# Presentation: 112230

## The Australian Approach to Fatigue Management: Context and Details

***Michael Coplen, M.A.,***
*Co-Chair, HFCC Operator Fatigue Management Initiative*
*Federal Railroad Administration*
***Stephen Popkin, Ph.D.***
*Co-Chair, HFCC Operator Fatigue Management Initiative *
*Volpe Center*
*April 22, 2003*
*Washington, DC*

## Overview

- Why Australia?
- Evaluation Questions
- Fatigue Context Factors in the Australian Railroad Industry
- Principles and Philosophy of the Australian Approach OH&S Framework
- Perceived benefits and current challenges
- Next Steps

**Human Factors R&D Program**
**Office of Research and Development**

## Background: History of SleepAnd Fatigue Research

- Pre-1930’s – Sleep seen as a subjective state
- 1930’s – EEG objective measures of sleep
- 1954 – Discovery of REM Sleep
- 1960’s – Medical focus on sleep research
- 1970’s – Explosion of research on sleep, performance and fatigue
- 1983 – Congressional Hearings on Biological Clocks and Shiftwork Scheduling
- Post 1984 – Federal Investigations of “fatigue” accidents
- Wiggins, CO, 1984 		 – Woodford, CA, 1994
- Newcastle, WY, 1984		 – Keenbrook, CA, 1994
- Hinton disaster, 1986		 – Sugar Valley, GA, 1990
- Thompsontown, PA, 1988	 – NYC Subway, 1995
- Corona, CA, 1990		 – Kingman, AZ, 2000
- Harrisburg, OR, 1991		 – Clarkston, MI, 2001
- Eggleston, VA, 1992		 – Wendover, UT, 2001
- Norway, NE, 1994		 – Hallsville, TX, 2001
- Haymond, TX, 1994

## Background:History of Sleep and Fatigue Research (continued)

- 1988 – “Sleepiness, Circadian Dysrhythmia and Fatigue in Transportation 	  	  Accidents” journal article
- 1988 – “Catastrophes, Sleep and Public Policy” journal article
- 1989 – Senate Committee Report “Transportation-related Sleep Research”
- 1990 – “The Hinton Train Disaster” journal article
- 1992 – GAO report “Engineer Work Shift Length and Schedule Variability
- 1993 – GAO report “Human Factor Accidents & Issues Affecting Engineer 	 	  Work Schedules”
- 1992 – Transport Canada Fatigue Report on “Rail Operator Fatigue”
- 1998 – Sherry Report on “Current Status of Fatigue Countermeasures”
- 2000 – DOT Operator Fatigue Management Initiative

## Why Australia?

- European approach
- Very prescriptive
- Low tolerance to business case when compared against perceived worker well-being
- Current US approach
- Prescriptive
- Improvements hampered by current HOS law, FELA issues, trust
- Low tolerance for changes without a business case
- AUS approach
- Non-prescriptive
- Regulator responsible for driving and enforcing the process, not solution

## Why Australia?

- 4th International Conference on Fatigue in Transportation, 2000
- Emphasis on Non-prescriptive Approaches
- Similar Scientific/Regulatory Pressures RE fatigue
- Similar Industry Fatigue Working Groups
- US Work/Rest Task Force formed in 1992
- Australian Rail Consortium formed in 1995
- US NARAP formed in 1998
- Fatigue Management Implementations in both US  & AUS
- US pilot projects fading
- AUS pilot projects sustainable
- Difficulty in FRA assessing and addressing fatigue
- Labor and management feel a threat to their bottom line
- No reliable methodology to determine extent of problem or effectiveness of interventions

## Why Australia?2003 Meeting Schedule

- State Rail, Sydney, New South Wales (NSW)
- Pacific National Railway, Sydney
- Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), Sydney
- NSW Department of Transport, Sydney
- Australian Rail Track Corp. (ARTC)
- Australian Railroad Group (ARG)
- University of South Australia
- 5th Int’l Conference on Fatigue in Transportation
- Australian Rail Consortium

**Notes:**
 Involve cross-cutting methodologies and disciplines (quantitative and qualitative)
 Systematically measure program performance (activities, processes and outcomes)
 Documents accountability (ascertaining its strengths weaknesses and inherent ‘value’;
A formative process to guide decision-making and provide direction for continuous improvement;
A strategic and multi-disciplinary process that promotes appropriate and effective use of findings; 

## Evaluation  Questions

- Is the Australian approach successful?
- What are the principle contextual factors influencing the process?
- What are the principle components of the Australian model?
- How can AUS approach be applied to the US rail industry?
- What does this suggest for future directions of FMP’s in the US transportation industry?

## FMP Contextual FactorsIn the AUS Railroad Industry

**1986 ****–**** Occupational Health and Safety and Welfare Act (SA)**
**1991 ****– ****Hillmer Report ******** Privatization of RR industry**
**1993 ****– ****Rail Safety Act (NSW)**
**Revisited every 5 years**
**2002 Act require FMP’s as condition of accreditation**
**Consultative approach with all stakeholders**
**1994 ****– ****EEO Act**
**1995 – Australian Rail Consortium formed**
**2000 – “Beyond the Midnight Oil” Report**
**Commonwealth inquiry on fatigue in transportation**
**2002 – NSW Rail Safety Act**
**First state to adopt FMP as a regulation**

## FMP Contextual FactorsIn the AUS Railroad Industry

- No Federal Rail Regulatory Authority
- State Regulators only
- HOS
- All industrial agreements (labor/mgt.)
- NSW is only state with HOS regulation
- OH&S
- State by state laws
- Requires “safety case” plan for each company
- De facto Code of Practice developed for each company
- Duty of care for employer *and* employees
- Chain of responsibility between employee, employer, and consigner
- Federal OH&S apply only to Commonwealth employees
- EEO laws
- Precludes age discrimination
- Interpreted to include seniority

## Principles and Philosophy of Australian Approach

- OH&S framework
- Management-based regulations and company policies
- Alternate compliance model
- Risk-based implementation
- Performance-based outcomes

## OH&S Framework 

- Legal duty of care, varies state by state
- Required by regulator to have a safety plan
- Established in OH&S legislation
- Fatigue identified as a workplace hazard to be controlled
- Medical pre-placement requirements
- General sensitivity towards general medical conditions and treatments that may affect fitness for duty
- Include sleep disorders
- Duty of care for managers and employees

## Duty of Care

- Shared Responsibility Model
- Management responsibility
- Employer responsible for minimizing risk associated with work related fatigue
- Providing staff and shift system that permits sufficient opportunity to rest and recover
- Employee responsibility
- Employee responsible for minimizing risk associated with *non-work* related fatigue
- Using allocated time off to obtain sufficient sleep in order to work safely
- If not possible, employee must notify employer that they may have had insufficient sleep

## Management-based Regulations

- Co-regulatory process, few regulations
- Broad policy level guidelines, not overly prescriptive
- Certified company Codes of practice driven by state regulations
- Role of regulator to drive process, not solution
- NSW audit capability can compel compliance to certified safety plans

## Employee Responsibilityfor “Sufficient” Sleep

- The 5/12 Start Rule (based upon literature and collected data)
- Must obtain 5 hours sleep in 24 hours prior to work; *and*
- 12 hours sleep in 48 hours prior to work
- The Finish Rule
- The period of wake-up time to the end of the shift should not exceed the amount of sleep obtained during the past 48 hours prior to commencing the shift
- The Final Rule
- If either rule is broken, fatigue is a potential problem and the organization should engage in an auditable fatigue risk reduction process

## Employee Responsibilityfor “Sufficient” Sleep

- If start and finish rule not met, then must notify line manager. Options include:
- Additional sleep time
- Alternate task
- Sick leave
- Performance management approach
- In event of fatigue-related incident, if employee fails to notify, then
- Employee assumes at least partial responsibility

## Obtained Sleep Metric

- Sleep in prior 48 hours

- Sleep

- Sleep

- Work

- Wake-up

- End-of-shift

- Sleep in prior 24 hours

- A

- B

- Time Awake

## Quantifying Sufficient Sleep

- Rules are evidence-based from engineers’ sleep studies
- Software-based fatigue model (fatigue estimation algorithm, FAID)
- Evidence based data from engineers
- Length and time-of-day of shifts and breaks
- 7 day prior work history
- Biological limits to rest and recovery
- Obtained sleep model
- Simple, objective, easy suited to employees and management
- Count sleep prior to commencing work
- Spreadsheet or paper-and-pencil versions available

## Employer Responsibilityfor Minimizing Fatigue

- Fatigue Management Policy
- Defined responsibilities and actions for ‘reasonably foreseeable’ situations
- Accountable executive
- Demonstrate appropriate methodology and compliance with S/F rules
- Competency-Based Training and Education Program
- For all staff responsible for decisions that impact on the targeted individuals’ opportunity to obtain sufficient sleep
- Public domain provision of hard copy available to all
- Web-based materials
- Audit capability
- Must have quantitative methodology for ensuring employees provided with opportunity to have obtained sufficient sleep to operate safely

## Evaluation of AUS Approach:Perceived Benefits

- FMP’s viewed as a profit center rather than a cost center
- Attraction and retention tool
- Marketing strategy, competitive advantage
- Sustainability and commitment
- Unified direction with Australian Rail Consortium
- Regulatory standards being adopted from Codes of Practice and company policies

## Evaluation of AUS Approach:Current Challenges

- No objective data establishing success
- Some workers still prefer long work periods and long blocks of time off
- Labor seeks mandatory federal standards to establish “floor”
- minimum guaranteed time off
- minimum shift length
- maximizing pay potential still an issue
- Regulatory process for FMP’s moving too quickly for some
- Consultative process for accrediting FMP excludes labor
- Improper applications of FMP
- FAID applied as a rule, not a tool in new implementations
- Regulatory pressures for simple solutions
- Incomplete transfer to other work groups
- No buy-in process or tailored solutions for 2nd generation

## Summary

- Rapidly evolving and continuously changing process
- Currently few regulations
- Highly flexible
- States learn from one another
- Companies learn from one another
- Trend toward national minimum standards
- Effective practices approach, informal

## Conclusions

- Better objective evidence and documentation of fatigue
- Monitoring and evaluation of program performance needed
- Australian contextual factors have fostered an environment suitable for flexible FMP solutions and implementations
- FMP’s are sustainable due to the OH&S act, EEO interpretation, and the view that FM is a business benefit, not a cost item
- Buy-in strategies are critical; must go through appropriate process
- Further exploration of value of the Australian approach needed

## Proposed Next Steps

- Determine who within the transportation enterprise is interested in this approach and participating in furthering its developing here in the USA
- Conduct In-depth Evaluation of Australian FMP’s
- Evaluate outcomes and objective benefits
- Verbal agreement from AUS Rail Consortium for data
- Availability of operational data (close call and leading indicator data)
- NSW accident data
- Conduct Benchmarking, Lessons Learned and Effective Practices Studies
- Develop White Paper on Applicability of AUS Approach to US Rail Industry
- Develop Improved Fatigue Data Collection and Surveillance Systems
- Investigation protocols
- Record-keeping

## Questions & Feedback