special-directives#SDTWA.

Federal Transit Administration (December

2022). ‘‘Transit Worker and Rider Safety Best

Practices Research Project.’’ https://www.transit.

dot.gov/funding/grants/TWRS.

National Transit Database Safety and Security

Reporting Changes and Clarifications, 88 FR 11506

(February 23, 2023). https://www.federal

national-transit-database-safety-and-security-

reporting-changes-and-clarifications.

Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 88

FR 25336 (April 26, 2023). https://www.federal

public-transportation-agency-safety-plans.

National Public Transportation Safety Plan, 88

FR 34917 (May 31, 2023). https://www.federal

national-public-transportation-safety-plan.

General Directive 24–1: Required Actions

Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers, 88 FR

88213 (December 20, 2023). https://www.federal

proposed-general-directive-24-1-required-actions-

regarding-assaults-on-transit-workers.

Transit Worker Hours of Service and Fatigue

Risk Management, 88 FR 74107 (October 30, 2023).

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/

10/30/2023-23916/transit-worker-hours-of-service-

and-fatigue-risk-management.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

(2023). Unified Agenda: ‘‘Transit Worker and Public

Safety.’’ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2132-AB47.

Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, 89 FR

20605 (March 25, 2024). https://www.federal

rail-transit-roadway-worker-protection.

safety. FTA also published a notice in

the Federal Register seeking comment

on proposed changes and clarifications

to the National Transit Database (NTD)

Safety and Security (S&S) reporting

requirements,

issued nine Special

Directives on Required Actions

Regarding Transit Worker Assault

transit agencies accounting for 79% of

all transit worker assaults reported to

the NTD, and published a Notice of

Funding Opportunity in the Federal

Rider Safety Best Practices Research

Project.

To implement Bipartisan

Infrastructure Law requirements related

to assaults on transit workers and

vehicular and pedestrian accidents

involving buses, FTA published three

notices in the Federal Register in 2023:

a notice finalizing NTD S&S reporting

requirements to expand reporting,

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

seeking comment on proposed new

PTASP requirements,

and a notice

seeking comment on proposed changes

to the National Public Transportation

Safety Plan (National Safety Plan).

FTA also published a notice in the

Federal Register seeking comment on a

proposed General Directive on Required

Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit

Workers.

In addition, FTA is pursuing

other policy actions on transit worker

safety, including an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)

published in the Federal Register on

Transit Worker Hours of Service and

Fatigue Risk Management,

a planned

NPRM on Transit Worker and Public

Safety (RIN 2132–AB47),

and an

NPRM on Rail Transit Roadway Worker

Protection (RWP) published in the

Federal Register.

B. Statutory Authority

Congress directed FTA to establish a

comprehensive Public Transportation

Safety Program, one element of which is

the requirement for PTASP, in the

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century Act (Pub. L. 112–141; July 6,

2012) (MAP–21), which was

reauthorized by the Fixing America’s

Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L.

114–94; December 4, 2015). To

implement the requirements of 49

U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA issued a final rule

on July 19, 2018, that added part 673,

‘‘Public Transportation Agency Safety

Plans,’’ to title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (83 FR 34418).

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

continues the Public Transportation

Safety Program and adds to the PTASP

requirements for public transportation

systems that receive Federal financial

assistance under chapter 53.

C. Summary of Key Provisions

This rule finalizes FTA’s

implementation of several revisions to

49 U.S.C. 5329(d) enacted through the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,

including:

•Requirements for each recipient

that serves an urbanized area with a

population of fewer than 200,000 (small

urbanized area) to:

ÆDevelop its ASP in cooperation

with frontline employee representatives

(49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B)); and

ÆAddress in its ASP strategies to

minimize exposure to infectious

diseases, consistent with guidelines of

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) or a State health

authority (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).

•Requirements for each recipient of

Urbanized Area Formula Program funds

under section 5307 that serves an

urbanized area with a population of

200,000 or more (large urbanized area)

to:

ÆEstablish a Safety Committee that is

convened by a joint labor-management

process and consists of an equal number

of (1) frontline employee

representatives, selected by a labor

organization representing the plurality

of the frontline workforce employed by

the recipient or, if applicable, a

contractor to the recipient, to the extent

frontline employees are represented by

labor organizations; and (2) management

representatives. (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)).

This Safety Committee has

responsibility, at a minimum, for:

DApproving the transit agency’s ASP

and any updates to the ASP before

approval by the agency’s Board of

Directors or equivalent entity (49 U.S.C.

5329(d)(1)(A));

DSetting safety performance targets

for the safety risk reduction program

using a three-year rolling average of the

data submitted by the transit agency to

the NTD (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A));

DIdentifying and recommending risk-

based mitigations or strategies necessary

to reduce the likelihood and severity of

consequences identified through the

agency’s safety risk assessment (49

U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(I));

DIdentifying mitigations or strategies

that may be ineffective, inappropriate,

or were not implemented as intended

(49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)); and

DIdentifying safety deficiencies for

purposes of continuous improvement

(49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(III)).

ÆEstablish a safety risk reduction

program for transit operations to

improve safety by reducing the number

and rates of accidents, injuries, and

assaults on transit workers based on

data submitted to the NTD, including:

DA reduction of vehicular and

pedestrian accidents involving buses

that includes measures to reduce

visibility impairments for bus operators

that contribute to accidents, including

retrofits to buses in revenue service and

specifications for future procurements

that reduce visibility impairments; and

DThe mitigation of assaults on transit

workers, including the deployment of

assault mitigation infrastructure and

technology on buses, including barriers

to restrict the unwanted entry of

individuals and objects into bus

operator workstations when a risk

analysis performed by the Safety

Committee determines that such barriers

or other measures would reduce assaults

on and injuries to transit workers (49

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I)).

ÆAllocate not less than 0.75 percent

of its section 5307 funds to safety-

related projects eligible under section

5307 (safety set-aside). In the event the

transit agency fails to meet a safety risk

reduction program safety performance

target:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25696

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

DAllocate the transit agency’s safety

set-aside in the following fiscal year to

projects that are reasonably likely to

assist the agency in meeting the target,

including modifications to rolling stock

and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C.

5329(d)(4)).

ÆEnsure the agency’s comprehensive

staff training program includes

maintenance personnel and de-

escalation training (49 U.S.C.

5329(d)(1)(H)(ii)).

ÆAddress in its ASP strategies to

minimize exposure to infectious

diseases, consistent with guidelines of

the CDC or a State health authority (49

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).

Many of FTA’s proposals from the

NPRM are finalized without change. In

response to comments, FTA made

minor, non-substantive changes to

§ 673.5 related to the terms ‘‘injury,’’

‘‘performance target,’’ and ‘‘safety

performance target.’’

In addition, the final rule includes

amended requirements related to the

role of the Safety Committee, Safety

Committee procedures, the role of the

Accountable Executive, and the safety

risk reduction program.

In response to comments, FTA has

made minor changes to the Safety

Committee requirements in § 673.19.

These changes provide additional

clarity and specificity regarding Safety

Committee procedures. FTA has revised

§ 673.19(c)(2) to provide that Safety

Committee procedures must address

how meeting notices will be developed

and shared. FTA added a requirement at

§ 673.19(c)(4) that Safety Committee

procedures include the compensation

policy established by the transit agency

for participation in Safety Committee

meetings. In this provision, FTA is not

requiring transit agencies to compensate

members of the Safety Committee;

rather, it is requiring the transit agency

to adopt a policy regarding Safety

Committee compensation and that the

Safety Committee procedures include

the policy the transit agency has

adopted.

In response to comments, FTA also

has revised §§ 673.19(c)(6) and (c)(8) to

clarify that the Safety Committee

procedures must document the Safety

Committee’s decision-making processes

and to clarify that FTA is not requiring

Safety Committees to make decisions

through any specific voting

mechanisms. Regarding Safety

Committee disputes, FTA has revised

§ 673.19(c)(8) to clarify that the ASP

must include procedures for how the

Safety Committee will manage disputes

to ensure that it carries out its

operations, and may use the dispute

resolution or arbitration process from

the transit agency’s Collective

Bargaining Agreement, or some other

process that the Safety Committee

develops and agrees upon. The

Accountable Executive, however, may

not have a tiebreaking role in resolving

Safety Committee disputes, because that

would be inconsistent with the statutory

requirements relating to the roles of

Safety Committees. Additionally, FTA

strengthened the focus of the provisions

on cooperation with frontline transit

workers by grouping requirements for

Safety Committees and Cooperation

with Frontline Transit Worker

Representatives into a single Subpart C,

titled ‘‘Safety Committees and

Cooperation with Frontline Transit

Worker Representatives.’’

In response to comments from across

the spectrum of stakeholders expressing

confusion about the safety risk

reduction program and seeking clarity

on the relationship between the safety

risk reduction program and SMS, FTA

has eliminated the proposed § 673.20 as

a standalone section, and has moved the

safety risk reduction program

requirements originally proposed under

§ 673.20 to other sections of the rule.

This reorganization better reflects how

the required safety risk reduction

program activities are carried out using

existing components of SMS.

Requirements that pertain to

establishing the safety risk reduction

program, general safety risk reduction

program elements, and setting safety

performance targets are now included in

§ 673.11, which identifies items that

transit agencies must include in their

ASPs. Requirements for carrying out the

safety risk reduction program using

SMS processes are in § 673.25, which

now addresses safety risk reduction

program requirements associated with

Safety Risk Management, and § 673.27,

which now includes safety risk

reduction program requirements

associated with Safety Assurance. By

moving these requirements into the

relevant SMS-related components of the

regulation, FTA provides clear

requirements for transit agencies to

leverage existing SMS processes to

support the safety risk reduction

program. FTA confirms that the safety

risk reduction program operates within

an SMS and not outside of it or in

conflict with it. Also in response to

comments, FTA has clarified the

requirements for large urbanized area

providers and their Safety Committees

to consider specific safety risk

mitigations, including when the agency

misses a safety performance target set by

the Safety Committee.

Further, in response to comments and

pursuant to statute, the final rule

requires transit agencies to include or

incorporate by reference into the ASP

any safety risk mitigations relating to

the safety risk reduction program that

are identified and recommended by a

large urbanized area provider’s Safety

Committee based on a safety risk

assessment. These requirements are

described in §§ 673.11(a)(7)(iv) and

673.25(d)(5). The Bipartisan

Infrastructure Law requires at 49 U.S.C.

5329(d)(1)(I) that the ASP must include

the safety risk reduction program, and

that the safety risk reduction program

must include mitigations, including (1)

measures to reduce visibility

impairments for bus operators that

contribute to accidents, including

retrofits to vehicles in revenue service

and specifications for future

procurements that reduce visibility

impairments; and (2) the deployment of

assault mitigation infrastructure and

technology on buses. Accordingly, the

statute requires the ASP to include these

mitigations. The Safety Committee is

tasked with identifying and

recommending safety risk mitigations

necessary to reduce the likelihood and

severity of consequences identified

through the agency’s safety risk

assessment. Therefore, as noted above,

FTA is including the requirement that

the ASP include safety risk mitigations

related to the safety risk reduction

program that are identified and

recommended by the Safety Committee

based on a safety risk assessment.

In response to comments,

§ 673.23(d)(1) clarifies the role of the

Accountable Executive regarding

implementation of mitigations

recommended by the Safety Committee.

The Accountable Executive must

implement safety risk mitigations for the

safety risk reduction program that are

included in the ASP under

§ 673.11(a)(7)(iv). Given that the

Accountable Executive has ultimate

responsibility for carrying out the

agency’s ASP pursuant to § 673.5, the

Accountable Executive is responsible

for carrying out any mitigations

included in the ASP.

In response to comments,

§ 673.23(d)(1) provides that the

Accountable Executive of a large

urbanized area provider receives and

must consider all other safety risk

mitigations (i.e., mitigations not related

to the safety risk reduction program)

that are recommended by the Safety

Committee. As described in

§ 673.25(d)(6), if the Accountable

Executive declines to implement such a

mitigation, the Accountable Executive

must prepare a written statement

explaining its decision and must submit

and present this explanation to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25697

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 88

FR 25336 (April 26, 2023). https://www.federal

public-transportation-agency-safety-plans.

Safety Committee and the Board of

Directors.

D. Benefits and Costs

Most provisions in the final rule

implement self-enacting statutory

amendments made by the Bipartisan

Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329,

although some provisions are

discretionary. The discretionary

provisions include extending the de-

escalation training requirement to all

transit agencies subject to part 673, as

well as requiring small public

transportation providers to establish

continuous improvement processes.

The requirements for de-escalation

training and continuous improvement

processes are predicted to reduce the

risk of fatalities and injuries for transit

workers, passengers, drivers, and

pedestrians if transit agencies adopt

safety risk mitigations that they would

not have adopted otherwise. While FTA

expects that agencies will be more likely

to adopt safety risk mitigations to

reduce the risk of transit worker assault

and bus collisions, it does not have

information to quantify or monetize

potential benefits.

Agencies will incur costs to meet the

requirements for de-escalation training

and continuous improvement processes.

FTA will also incur costs to notify

agencies, update technical assistance

resources, and conduct training,

although the expected costs are

minimal.

Table 1 summarizes the economic

effects of the discretionary provisions in

the final rule over the first ten years

from 2024 to 2033 in 2021 dollars,

assuming an effective date of 2024. On

an annualized basis (discounted to

2023), the rule has estimated costs of

$642,000 at a 3 percent discount rate

and $635,000 at 7 percent. To quantify

benefits and assess net benefits, FTA

would need information on the specific

safety interventions transit agencies

would adopt to address the

requirements.

ABLE

1—S

UMMARY OF

CONOMIC

FFECTS FOR

ISCRETIONARY

ULEMAKING

ROVISIONS

, 2024–2033

[$2021, discounted to 2023]

Item Total

(undiscounted) Annualized

(3% discount) Annualized

(7% discount)

Benefits ................................................................................................................................ Unquantified .......................... ..........................

Costs:

De-escalation training ................................................................................................... $584,925 $59,040 $59,803

Continuous improvement processes ............................................................................ $5,881,933 582,913 575,558

Total costs ............................................................................................................. $6,466,858 641,954 635,362

Net benefits ........................................................................................................... Unquantified .......................... ..........................

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Response to Comments

FTA issued an NPRM for Public

Transportation Agency Safety Plans on

April 26, 2023 (88 FR 25336).

The

public comment period for the NPRM

closed on June 26, 2023. FTA received

53 comment submissions to the

rulemaking docket, including one that

contained individual comments from 26

local transit unions. Commenters

included States, members of Congress,

transit agencies, labor organizations,

trade associations, and individuals. FTA

also received comments relevant to this

rulemaking through the National Safety

Plan docket (FTA–2023–0010). FTA has

considered these comments and

addresses them in the corresponding

sections below. FTA also received ex

parte comments about the rulemaking,

which are summarized in the

rulemaking docket. FTA addresses these

comments in the corresponding sections

below. Some comments were outside

the scope of this rulemaking, and FTA

does not respond to comments in this

final rule that were outside the scope.

Some comments expressed support for

the NPRM without advocating for

specific changes, and FTA

acknowledges those comments were

received and considered.

FTA reviewed all relevant comments

and took them into consideration when

developing the final rule. Below, the

NPRM comments and responses are

subdivided by their corresponding

sections of the proposed rule and

subject matter.

A. Section 673.1—Applicability

1. Funding Sources

Comments: Two commenters

supported FTA’s proposal to continue

existing exemptions for operators of

public transportation systems that

receive only Federal financial assistance

under 49 U.S.C. 5310 or 49 U.S.C. 5311.

One commenter requested additional

clarification on applicability for

operators who cease to meet the

applicability criteria in § 673.1 but

already have an ASP in place due to

prior applicability.

One commenter recommended that

applicability, particularly the

requirement to create Safety

Committees, should include operators

that do not receive section 5307

funding, but that receive other funds or

subsidy credit from a section 5307

recipient.

Response: FTA appreciates the

comments that it received supporting

the proposed revisions to the

applicability section of this rule. As

described in the NPRM, these revisions

clarify FTA’s existing practice regarding

PTASP applicability. Accordingly, FTA

will continue to defer regulatory action

regarding the applicability of this

regulation to operators of public

transportation systems that only receive

section 5310 and/or section 5311 funds.

This final rule does not apply to an

operator of a public transportation

system that receives Federal financial

assistance under only 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49

U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and

49 U.S.C. 5311, unless it operates a rail

fixed guideway public transportation

system.

FTA disagrees with the need to

further clarify applicability for operators

whose funding sources change. For non-

rail fixed guideway public

transportation systems, the final

regulation applies only to operators that

are recipients or subrecipients of

Urbanized Area Formula Funding

(section 5307) funds.

Similarly, FTA disagrees with the

commenter who suggested that

operators of public transportation

systems who do not receive section

5307 funds but receive other types of

funds or subsidies from a section 5307

recipient should automatically be

required to meet the requirements of the

regulation. FTA continues to apply the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25698

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Transit Administration (April 2024).

‘‘National Public Transportation Safety Plan.’’

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

existing definitions of recipient and

subrecipient. Accordingly, if a transit

agency is a recipient or subrecipient of

section 5307 funding, this regulation

applies. The final rule does not change

any existing PTASP requirements

regarding applicability.

2. Publication Timing

Comments: One commenter

recommended that FTA publish its final

rules for part 673, part 674, and the

updated National Safety Plan

simultaneously in order to ensure

consistency across programs and that

safety performance targets under part

673 are consistent with the performance

measures set forth in the revised

National Safety Plan.

Response: FTA appreciates the

commenter’s concern regarding the

sequencing of publications, including

for part 673 and the National Public

Transportation Safety Plan (National

Safety Plan).

FTA’s National Safety

Plan defines safety performance

measures that transit agencies use to set

the performance targets required under

part 673. FTA has ensured consistency

between this final rule and the National

Safety Plan, and FTA believes that both

updates support the advancement of

safety performance measurement by

providing transit agencies what they

need to set safety performance targets.

FTA also understands the concern

regarding the importance of consistency

across FTA’s safety program. FTA will

take this into consideration and ensure

consistency across parts as it develops

its rulemaking for part 674, but due to

rulemaking requirements, schedules,

and resources, FTA is unable to publish

both rulemakings simultaneously.

3. Modal Requirements

Comments: A rail transit agency

(RTA) requested greater differentiation

among requirements for specific types of

rail fixed guideway public

transportation systems (RFGPTS), such

as streetcar and light rail systems.

Response: FTA appreciates the

functional differences among types of

RFGPTS and agrees that regulatory

requirements should reflect those key

differences as appropriate. FTA notes

that this regulation is based on the

principles of SMS, which are scalable

and flexible for public transportation

operators of varying types and sizes.

FTA therefore disagrees that

requirements relating to RFGPTS in this

final rule are significantly impacted by

the type of RFGPTS in operation.

The National Safety Plan establishes

safety performance measures for all

modes of transportation. This directly

reflects statutory language in 49 U.S.C.

5329(b)(2)(A), which requires FTA to set

safety performance criteria in the

National Safety Plan by mode. FTA

notes that nothing in this final rule or

in the National Safety Plan prevents a

transit agency from establishing

additional safety performance targets

with greater specificity than required in

the National Safety Plan (e.g.,

establishing separate safety performance

targets for streetcar and light rail

systems).

B. Section 673.5—Definitions

1. General

Comments: A few commenters

expressed concern with the potential for

conflicting definitions across FTA’s

regulatory framework and associated

requirements, with some urging FTA to

ensure terms are consistent across FTA’s

safety regulations and the NTD. Another

of these commenters recommended that

FTA restate definitions within the rule

rather than referencing statutory or

regulatory provisions.

Two commenters expressed support

for FTA’s proposed definitions, with

one specifically noting support for the

revised definitions of ‘‘small public

transportation provider’’ and ‘‘assault

on a transit worker.’’

One commenter stated that changing

or deleting definitions would have a

significant impact on training materials

and expressed concern with the cost of

updating these materials.

One commenter expressed concern

that the provided definitions lack the

specificity required to address safety

concerns in ASPs that are manageable

and effective. They also stated that any

new definitions should be congruent

with State and local statutes.

Response: FTA agrees that consistent

definitions and requirements are

important across its safety program and

associated regulatory framework. FTA

has taken such consistency into

consideration in finalizing this final rule

and the National Safety Plan, and will

standardize relevant definitions in part

674, the forthcoming Roadway Worker

Protection rulemaking, and NTD

reporting requirements. In response to

the commenter that recommended FTA

restate definitions within the rule rather

than referencing statutory or regulatory

provisions, FTA notes that referencing

statutory or other regulatory provisions

ensures consistency and avoids conflicts

in instances where associated statutes or

regulations are revised. In most

instances, FTA has chosen to reference

statutory or regulatory provisions,

except when FTA believes that restating

the definition is necessary for clarity, as

it has done for the definition of ‘‘assault

on a transit worker.’’

FTA appreciates the support received

regarding the definitions of ‘‘small

public transportation provider’’ and

‘‘assault on a transit worker.’’

FTA acknowledges that, as with any

regulatory update, the definitional

changes adopted in this final rule may

necessitate an update of training

materials to address these changes. FTA

will aim to provide guidance and other

technical assistance regarding the

changes adopted in this rule to assist

agencies with understanding and

adapting to them.

FTA appreciates the commenter’s

concern regarding the specificity of

definitions in this rule and how FTA’s

definitions may differ from State or

local statutes. The definitions

introduced here are designed to be

sufficiently specific to facilitate

compliance without being so restrictive

that they interfere with an agency’s

ability to appropriately scale their SMS

to the size and complexity of their

transit system. Further, it is not feasible

for FTA to accommodate all potential

State and local statutory definitions in

this rulemaking. FTA therefore declines

to make any changes in response to this

comment.

2. Accountable Executive

Comments: Three commenters

recommended that FTA revise the

definition of ‘‘Accountable Executive’’

to express that the Accountable

Executive has ultimate accountability

for and authority over the Agency Safety

Plan (ASP), including veto power over

anything contained in the ASP. One

commenter recommended that FTA

specify that the Accountable Executive

must have transit mode and safety

qualifications.

Response: FTA declines to revise the

definition. The Accountable Executive’s

ultimate accountability for the agency’s

safety performance, which includes

execution of the ASP, is affirmed in

§ 673.23(d)(1). As explained in Section

II.F.5. of this preamble, the rule does not

establish Accountable Executive veto

power over the contents of the ASP. The

Accountable Executive’s role is to sign

the ASP and to ensure that the ASP and

the agency’s SMS process is carried out.

FTA declines to establish specific

qualifications for Accountable

Executives because the rule clearly

defines the responsibilities of the

Accountable Executive. Transit agencies

will ultimately define the qualifications

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25699

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Transit Administration (October 2023).

‘‘Recent NTD Developments—Frequently Asked

Questions.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/recent-

ntd-developments-frequently-asked-questions.

Federal Transit Administration (August 2023).

‘‘2023 NTD Safety and Security Reporting Policy

Manual.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/2023-ntd-

safety-and-security-reporting-policy-manual.

Federal Transit Administration (August 2023).

‘‘Safety & Security Quick Reference Guide: Rail

Modes.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/safety-

security-quick-reference-guides.

Federal Transit Administration (August 2023).

‘‘Safety & Security Quick Reference Guide: Non-Rail

Modes.’’ https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/safety-

security-quick-reference-guide-non-rail-modes.

National Transit Institute (April 2023).

‘‘Webinar: NTD Safety Reporting Requirements

Update: Assaults on Transit Workers.’’ https://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeB3RXCl6oQ.

National Transit Institute. ‘‘National Transit

Database: Urban Safety & Security Reporting Rail

Modes.’’ https://www.ntionline.com/national-

transit-database-urban-safety-security-rail/.

National Transit Institute. ‘‘National Transit

Database: Urban Safety & Security Reporting Non-

Rail Modes.’’ https://www.ntionline.com/national-

transit-database-urban-safety-and-security-

reporting-non-rail-modes/.

National Transit Institute. ‘‘National Transit

Database: Rural NTD Reporting.’’ https://

www.ntionline.com/rural-ntd-reporting/.

required for their Accountable

Executive.

3. Assault on a Transit Worker

Comments: Seven commenters

expressed concerns about the breadth of

the definition of ‘‘assault on a transit

worker.’’ Two of these commenters

requested that FTA narrow the

definition to physical assaults. They

stated that, by collecting non-violent

offenses, FTA could skew the data and

make it more difficult for agencies to

address these assaults. For this reason,

the same commenters recommended

FTA limit the definition’s applicability

to NTD reporting. Another of these

commenters stated that, by

characterizing verbal abuse as an

assault, transit agencies could

experience an increase in applications

for workers’ compensation. One

commenter requested clarification and

coordination between this definition

and the definition of ‘‘non-physical

assault’’ in the NTD.

One of the commenters requested

additional guidance on the definition’s

use of the terms ‘‘knowingly,’’ ‘‘with

intent,’’ and ‘‘interferes with’’ due to

concerns about the difficulty of

applying these factors in some

situations. Similarly, four commenters

requested that FTA provide guidance on

the types of events that constitute an

assault on a transit worker. Two of these

commenters recommended that FTA

provide examples either in the final rule

or in NTD guidance materials. One of

these commenters requested that FTA

implement a ‘‘grace period’’ for NTD

assault reporting requirements and

PTASP safety risk reduction program

performance measures until FTA

develops clear guidance on the

application of the term. This commenter

expressed that the definition is

ambiguous and leads to undue

administrative burden.

Five commenters stated that the

definition of assault used in this rule is

not congruent with state criminal

statutes, noting that this will create

confusion and uncertainty about its

application. One of these commenters

further questioned why this definition

was created when prosecution for

assaults on transit workers is generally

conducted at a local, not a Federal, level

and suggested that these assaults should

be tracked by the Transportation

Security Administration (TSA) instead.

Another commenter suggested that FTA

consider using a different word than

‘‘assault’’ due to differences with state

statutory definitions.

One commenter stated that the

definition of assault varies, even within

one transit agency, which leads to

administrative burden and confusion for

an agency’s safety, dispatch, and law

enforcement personnel. The same

commenter stated the incongruity

between the rule and the state criminal

statutory definition may lead law

enforcement to mistakenly direct

dispatchers not to report an assault as

defined by FTA.

One commenter asked whether

assaults on a transit worker should be

considered safety or security events.

Response: FTA notes that 49 U.S.C.

5329(d) explicitly uses the term ‘‘assault

on a transit worker,’’ as defined by 49

U.S.C. 5302, when setting forth certain

PTASP requirements. For this reason,

FTA is adopting the statutory definition

verbatim. The statutory definition does

not exclude non-physical assaults,

verbal assaults, or non-violent assaults.

As such, FTA declines to exclude these

events from the definition.

FTA acknowledges that the collection

of non-physical assault events may

increase the assault on transit worker

data that transit agencies collect. FTA

notes that the NTD has initiated the

collection of non-physical assaults on

transit workers data and that this rule

utilizes the same definition of assault on

a transit worker used by the NTD. This

definitional alignment provides

important consistency across the PTASP

and NTD programs.

FTA appreciates the comments

requesting additional guidance from

FTA about the definition of ‘‘assault on

a transit worker’’ and how it should be

applied. The NTD program serves as

FTA’s system for collection of assaults

on transit worker reporting

requirements. FTA communicates

reporting requirements to the NTD

reporting community through (1) annual

messaging around updates to reporting

requirements, (2) regular

communications with reporters (both

through the system’s blast messaging

and between the reporter and their

assigned validation analyst), (3) an

updated FAQ section

on the FTA

website specific to assaults on transit

workers, and (4) updates to guidance

and training. The NTD program has

developed several training opportunities

and guidance materials to help agencies

address the new assaults on transit

worker reporting requirements. The

2023 NTD Safety and Security Reporting

Policy Manual

provides detailed

guidance about safety and security

reporting, including assaults on transit

workers. In addition, the 2023 Safety

and Security Quick Reference Guide:

Rail Modes

and Safety and Security

Quick Reference Guide: Non-Rail

Modes

define reportable events and

identify reporting thresholds. A webinar

on 2023 Safety & Security Updates:

Reporting Assaults on Transit

Workers,

was provided to the public

on April 27, 2023, and is available for

viewing online. Finally, there are

several courses offered by the National

Transit Institute pertaining to 2023

safety reporting for full reporters (rail

and non-rail

) as well as reduced

reporters.

FTA disagrees that a ‘‘grace period’’

for safety risk reduction program

performance measures and reporting

assaults on transit workers to the NTD

is necessary and notes that the NTD has

already begun collecting data on

assaults on transit workers from the

transit industry.

Regarding concerns about

inconsistencies with the State law

definitions of ‘‘assault,’’ FTA’s proposed

definition of ‘‘assault on a transit

worker’’ is the same as the Federal

statutory definition at 49 U.S.C. 5302.

Although this definition potentially

differs from State law and from transit

agency definitions, FTA is adopting this

definition to ensure the definition used

for the purposes of this rule is

consistent with the statute.

FTA appreciates that some transit

agencies treat assault on a transit worker

as both a safety and a security event.

Congress directed FTA to address

assaults on transit workers through both

the NTD and FTA’s safety program as

part of FTA’s work to improve safety at

transit systems across the country. This

final rule carries out the Congressional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25700

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

mandate to address assaults on transit

workers through the PTASP regulation.

FTA is adopting this definition as

proposed.

4. Chief Safety Officer

Comments: One commenter requested

that FTA revise the definition of ‘‘Chief

Safety Officer’’ to remove the phrase

‘‘adequately trained individual’’ and

instead require the Chief Safety Officer

have transit modal and safety

competencies, credentials, training, and

experience.

Response: FTA declines to revise the

definition and does not have discretion

to remove the requirement for the Chief

Safety Officer to be ‘‘adequately

trained,’’ as it is required by statute at

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G). FTA believes

that the transit agency is the entity best

situated to define adequate training. For

operators of RFGPTS, the relevant SSOA

may establish additional training

requirements.

5. Emergency

Comments: Two commenters

disagreed with the proposed definition

of ‘‘emergency’’ and expressed concern

that the definition may lead to

confusion because the term

‘‘emergency’’ is commonly used to

include incidents outside the scope of

the proposed definition (e.g., medical

emergencies). One of these commenters

noted that FTA’s proposed definition is

similar to an ‘‘Act of God’’ and

recommended that if this is the intent,

FTA should utilize the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) definition of ‘‘emergency.’’

Response: FTA agrees that the term

‘‘emergency’’ may have definitions other

than the one presented in the NPRM.

The definition used in the NPRM

mirrors the statutory definition in 49

U.S.C. 5324 and its use in this final rule

synchronizes definitions within FTA’s

programs. Further, FTA believes this

definition is appropriate for purposes of

establishing the minimum required

scope of the emergency preparedness

and response plan or procedures

required in § 673.11(a)(6)(i). FTA notes

that transit agencies are free to develop

emergency preparedness and response

plans or procedures that cover a broader

set of situations.

6. Equivalent Entity

Comments: One commenter requested

more information about the use of the

term ‘‘equivalent entity’’ and how it

relates to the term ‘‘Equivalent

Authority.’’

Response: The term ‘‘equivalent

entity’’ is used in this final regulation as

a one-to-one replacement for the term

‘‘Equivalent Authority.’’ FTA made this

change to conform with the statutory

term used in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A).

FTA does not intend this change to be

substantive.

7. Hazard

Comments: One commenter requested

clarification on the difference between a

safety hazard and a hazard.

Response: FTA uses these two terms

interchangeably. There is no substantive

difference between FTA’s use of these

terms. For clarity, FTA has revised the

rule to use ‘‘hazard’’ in place of ‘‘safety

hazard.’’

8. Investigation

Comments: One transit agency stated

that the definition of ‘‘investigation’’

implies that an investigation would only

occur after a safety event has occurred

and asked whether the definition also

includes near-miss or close-call

incidents. Further, the commenter

recommended an alternative definition

that includes near-misses and that states

that investigations may serve the

purpose of preventing the occurrence of

potential consequences, rather than

merely their recurrence.

Response: In both the NPRM and this

final rule, FTA includes both hazards

and safety events in its definition of

‘‘investigation.’’ The definition does not

exclude investigations of hazards that

may have resulted in a near-miss.

9. Joint Labor-Management Process

Comments: One commenter suggested

that FTA should revise the definition of

‘‘joint labor-management process’’ to

mean the formal approach for

conducting the responsibilities of the

Safety Committee established under 49

U.S.C. 5329(d). Another commenter

opposed defining this term as a process

to ‘‘discuss topics,’’ stating that

establishing a Safety Committee consists

of more than just discussion. In

addition, this commenter requested that

FTA include a requirement for workers

and management to make democratic

decisions and for agencies to

incorporate the committee’s structure

and rules into ASPs.

Response: The term ‘‘joint labor-

management process’’ is used only in

§ 673.19(a), which sets forth the

responsibilities for a Safety Committee

established in 49 U.S.C. 5329. Because

of this limited usage, FTA does not

believe it is necessary to further address

the Safety Committee in the definition

of ‘‘joint labor-management process.’’

FTA agrees with the commenter that

establishing and operating a Safety

Committee consists of more than just

discussion. FTA does not believe the

definition of ‘‘joint labor-management

process’’ limits the role of the Safety

Committee. FTA notes that § 673.19

defines the Safety Committee

requirements and responsibilities,

including requirements directly related

to establishment, membership,

procedures, and ASP approval. Further,

FTA specifically addresses Safety

Committee decision-making at

§ 673.19(c)(6). FTA refers readers to

section II.F. of this preamble below for

additional discussion about Safety

Committee procedures and decision-

making. As such, FTA declines to revise

the definition of ‘‘joint labor-

management process.’’

10. Near-Miss

Comments: Two commenters stated

that FTA should not use the word

‘‘narrowly’’ in its definition of ‘‘near-

miss,’’ as each transit agency may

interpret that word differently. One

commenter also noted that transit

agencies typically define ‘‘near-miss’’

differently in the bus and rail contexts

and requested that the definition clarify

this. Four commenters provided

alternative language for inclusion in the

definition to narrow its scope,

expressing concern that FTA’s language

is too broad and does not align with

how some transit agencies categorize

near-miss incidents. One commenter

requested that FTA either clarify the

types of narrowly avoided safety events

captured in the definition of ‘‘near-

miss’’ or alternatively, delete the

definition. Another commenter

recommended FTA ensure ‘‘near-miss’’

is defined the same way in State Safety

Oversight (SSO) Program guidance so

that all SSOAs interpret the term

consistently.

Response: FTA appreciates the

comments regarding the definition of

‘‘near-miss’’ and has thoroughly

considered each suggestion. FTA

acknowledges that transit agencies may

interpret the word ‘‘narrowly’’

differently. However, FTA disagrees that

defining or removing ‘‘narrowly’’ from

the definition of ‘‘near-miss’’ is

appropriate. FTA believes that it is

important to give transit agencies

flexibility to have different definitions

of ‘‘narrowly’’ as it pertains to near-

misses depending on the kind of

narrowly avoided event. For example,

an agency may decide that ‘‘narrowly’’

has a broader definition when

identifying near-misses between transit

vehicles and pedestrians than it does

when identifying low-speed transit

vehicle to transit vehicle collision-

related near-misses in the yard.

FTA disagrees that the definition of

‘‘near-miss’’ is insufficient. Any safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR2.SGM 11APR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

25701

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Highway Administration (July 2022).

‘‘Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for

Streets and Highways.’’ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm.

event, also defined in this rule, that is

narrowly avoided is considered a ‘‘near-

miss’’ under this definition. FTA

acknowledges the comments

recommending that FTA narrow the

scope of the ‘‘near-miss’’ definition

because it does not align with how some

commenters currently categorize near-

miss incidents or because it does not

sufficiently distinguish application

within rail and bus operating

environments. FTA does not believe it

should revise the definition to narrow

the scope or specify mode-specific

applications. As noted previously, the

term as defined in the final rule offers

transit agencies flexibility. As written,

transit agencies have the flexibility to

apply the definition based on their

operating environments.

Further, FTA notes that the term

‘‘near-miss’’ is used only at § 673.23(b)

where FTA identifies types of safety

concerns that workers should be able to

report through a transit worker safety

reporting program. FTA disagrees with

revising the definition, as it may limit

the concerns that transit workers report

through a transit worker safety reporting

program. FTA may consider providing

examples through technical assistance.

While application of the term may vary

across transit applications, FTA believes

the term as defined is valid and useful.

Finally, FTA appreciates the comment

recommending consistency with SSO

Program guidance. FTA will consider

this recommendation when finalizing 49

CFR part 674.

11. Performance Target/Safety

Performance Target

Comment: An SSOA commenter

requested that FTA clarify the difference

between ‘‘performance target’’ and

‘‘safety performance target’’ and

questioned whether both definitions are

necessary. This commenter also

requested that, for clarity, FTA revise

the definition of ‘‘safety performance

target’’ to combine elements of both

definitions.

Response: FTA agrees with the

commenter and has deleted the

definition of ‘‘performance target’’ and

revised the definition of ‘‘safety

performance target’’ to combine

elements of both definitions.

12. Potential Consequence

Comments: Two commenters

requested additional language clarifying

the definition of ‘‘potential

consequence.’’

Another commenter expressed

confusion about the word ‘‘potential’’

and asked for clarification as to whether

the definition refers to outcomes.

Response: FTA appreciates the

request for additional language but

believes that the term ‘‘potential

consequence’’ is sufficient as defined in

this rule as the effect (or outcome) of a

hazard. FTA will consider technical

assistance in the future on this subject.

13. Rail Fixed Guideway Public

Transportation Systems

Comment: One commenter expressed

concern that the definition of ‘‘Rail

Fixed Guideway Public Transportation

System’’ conflicts with the definition of

‘‘fixed guideway’’ in 49 U.S.C. 5302.

The commenter requested that FTA add

a definition of ‘‘fixed guideway’’ that

includes bus rapid transit and people

mover systems, and asked FTA to clarify

whether overhead fixed catenary and

passenger ferry systems are covered by

the definition.

Response: The definition of ‘‘Rail

Fixed Guideway Public Transportation

System’’ is explicitly limited to fixed

guideway systems that use rail and are

under the jurisdiction of an SSOA (see

49 U.S.C. 5329(e)). The only revision

that FTA proposed to this definition

was to clarify existing language

regarding systems in engineering or

construction. This is a non-substantive