Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 78431 

1Please 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. 

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 nationallevel 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 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: 

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. 

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 labormanagement 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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/regulationsand-guidance/safety/fta-generaldirectives 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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/PTASPTAC. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 SArelated 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 costeffective 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 wellbeing. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 deescalation 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 selfassessments 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 antiassault 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 labormanagement 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 antiassault 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 Committeerelated 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN25SE24.000</GPH>

5 Very High 

4 High 

Ukellhood 3 Modttrm 

2 Low 

1 Very I.ow 

Nttlitlble 

A 

Maycaua Maycause 

Could cause minor injury, severe Injury 

mlnorfim or minor or major 

aid property proparty 

trntment dama,e damage 

8 C D 

MaycauN 

death or 

parmanent 

injury or 

destruction of 

oparty 

E 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 selfdefense 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 highlevel understanding of mitigation 

implementation status. 

Another transit agency commenter 

argued that the proposed questions 

capturing information on mitigation 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 deescalation 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, postincident 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 reassessment 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
78446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 labormanagement 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN25SE24.001</GPH>

5 ·VeryHtch 

4 tffch 

Ukeflhood a 

2. Low 

J. Very low 

Nqll1ibht 

A 

Could cause May cause May cause 

minor first minor injury, severe Injury 

aid or minor or major 

·treatment property prqpetty ma1• damqe 

B C 

Save 

D 

Maycause 

duthor 

permanent 

injury or 

dmructlon of 
78448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 

• 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. 

• 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 labormanagement 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 ratelimiting 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN25SE24.002</GPH>

5 V.ryHi1h 

4 Hflh 

Ukellhood s Moderate 

2 Low 

1 V.ryt.ow 

N91lflible 

A 

Could cause May cause May cause 

minor first minor injury, severe injury 

aid or minor or major 

treatment property property 

dama1e dam91e 

B C 

Seve 

D 

Maycause 

duthor 

permanent 

injury or 

destruction of 

property 

E 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Notices 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 

Stewart.Mader@dot.gov; for legal 

matters, Heather Ueyama, AttorneyAdvisor, telephone (202) 366–7374 or 

Heather.Ueyama@dot.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21923 Filed 9–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1