83484 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 103, Public Law 110–432, Division A, 

122 Stat. 4848 et seq. 

2Section 20156 uses the term ‘‘fatigue 

management plans’’ so sections of this preamble 

discussing the statutory requirements likewise use 

this term, as do the sections discussing the Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee task statement on 

fatigue and Fatigue Working Group. However, 

because section 20156 requires fatigue to be 

addressed as part of a railroad’s safety risk 

reduction program, for consistency with the 

terminology used in FRA’s final rules governing 

those programs (81 FR 53849 (Aug. 12, 2016) and 

85 FR 9262 (Feb. 18, 2020)), elsewhere throughout 

this proposed rule, FRA uses the terms ‘‘fatigue risk 

management program’’ (FRMP) and ‘‘FRMP plan.’’ 

3Risk is defined as a combination of the 

probability of an adverse event occurring and the 

potential severity of that adverse event. Fatigue 

increases the likelihood of certain negative events 

occurring. Therefore, reducing fatigue helps reduce 

fatigue-related risks. See United States Department 

of Transportation, Partnering in Safety: Managing 

Fatigue: A Significant Problem Affecting Safety, 

Security, and Productivity, 1999. 

Beneficial use, Disposal, Hazardous 

waste, Landfill, Surface impoundment. 

Peter Wright, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27525 Filed 12–21–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 270 and 271 

[Docket No. FRA–2015–0122, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC54 

Fatigue Risk Management Programs 

for Certain Passenger and Freight 

Railroads 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, FRA 

proposes to issue regulations requiring 

certain railroads to develop and 

implement a Fatigue Risk Management 

Program, as one component of the 

railroads’ larger railroad safety risk 

reduction programs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by February 22, 2021. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent practicable 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to Docket 

No. FRA–2015–0122 may be submitted 

by going to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket name 

and docket number or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking (2130–AC54). Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information on any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Audit 

Management Division, at 202–493–6224 

or miriam.kloeppel@dot.gov; Amanda K. 

Emo, Ph.D., Fatigue Program Manager, 

at 202–281–0695 or amanda.emo@

dot.gov; or Colleen A. Brennan, Deputy 

Assistant Chief Counsel, at 202–493– 

6028 or colleen.brennan@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Introduction and Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Rulemaking 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. Rulemaking Authority and Background 

A. RSIA 

1. Mandate for Rulemaking on Railroad 

Safety Risk Reduction Programs 

2. Mandate for Rulemaking on Fatigue 

Management Plans 

3. Authority for Rulemaking on 

Information Protection 

B. Fatigue and Fatigue Risk Management 

Plans 

III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

Process 

A. Fatigue Management Plans Working 

Group 

B. Task Forces 

IV. FRMP Considerations 

A. General Overview 

B. Roles and Responsibilities 

C. Components of an FRMP 

1. Identifying Safety Hazards 

2. Assessing Risks Associated With 

Identified Hazards 

3. Prioritizing Risks and Implementing 

Mitigation 

4. Summary of the Work of the FRMP 

Working Group’s Task Forces 

5. Tracking Performance 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272; Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

C. Federalism 

D. International Trade Impact Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. Environmental Assessment 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

I. Introduction and Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Rulemaking 

This proposed rule is part of FRA’s 

efforts to improve rail safety continually 

and to satisfy the statutory mandate of 

Section 103 of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA).1 That 

section, codified at 49 U.S.C. 20156, 

requires Class I railroads; railroad 

carriers with inadequate safety 

performance (ISP), as determined by the 

Secretary; and railroad carriers that 

provide intercity rail passenger or 

commuter rail passenger transportation 

to develop and implement a safety risk 

reduction program to improve the safety 

of their operations. The section further 

requires a railroad’s safety risk 

reduction program to include a ‘‘fatigue 

management plan’’ meeting certain 

requirements. 

This proposed rule, if finalized, 

would fulfill RSIA’s mandate for 

railroads to include fatigue management 

plans in their safety risk reduction 

programs by requiring railroads to 

develop and implement Fatigue Risk 

Management Programs (FRMPs).2 As 

proposed, a railroad would implement 

its FRMP through an FRMP plan. 

Under this proposed rule, consistent 

with the mandate of Section 20156, an 

FRMP is a comprehensive, systemoriented approach to safety in which a 

railroad determines its fatigue risk by 

identifying and analyzing applicable 

hazards and takes action to mitigate, if 

not eliminate, that fatigue risk.3 As 

proposed, a railroad would be required 

to prepare a written FRMP plan and 

submit it to FRA for review and 

approval. A railroad’s written FRMP 

plan would become part of its existing 

safety risk reduction program plan. A 

railroad would also be required to 

implement its FRA-approved FRMP 

plan, conduct an internal annual 

assessment of its FRMP, and consistent 

with Section 20156’s mandate, update 

its FRMP plan periodically. As part of 

a railroad safety risk reduction program, 

a railroad’s FRMP would also be subject 

to assessments by FRA. 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

FRA estimated the costs and benefits 

of this proposed rule using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent over a ten-year 

time horizon. FRA presents monetized 

costs and benefits where possible and 

discusses those non-quantifiable 

elements qualitatively where data is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83485 

4Public Law 110–432, Div. A, sec. 103 (49 U.S.C. 

20156). 

5Sec. 20156(d)(1). 

6 49 U.S.C. 20156(f) and (g)(1). 

7 49 CFR 1.89, 77 FR 49965 (August 17, 2012); see 

also 49 U.S.C. 103(g). 

8 81 FR 53849. 

9 85 FR 9262. The RRP final rule also defines 

‘‘railroad carriers with inadequate safety 

performance’’ to whom this proposed rule would 

apply. 49 CFR 271.13, 85 FR at 9316–9317. 

10SSP Final Rule at 81 FR 53849, August 12, 

2016, and RRP Final Rule at 85 FR 9262, February 

18, 2020. 

lacking. Details on the estimated costs 

and benefits of this proposed rule can be 

found in the rule’s economic analysis, 

which has been included in the docket. 

In preparing the economic analysis, 

FRA estimated that the total costs and 

benefits over 10 years for the 

implementation of an FRMP and the 

fatigue training mitigation for Class I 

railroads and the 50 ISP railroads 

subject to this proposed regulation. FRA 

was unable to quantify costs or benefits 

for passenger railroads and discusses 

the implementation of the proposed 

regulation qualitatively within the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis which has 

been placed into the docket. 

FRA also estimated the total costs 

over 10 years to develop and monitor 

FRMP plans for Class I railroads, 

passenger and commuter railroads, and 

the 50 ISP railroads subject to this 

proposed regulation. The proposed 

regulation will also impose a new 

economic cost on the agency over the 

10-year period, to review and audit the 

FRMPs. 

Please see Table I.B for the total costs 

and benefits associated with the 

proposed rule. 

TABLE I.B—10-YEAR COSTS AND BENEFITS—TRAINING ONLY MITIGATION

Calculation aid Costs Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized at 

7% 

Annualized at 

3% 

A .................................... Training Only (low) ............................................... $2.02 $2.04 $0.29 $0.24 

B .................................... Training Only (high) ............................................. 4.13 4.18 0.59 0.49 

C .................................... FRMP Plan Creation ............................................ 0.89 1.04 0.13 0.12 

D .................................... Government Costs ............................................... 2.03 2.59 0.29 0.30 

A + C + D ...................... Total Cost (low) .................................................... 4.94 5.68 0.70 0.67 

B + C + D ...................... Total Cost (high) .................................................. 7.05 7.81 1.00 0.92 

A + C ............................. Total Cost w/o Government Costs (low) ............. 2.91 3.08 0.41 0.36 

B + C ............................. Total Cost w/o Government Costs (high) ............ 5.01 5.22 0.71 0.61 

Benefits ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Training Only (low) ............................................... 5.41 6.33 0.77 0.74 

Training Only (high) ............................................. 21.65 25.34 3.08 2.97 

II. Rulemaking Authority and 

Background 

A. RSIA 

1. Mandate for Rulemaking on Railroad 

Safety Risk Reduction Programs 

The RSIA requires the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) to issue 

regulations requiring certain railroads to 

develop and implement a ‘‘railroad 

safety risk reduction program.’’ 4 Under 

RSIA, as part of their railroad safety risk 

reduction programs, railroads must 

analyze the risks associated with aspects 

of their operations that affect railroad 

safety and based on that risk analysis, 

railroads must, through their railroad 

safety risk reduction programs, mitigate 

risks to railroad safety.5 Among other 

requirements, the RSIA requires 

railroads to consult with ‘‘directly 

affected employees’’ and their labor 

organizations on the content of their 

safety risk reduction programs, 

including the fatigue management plan 

component.6

The Secretary delegated responsibility 

for carrying out the mandate of Section 

20156 to the FRA Administrator.7

Section 20156(a)(1) mandates that 

each of the following types of railroads 

would have to comply with this 

proposed regulation: (1) Class I 

railroads; (2) railroad carriers with ISP; 

and (3) railroad carriers that provide 

intercity rail passenger or commuter rail 

passenger transportation. This preamble 

refers to the railroads that would be 

subject to this proposed rule as 

‘‘covered railroads.’’ 

To implement the requirements of 

Section 20156, FRA published the 

System Safety Program (SSP) final rule 

implementing the railroad safety risk 

reduction program mandate for 

passenger railroads on August 12, 

2016.8 On February 18, 2020, FRA 

published the Risk Reduction Program 

(RRP) final rule implementing the 

mandate for Class I freight and ISP 

railroads.9

Both the SSP and RRP rules allow a 

railroad to tailor its program to its 

unique operating characteristics.10 All 

railroads that must develop either an 

RRP or an SSP would also have to 

develop an FRMP as a component of the 

RRP or the SSP. 

Both RRPs and SSPs reflect 

comprehensive, system-oriented 

approaches to improving safety, by 

which an organization formally 

identifies and analyzes applicable 

hazards and takes action to mitigate, if 

not eliminate, the risks associated with 

those hazards. RRPs and SSPs provide 

a railroad with a framework for 

processes and procedures that can help 

it plan, organize, direct, and control its 

business activities in a way that 

enhances safety and promotes 

compliance with regulatory standards. 

As such, risk reduction and system 

safety programs are a form of ‘‘safety 

management system,’’ which is a term 

that generally refers to a comprehensive, 

systematic approach to managing safety 

throughout an organization. 

Safety management systems were 

developed to ensure high safety 

performance in various industries, 

including aviation, passenger railroad, 

nuclear, and other industries with the 

potential for catastrophic accidents. For 

ease of understanding, the elements of 

a safety management system are 

typically grouped into larger descriptive 

categories. These descriptive categories 

include: (1) An organization-wide safety 

policy; (2) formal methods for 

identifying hazards, and for prioritizing 

and mitigating risks associated with 

those hazards; (3) data collection, data 

analysis, and evaluation processes to 

determine the effectiveness of 

mitigation strategies and to identify 

emerging hazards; and (4) outreach, 

education, and promotion of an 

improved safety culture within the 

organization. 

Effective implementation of all the 

elements of an RRP or SSP, including 

the FRMP this proposed rule would 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83486 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

11For a more detailed discussion of safety 

management systems and FRA risk reduction 

programs, see FRA’s final RRP and SSP rules. 85 FR 

9265 (RRP final rule) and 81 FR 53853–54 (SSP 

final rule). 

12Sec. 20156(f)(1). 

13 Id. 

14 49 U.S.C. 20118. 

15 80 FR at 10957–10958. 

16Thomas, G., Raslear, T., & Kuehn, G. (1997), 

The effects of work schedule on train handling 

performance and sleep of locomotive engineers: A 

simulator study, Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD–97– 

09), Washington, DC: Federal Railroad 

Administration; available at: http://

www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04245. 

require, will foster continuous safety 

improvement.11

2. Mandate for Rulemaking on Fatigue 

Management Plans 

Sections 20156(d)(2) and (f) of the 

RSIA mandate that as part of a railroad’s 

safety risk reduction program, a railroad 

must develop and implement a fatigue 

management plan ‘‘designed to reduce 

the fatigue experienced by safety-related 

railroad employees and to reduce the 

likelihood of accidents, incidents, 

injuries, and fatalities caused by 

fatigue.’’ 12 The statute requires 

railroads to update their fatigue 

management plans at least once every 

two years, with each update subject to 

FRA review and approval.13 Section 

20156(f)(2) also requires each railroad’s 

fatigue management plan to take into 

account the varying circumstances of 

operations on different parts of its 

system, and to prescribe appropriate 

fatigue countermeasures to address the 

varying circumstances. 

Finally, Section 20156(f)(3) requires a 

covered railroad to consider the need to 

include in its fatigue management plan 

elements addressing each of the 

following items, as applicable: (1) 

Employee education and training on the 

physiological and human factors that 

affect fatigue, as well as strategies to 

reduce or mitigate the effects of fatigue, 

based on the most current scientific and 

medical research and literature; (2) 

opportunities for identification, 

diagnosis, and treatment of any medical 

condition that may affect alertness or 

fatigue, including sleep disorders; (3) 

effects on employee fatigue of an 

employee’s short-term or sustained 

response to emergency situations, such 

as derailments and natural disasters, or 

engagement in other intensive working 

conditions; (4) scheduling practices for 

employees, including innovative 

scheduling practices, on-duty call 

practices, work and rest cycles, 

increased consecutive days off for 

employees, changes in shift patterns, 

appropriate scheduling practices for 

varying types of work, and other aspects 

of employee scheduling that would 

reduce employee fatigue and cumulative 

sleep loss; (5) Methods to minimize 

accidents and incidents that occur as a 

result of working at times when 

scientific and medical research have 

shown increased fatigue disrupts 

employees’ circadian rhythm; (6) 

alertness strategies, such as policies on 

napping, to address acute drowsiness 

and fatigue while an employee is on 

duty; (7) opportunities to obtain restful 

sleep at lodging facilities, including 

employee sleeping quarters provided by 

the railroad carrier; (8) the increase of 

the number of consecutive hours of offduty rest, during which an employee 

receives no communication from the 

employing railroad carrier or its 

managers, supervisors, officers, or 

agents; (9) avoidance of abrupt changes 

in rest cycles for employees, and (10) 

additional elements that the Secretary 

considers appropriate. 

3. Authority for Rulemaking on 

Information Protection 

Section 109 of the RSIA specifies that 

subject to specific exceptions, certain 

railroad safety risk reduction records 

obtained by the Secretary are exempt 

from the public disclosure requirements 

of the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA).14 Both the SSP and RRP final 

rules implement these authorized 

information protections. Further, FRA 

has concluded section 20118 is a FOIA 

Exemption 3 statute and, therefore, 

would exempt, as part of a railroad’s 

safety risk reduction program, FRMP 

records in FRA’s possession from 

mandatory disclosure under FOIA 

(unless one of two statutory exceptions 

apply).15

B. Fatigue and Fatigue Risk 

Management Plans 

Humans have an approximately 24- 

hour sleep-wake cycle known as a 

‘‘circadian rhythm.’’ Rapid changes in 

the circadian pattern of sleep and 

wakefulness disrupt many physiological 

functions such as hormone releases, 

digestion, and temperature regulation. 

Such disruptions may also impair 

human performance, and may cause a 

general feeling of debility until 

realignment is achieved. For instance, 

the experience of jet lag is comparable 

to the experience of working schedules 

that vary among different duty shifts, 

and similar disruptions in human 

performance occur. Research has shown 

that fatigue is a multivariate condition, 

being either directly or secondarily 

affected by physiological and 

environmental variables such as sleep 

loss, workload, stress, monotony, 

workplace ergonomics, age, health, 

medications, noise, and circadian 

disruption. Symptoms of fatigue 

include, but are not limited to, falling 

asleep, increased reaction time, loss of 

attentional capacity, and decline of 

short-term and working memory 

function which may impair 

performance, increase error, and 

increase accident risk. 

The Federal Government requires 

railroads to manage their employees’ 

fatigue associated with railroad 

operations through prescriptive hours of 

service (HOS) limitations and rest 

requirements. See 49 U.S.C. 21103, 

21104, and 21105 and regulations at 49 

CFR part 228, subpart F (implementing 

49 U.S.C. 21102 and 21109). HOS 

limitations are generally based on the 

assumption that fatigue simply 

increases as time passes; therefore, the 

longer the time on task, the greater the 

risk for fatigue. However, this approach 

does not account for factors such as 

sleep loss, amount of sleep, circadian 

rhythms, sleep quality (which may be 

impacted by environmental factors or 

sleeping accommodations), and even the 

effects of the type of task being 

performed on the resulting level of 

fatigue. Furthermore, the HOS 

limitations and rest requirements apply 

only to individuals who perform certain 

types of work and do not cover all 

railroad employees (e.g., ordinarily, not 

maintenance-of-way employees or 

carmen). Laws and regulations 

following this model, therefore, may 

reduce, but cannot eliminate, the 

conditions that contribute to fatigue.16

An FRMP, on the other hand, is 

intended to be a systematic program to 

address fatigue in a dynamic manner. 

An FRMP is a form of a safety 

management system. Like the other 

elements of an RRP and an SSP, an 

FRMP implements organizational 

policies, processes, and procedures to 

reduce safety risk in a railroad’s 

operations. An FRMP is a data-driven 

and scientifically-based process that 

allows for periodic review and 

management of safety risks associated 

with fatigue-related error(s). Like other 

safety management systems, an FRMP 

applies the risk management process to 

identify fatigue risks through the use of 

data-established, scientific principles. 

An FRMP includes collecting and 

analyzing fatigue-related safety data and 

implementing corrective actions— 

always encouraging continuous 

improvement. This proposed rule would 

require railroads to develop FRMPs that 

are consistent with these general 

principles. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83487 

17Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Task 

Statement: Fatigue Management Plans, Task No.: 

11–03, Dec. 8, 2011. The Task Statement read as 

follows: 

Review the mandates and objectives of the [RSIA] 

related to the development of Fatigue Management 

Plans, determine how medical conditions that affect 

alertness and fatigue will be incorporated into 

Fatigue Management Plans, review available data 

on existing alertness strategies, consider the role of 

innovative scheduling practices in the reduction of 

employee fatigue, and review the existing data on 

fatigue countermeasures. 

An effective FRMP implements 

processes and procedures for measuring, 

modeling, managing, mitigating, and 

reassessing fatigue risk in a specific 

operational setting. The primary 

stakeholders—the main persons with 

the authority and/or interest to improve 

conditions to reduce fatigue—would 

implement FRMP processes. In the case 

of this specific rulemaking, that 

stakeholder group would include 

representation from management and 

labor (union representation, if 

applicable) and may also include 

scientific consultants. 

By combining schedule assessment, 

operational data collection, continuous 

and systematic analysis, and both 

proactive and reactive fatigue mitigation 

techniques, guided by information 

provided by scientific studies of fatigue, 

an FRMP offers a way to conduct 

railroad operations more safely by 

offering a global, comprehensive, and 

specific approach that complements 

statutory or regulatory HOS limitations. 

An FRMP would provide an interactive 

and collaborative approach to 

improving operational performance and 

safety levels on a case-by-case basis. 

Therefore, an FRMP would permit a 

railroad to adapt policies, procedures, 

and practices to the specific conditions 

that create fatigue in a particular 

railroad setting. A railroad could tailor 

its FRMP to unique operational 

demands and focus on techniques for 

mitigating risk caused by fatigue that are 

practical within the specific operational 

environment. This flexibility would also 

allow a railroad to alter its FRMP based 

on changing needs, new research, data 

from an existing FRMP, comments from 

labor and management, and established 

best practices. 

III. Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee Process 

In December 2011, FRA asked the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) to accept a task to address the 

fatigue management plan mandate of the 

RSIA.17 The RSAC voted to accept the 

task and on December 8, 2011, the 

RSAC formed the Fatigue Management 

Plans Working Group (Working Group). 

Members of the Working Group 

included physicians, human factors 

psychologists, railroad schedulers, and 

other representatives of railroad 

management and labor, as well as FRA 

employees. 

The Working Group formed three 

Task Forces to address particular 

aspects of the RSIA mandate in more 

detail: (1) The Education and Training 

Task Force; (2) the Scheduling Task 

Force; and (3) the Infrastructure and 

Environment Task Force. The Task 

Forces met multiple times throughout 

2012 and 2013 and the Working Group 

itself met eight times during the same 

period. 

After initially reaching consensus on 

draft rule text in June 2013, the Working 

Group did not reach consensus as to 

how its recommendations should be 

implemented. The Task Forces had 

developed a multitude of documents, 

which Labor representatives on the 

Working Group wanted published as 

appendices to the regulation. Railroad 

management members of the Working 

Group, on the other hand, asserted that 

the documents should not be published 

as appendices to the regulation, but 

instead recommended that the 

documents be made available on the 

FRA website and in the rulemaking 

docket for all parties to use in the 

required consultation process as part of 

developing railroads’ FRMPs. As a 

result, in late 2013, FRA withdrew the 

task from the RSAC, and as the agency 

worked to implement other aspects of 

the safety risk reduction program 

mandate of the RSIA (i.e., the RRP and 

SSP rules), the Agency began 

developing a rule specifically to address 

the RSIA’s mandate that fatigue 

management plans be included as part 

of railroads’ safety risk-reduction 

programs. 

Although the RSAC did not make a 

consensus recommendation to FRA 

related to fatigue, FRA believes that 

information developed and documented 

during the RSAC process is informative 

and will be very useful to railroads 

required to develop FRMP plans. FRA 

made minor amendments to the June 

2013 draft rule text to clarify it and 

make it more consistent with similar 

rule text in the SSP and RRP rules. 

However, the substance of this proposed 

rule text is the same as the draft rule text 

the Working Group voted to approve. 

Accordingly, the proposals in this 

NPRM reflect FRA’s consideration of the 

Working Group’s recommended rule 

text and the documents developed by 

each of the three Task Forces. Those 

RSAC-developed documents are 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

The RSIA does not mandate, and this 

NPRM does not propose to include, 

language specifically addressing the 

predictability of work schedules. 

However, the RSIA does require 

railroads to consider scheduling 

practices, of which predictability is one 

factor. There is significant discussion of 

predictability throughout this 

document, particularly when describing 

the Task Force discussions and the 

complex issues addressed in the Task 

Force documents that will inform 

railroads’ analysis of fatigue risks and 

their efforts to mitigate the identified 

fatigue risks in consultation with 

employees and labor organizations. 

However, the proposed rule requires 

railroads to consider several factors, 

including work schedule predictability, 

but does not require any particular 

factor to be analyzed. 

The NPRM also does not propose to 

include the Task Force documents as 

appendices to this proposed rule. As 

FRA previously explained to the 

members of the Working Group, many 

of these documents are written 

informally, for the use of railroads and 

labor in developing FRMP plans. The 

documents are best practices generated 

by the Working Group, but are not 

specifically FRA guidance and, 

therefore, should not be in an appendix 

to an FRA regulation. In addition, the 

content of the Task Force documents is 

subject to change based on advances in 

fatigue science, changes in railroad 

operations, and experience with FRA’s 

SSP and RRP rules and the development 

and implementation of FRMPs and 

FRMP plans. The Task Force documents 

should be easy to update as necessary so 

that they are most beneficial to those 

using them. If they were published as 

appendices to the regulation, changing 

them would require the cumbersome 

process of publishing them in the 

Federal Register, and the industry 

would be left with outdated or less 

useful documents until revisions could 

be completed. For the convenience of 

readers, however, the full text of each of 

these documents can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

B. Task Forces 

As noted above, paragraph (f)(3) of 

Section 20156 requires railroads to 

consider including 10 different elements 

in their fatigue management plans. 

The Working Group assigned the 

Education and Training Task Force to 

address section 20156(f)(3) 

subparagraphs (A), (B), (E), and (F), 

specifically: 

• Employee education and training 

on the physiological and human factors 

that affect fatigue; 

• Medical and scientific researchbased fatigue mitigation strategies; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83488 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

18 49 CFR 271.301 Filing and approval, 271.303 

Amendments, and 49 CFR 270.201 Filing and 

approval. 

19For a detailed discussion of information 

protection, see the SSP final rule at 81 FR 53855– 

56 and 53878–82, and RRP final rule at 85 FR 9266– 

9272 and 9279–9282. For more information on the 

consultation requirements, see the SSP final rule at 

81 FR 53856, 53882–87 and 49 CFR part 270 app. 

B, and RRP NPRM at 85 FR 9266, 9299–9303. 

20 49 CFR 271.101(a), 270.101, and 

270.103(p)(vii). 

• Opportunities for identification, 

diagnosis, and treatment of any medical 

condition that may affect alertness or 

fatigue, including sleep disorders; 

• Methods to minimize accidents and 

incidents during circadian low periods; 

and 

• Alertness strategies. 

The Task Force produced a document 

outlining existing railroad fatigue 

educational resources; a document 

outlining potential fatigue training 

topics; fatigue education dissemination 

and evaluation strategies; and a 

document outlining fatigue 

countermeasures. 

The Working Group assigned the 

Scheduling Task Force to address 

subparagraphs (D), (H), and (I) of the 

required elements outlined in section 

20156(f)(3). 

The task statement specifically 

included: 

• Innovative scheduling practices; 

• On duty call practices; 

• Work and rest cycles; 

• Increased consecutive days off; 

• Other aspects of employee 

scheduling that would reduce employee 

fatigue and cumulative sleep loss; 

• The increase of the number of 

consecutive hours of off-duty rest; and 

• Avoidance of abrupt changes in rest 

cycles for employees. 

The Working Group assigned the 

Infrastructure and Environment Task 

Force to address subparagraphs (C) and 

(G) of section 20156(f)(3) including: 

• Effects on employee fatigue of an 

employee’s short term or sustained 

response to emergency situations; 

• Opportunities to obtain restful sleep 

at lodging facilities; and 

• Effects of environmental conditions 

(e.g., temperature, vibrations, etc.) on 

employee fatigue. 

The Task Force created documents on 

emergency work, lodging facilities, and 

dispute resolution. 

IV. FRMP Considerations 

This proposed rule, if finalized, will 

fulfill the requirement of paragraph (d) 

of Section 20156 that a covered 

railroad’s railroad safety risk reduction 

program include a fatigue management 

plan. This rule would amend both Parts 

270 and 271, adding a subpart to both 

parts requiring railroads to develop and 

implement FRMPs. This section 

provides a summary of potential 

methods and considerations for 

developing and maintaining a FRMP. 

FRA welcomes comments on the 

discussion in this section, including 

thoughts on how to develop and 

maintain an effective FRMP. Unless 

specifically identified as a statutory or 

regulatory requirement, the information 

and suggestions contained in this 

section are not meant to bind the public 

in any way, and is intended only to 

provide clarity to the public regarding 

this proposal and information to aid in 

compliance if the proposal is finalized. 

A. General Overview 

This proposed rule would require 

each covered railroad to establish and 

periodically update an FRMP plan, 

which explains the railroad’s method of 

analysis of fatigue risks and the 

processes for implementing the FRMP. 

FRA would review and approve the 

FRMP plan. FRA proposes that 

requirements for the filing, approval, 

and amendment of the FRMP plan be 

made the same as for other components 

of RRP or SSP plans so those 

requirements are not set forth in this 

proposed rule. Instead, the proposed 

rule text cites to the sections of the SSP 

and RRP rules that contain those 

procedures.18 Because railroads will 

have submitted their SSP plans or RRP 

plans to FRA under part 270, subpart C, 

or part 271, subpart D before this 

proposed rule becomes final, railroads 

would need to amend their SSP plan or 

RRP plan to include an FRMP plan. 

Thus, a railroad would follow the 

procedures in § 270.201(c) or 271.303 to 

amend its SSP plan or RRP plan. 

As part of their FRMP, covered 

railroads would be required to identify 

fatigue-related safety hazards, to assess 

the risks associated with those hazards, 

and to prioritize those risks for 

mitigation. These railroads would be 

required to consider certain categories 

of risk as part of the FRMP, and to 

consider the development and 

implementation of policies and 

practices to reduce risks, related 

specifically to the items identified in the 

RSIA as items railroads are required to 

consider. 

FRA proposes that railroads be 

required to adopt and implement their 

FRMP through an FRMP plan describing 

the railroads’ processes for conducting 

their fatigue-risk analysis, including the 

processes for the identification of 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

and resulting risks, processes for the 

development and implementation of 

mitigation measures, processes for the 

evaluation of the FRMP and its 

effectiveness, and procedures for the 

review and update of the FRMP plan. 

The FRMP plan would also describe 

processes, milestones, and timelines for 

the implementation of the FRMP. 

Finally, the proposed rule contains no 

express requirements on information 

protection or consultation, because the 

information protection and consultation 

requirements in the RRP and SSP rules 

would apply to the FRMP, the FRMP 

plan, and their related documents, just 

as those requirements would apply to 

similar documents on other aspects of 

the RRP or SSP. As required by the 

RSIA, fatigue management plans are 

required elements of a railroad’s 

statutorily-mandated railroad safety risk 

reduction program. Therefore, the 

statutory requirements on information 

protection and consultation, 

implemented in the SSP and RRP final 

rules, would also apply to the 

documents required by this proposed 

rule to implement the required fatigue 

component of each railroad’s RRP or 

SSP. Regarding information protection, 

as with RRP and SSP, only information 

compiled or collected solely for 

developing, implementing, or evaluating 

a railroad’s FRMP would be protected.19

B. Roles and Responsibilities 

Consistent with the program 

requirements of an RRP or SSP,20 an 

FRMP is an ongoing program that 

supports continuous safety 

improvement, and requires systematic 

evaluation and management of risks. An 

FRMP is more than a document; it is a 

living program that is implemented by 

members of the organization who 

regularly meet to review data on fatigue 

indicators, analyze contributing factors 

to fatigue, take necessary actions 

(reactive and proactive) to mitigate 

fatigue, objectively audit the 

effectiveness of the system, and take 

corrective action continuously to 

improve the system. Consistent with 

comments made at the Working Group 

meetings, FRA expects most railroads 

will form a dedicated fatigue 

management committee to implement 

the program. The committee should 

include representatives of all 

departments and groups, including 

labor representatives as appropriate, 

that have a role in reporting, managing, 

and mitigating fatigue. 

SSPs and RRPs require outreach to 

employees so that they can understand 

why certain actions are taken, or why 

certain safety procedures are introduced 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83489 

21 49 CFR 271.107 and 270.103(i)(4). 

22 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(3)(A) and (E) specifically 

require railroads to consider scientific and medical 

research, in determining whether to include certain 

elements in their FRMP. The other elements of 

§ 20156(f)(3) require railroads to consider various 

scientific concepts, such as medical conditions, 

cumulative fatigue, and circadian rhythms. 

23Although the RSIA uses the term ‘‘risk 

analysis,’’ FRA uses ‘‘risk-based hazard analysis’’ 

because it is more consistent with the terminology 

used in the SSP and RRP rules, as defined in 49 

CFR 270.5 and 49 CFR 271.5. 

or changed.21 As this relates to an 

FRMP, it means that all safety-related 

personnel need to understand the 

corporate policies that underlie the 

FRMP; these may include policies and 

procedures that govern: Fatigue 

reporting, fitness-for-duty, absence due 

to fatigue, incident reporting, employee 

privacy, and prohibitions on coercion to 

perform duties while fatigued. 

As provided in the RSIA, the three 

main stakeholders in the FRMP are 

railroad management, railroad 

employees (including nonprofit 

employee labor organizations), and 

FRA. Each of these stakeholders plays 

an important role in implementing an 

FRMP successfully. Railroad 

management must develop, document, 

and implement an FRMP, tailored to the 

size of the railroad, in a collaborative 

environment with relevant stakeholders; 

it must also then allocate the resources 

required to implement any fatigue 

countermeasures in a timely fashion. 

FRA notes that the RSIA, in multiple 

places, specifically requires railroads to 

develop and implement elements of 

their programs based on the latest 

scientific principles.22 FRA will review, 

and as appropriate, approve each 

railroad’s FRMP plan, and evaluate to 

ensure that the railroads are complying 

with their plans. 

These general roles and functions are 

not an exhaustive description of the 

various actions each group could take 

during the development and execution 

of the FRMP. 

C. Components of an FRMP 

As proposed, a railroad’s FRMP must 

consist of actions taken by the railroad 

pursuant to formally documented 

policies, processes, and procedures 

intended to mitigate fatigue risk. It 

incorporates specific components that 

enable the following: (1) Identifying 

safety hazards associated with fatigue; 

(2) assessing the risks associated with 

identified hazards; (3) prioritizing risks 

for mitigation and implementing 

mitigation strategies for those risks; and 

(4) tracking the performance and 

effectiveness of each mitigation strategy 

and reviewing and revising an FRMP 

based on results. 

1. Identifying Safety Hazards 

a. Examples of Methods of Identifying 

Safety Hazards 

A risk-based hazard analysis 23

identifies operational processes, 

procedures, or activities that increase 

the likelihood of fatigue, and lays the 

foundation for subsequent assessment 

and mitigation of risks associated with 

the fatigue hazards identified. Hazards 

may be identified through quantitative, 

data-driven methods; through 

qualitative processes such as 

discussions, interviews, and 

brainstorming; or through a combination 

of both approaches. Identifying a hazard 

does not guarantee that it will be 

selected for mitigation. 

In general, data-driven methods 

identify and record hazards through a 

systematic process that allows for 

tracking and further analysis. These 

methods could use various types of 

recorded observations, such as records 

of actual schedules, efficiency testing, 

accident/incident investigations, 

company audits, employee surveys, 

close-call or hazardous condition 

reports, and others. Simulations may 

also be used to identify potential 

hazards and to estimate the potential 

severity of outcomes. 

Understanding the current conditions 

within a railroad is critical for a 

railroad’s ability to identify fatigue 

hazards accurately. Important sources of 

information include current schedules, 

train lineups, throughput, and operating 

practices. Employee reports of fatigue or 

fatigue-related errors and incidents, and 

information on the work schedules that 

led up to them, would also be valuable. 

Likewise, employees may be able to 

provide information regarding travel 

assignments and random duty reports. 

Comprehensive and objective 

accident, incident, and error analyses 

can also be conducted to determine 

when fatigue has been a potential 

contributing factor. The identified 

fatigue-sensitive situations can then be 

addressed to mitigate or to avoid them 

in the future. For example, if analyses 

identify a high probability of a specific 

error occurring during the hours when 

employees are highly susceptible to 

fatigue, engineering or procedural 

safeguards could potentially be put in 

place to minimize or eliminate the 

possibility of that error recurring. 

In addition to data-driven methods, 

qualitative methods that are often 

founded on expert judgment can be very 

effective at identifying fatigue hazards. 

Examples of qualitative hazard 

identification methods include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

• Brainstorming may be useful for 

identifying hazards in new or novel 

systems. Ideally, it involves all key 

stakeholders, is relatively quick and 

easy, and can be applied to a wide range 

of systems. Because brainstorming is 

commonly unstructured, it may not be 

comprehensive. The success of 

brainstorming depends heavily on the 

expertise of the participants and may be 

susceptible to the influence of group 

dynamics. 

• Checklists are inventories of known 

hazards. They can be used by people 

who are not experts in the operation or 

system being analyzed, to capture a 

wide range of existing knowledge and 

experience, and help ensure that 

common and obvious problems are not 

discounted, minimized, or overlooked. 

However, checklists may be less useful 

for unusual operations or systems, may 

inhibit expansive thinking, or may 

overlook hazards that have not been 

previously or widely observed. 

• Failure Modes and Effects Analysis 

(FMEA) is a reliability assessment 

technique built upon a detailed system 

description used to evaluate the ways in 

which basic system processes, 

components, or subcomponents can fail 

to perform safely. FMEA considers all 

the potential ways a component could 

fail, the effects of these failures on the 

system, possible causes of the failures, 

and how the failures might be mitigated. 

See Figure 1. FMEA is a systematic and 

rigorous evaluation approach that can 

yield a detailed record of the hazard 

identification process, and can be 

applied to a wide range of types of 

systems. However, it primarily focuses 

on single point-of-failure modes rather 

than combinations of failures, relies 

heavily upon individuals with detailed 

system knowledge, and can be both 

time-consuming and expensive. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83490 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

24See 49 U.S.C. 20156(c). 

25https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disordersproblems. 

• Structured What-If Technique 

(SWIFT) is a form of facilitated 

brainstorming, typically carried out on a 

higher-level system description with 

relatively few subcomponents, 

involving a multidisciplinary team of 

experts. The facilitator uses various 

prompts, such as ‘‘what if,’’ ‘‘could 

someone,’’ or ‘‘has anyone ever’’ 

questions to initiate discussion within 

the group. SWIFT creates a detailed 

record of the hazard identification 

process, and can consume less time than 

some other methods. However, 

successful application requires careful 

preparation, relies on the expertise and 

experience of the team, and depends 

heavily on the skills of the facilitator. 

• Operating Hazard Analysis (OHA) 

is when a team or individual uses 

various sources of information to 

identify hazards resulting from the 

operation and maintenance of a system, 

following a structured and formal 

process. In addition to the engineering 

design analysis at which FMEA excels, 

OHA is structured so that human 

performance and human interactions 

can be included in the analysis. 

Information sources can include 

analyses of known hazards, written 

procedures and manuals, engineering 

system descriptions, and other materials 

to analyze detailed procedures 

performed during system operation. 

• Hazard identification software 

programs are designed to support the 

identification of hazards using a 

systematic method. Programs are 

available that provide structured 

guidance for identifying general hazards 

or only fatigue-specific hazards. Such 

software may also offer the ability to 

catalog the resultant fatigue-related risks 

to help railroads prioritize risks. 

• Employee workshops may be used 

to engage employees in the railroad’s 

hazard analysis. Employees can share 

their experiences and concerns relating 

to fatigue with the goal of identifying 

fatigue hazards, related risks, and 

potential solutions or mitigations. 

These are just some of the methods 

available for identifying hazards. Each 

has advantages and disadvantages, and 

a combination of two or more methods 

may minimize any shortcomings. 

b. Specific Fatigue-Related Hazards To 

Consider 

A number of individual, 

organizational, or environmental factors 

can contribute to the likelihood of 

fatigue. As provided in the RSIA, these 

factors should be among the many items 

considered during a hazard analysis.24

• General health and medical 

conditions. According to the National 

Sleep Foundation,25 there are several 

medical conditions or treatments of 

those conditions that may affect 

alertness. They include, but are not 

limited to, obstructive sleep apnea, 

insomnia, periodic limb movement 

disorder (restless leg syndrome), 

hypersomnia/narcolepsy (excessive 

daytime sleepiness), delayed sleep 

phase syndrome (circadian 

misalignment), depression, anxiety, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP22DE20.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83491 

26Rosa, R.R. & Colligan, M.J., Plain language 

about shiftwork (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 

97–145) (1997), Cincinnati, OH: National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health, available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-145/pdfs/97- 

145.pdf. 

27Raslear, T.G., Start time variability and 

predictability in railroad train and engine freight 

and passenger service employees (Report No. DOT/ 

FRA/ORD–14/05) (2014), Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

28Raslear, T.G., Hursh, S.R., & Van Dongen, 

H.P.A., Predicting cognitive impairment and 

accident risk, in H.P.A. Van Dongen & G.A. Kerkhof 

(Eds.), Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 190 (pp. 

155–167), Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier 

B.V. (2011). 

29Hursh, S.R., Raslear, T.G., Kaye, A.S., & 

Fanzone, J.F., Validation and calibration of a 

fatigue assessment tool for railroad work schedules, 

summary report (Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD–06/21) 

(2006), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

bruxism (teeth grinding), night sweats, 

night terrors, nocturia (waking several 

times throughout the night to urinate), 

poor sleep efficiency, and residual 

effects of neurological damage (e.g., 

stroke). 

• Scheduling issues. Systemic or 

particular scheduling and crew-calling 

practices and issues may affect 

opportunities for employees to obtain 

sufficient quality and quantity of sleep. 

Related issues that increase fatigue risks 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• On-duty call practices; 

• Work and rest cycles; 

• Frequency and duration of days off; 

• Changes in start times; 

• Policies regarding napping; and 

• Policies and practices regarding 

marking-off. 

The level of predictability of work 

assignments, particularly those 

assignments that occur at night, can 

influence the ability of employees to 

anticipate work assignments and obtain 

necessary off-duty sleep. Note that work 

shift or duty tour predictability alone 

will not necessarily eliminate fatigue 

risk, and it is possible for highly 

predictable schedules to also have high 

exposure to fatigue. Other factors such 

as time of shift, work-to-rest ratio, and 

the speed and direction of shift rotation 

may also play a role in the employee’s 

ability to plan for and obtain sufficient 

sleep.26

An FRA report 27 found that high 

variability in shift start times 

contributes to fatigue. Furthermore, FRA 

research also established that the 

probability of rail accidents increases as 

fatigue increases.28 Thus, reducing start 

time variability could potentially 

increase safety. In addition to examining 

the relationship between start time 

variability and fatigue, the report 

contains information on statistical 

methods, including analyzing variance 

of start times and calculating a hazard 

function, which can be used to compare 

work locations, types of jobs, and 

changes in policies and procedures, 

with regard to fatigue. 

Job characteristics can also be a factor, 

including, but not limited to, whether 

the work is physically demanding, 

whether the work requires extended 

travel to a reporting point, and whether 

the employees are called upon to 

respond to emergencies. In general, a 

railroad that effectively manages the 

combined effects of crew scheduling, 

employee rostering, additional tasks 

assigned to employees, schedule 

changes, and other factors should 

succeed at minimizing fatigue-inducing 

conditions. 

2. Assessing Risks Associated With 

Identified Hazards 

As mandated by the RSIA, a FRMP 

must systematically identify fatigue 

hazards and evaluate fatigue safety risks 

on the railroad system. The goal of this 

hazard analysis is to identify work 

schedules and other conditions that put 

employees at risk for a level of fatigue 

that compromises safety. 

Different jobs may have different 

fatigue related risks. As such, it is 

important to examine the hazards 

associated with each job. A systematic 

assessment of risk involves: (1) 

Determining the severity and likelihood 

of potential incidents associated with 

the hazards identified; (2) assessing risk 

by evaluating the relative risk of each 

identified hazard and how it impacts 

established safety performance targets 

and/or by ranking hazards based on risk; 

and (3) systematically determining the 

order in which risks should be 

addressed. Selecting the criteria and 

methods for establishing priorities in 

advance will promote consistent 

decision making over time. However, 

flexibility is needed as risk tolerance 

levels or prioritizations can change over 

time as circumstances dictate. 

One tool that railroads may want to 

consider using to assess their fatiguerelated risk is a biomathematical model. 

A biomathematical model of 

performance and fatigue that has been 

properly validated and calibrated 

predicts accident risk based on 

analyzing identified periods of 

wakefulness and periods available for 

sleep. Validation of a biomathematical 

model of human performance and 

fatigue means determining that the 

output of the model actually measures 

human performance and fatigue levels. 

There are two dimensions to this 

validation. The first is that the model 

must be demonstrated to be consistent 

with currently established science in the 

areas of human performance, sleep, and 

fatigue level. The second part of the 

validation process involves determining 

that the model output has a statistically 

reliable relationship with the risk of a 

human-factors accident caused by 

fatigue, and that the model output does 

not have such a relationship with 

accident risks not associated with 

human factors. 

Calibration of the biomathematical 

model involves the assignment of 

numerical values to represent aspects of 

empirical observations, similar to 

marking degrees on a thermometer. In 

the case of human fatigue level and 

performance, the calibration of a fatigue 

scale would start with the assignment of 

values ranging from ‘‘not fatigued’’ to 

‘‘severely fatigued.’’ The calibration 

process starts during the validation 

process with the assignment of model 

output values to data bins for ‘‘not 

fatigued’’ and ‘‘severely fatigued.’’ The 

next step consists of determining the 

fatigue threshold. Given a scale for 

human fatigue level and performance, 

and a relationship between that scale 

and human factors accident risk, a final 

calibration point would determine the 

value at which fatigue becomes 

unacceptable because the increase in 

accident risk at that level compromises 

safety; this is the fatigue threshold. 

Railroads choosing to use 

biomathematical fatigue modeling in 

their schedule analysis will need to 

establish a fatigue threshold. 

Currently, FRA has validated and 

calibrated two commercially available 

biomathematical fatigue models. These 

are the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling 

Tool (FAST) and the Fatigue Audit 

InterDyne (FAID). However, any 

validated and calibrated 

biomathematical fatigue model may be 

used in schedule analysis. An FRAsponsored report details how any 

biomathematical fatigue model may be 

validated and calibrated.29

FRA expects that new methods for 

measuring and assessing fatigue risk 

will continue to be developed. If the 

system provides a scientifically valid 

measure of fatigue risk, whether using a 

biomathematical modeling tool or 

another system, its use is acceptable for 

purposes of developing and 

implementing an FRMP. 

As discussed below, there are many 

ways to measure fatigue risk. The 

system or metric a railroad ultimately 

chooses to measure its fatigue risk will 

depend on a variety of factors and will 

be unique to each railroad. For example, 

regardless of whether scheduled service 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83492 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

30The Window of Circadian Low is the time 

between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. where individuals 

are normally adapted to sleep and performance of 

tasks during this period may be degraded. See 

Advisory Circular 120–100, Basics of Aviation 

Fatigue, 06/07/10, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

is covered under statutory HOS 

requirements (49 U.S.C. Ch. 211), 

passenger train employee HOS 

regulations (49 CFR part 228, subpart F), 

or no HOS limitations, a railroad should 

consider whether to include in its FRMP 

an analysis of at least two consecutive 

cycles of the work schedules (the period 

within which the work schedule 

repeats) of its safety-related railroad 

employees. Analyzing more than one 

cycle of a work schedule can provide 

information about cumulative fatigue 

effects that would not be apparent if 

only one work schedule cycle were 

analyzed. However, railroads will need 

to determine how many work schedule 

cycles to examine based on factors such 

as start time variability, shift start and 

end time, and type of work being 

performed. 

When looking at job tasks, some form 

of a Haddon matrix can be helpful in 

determining the risk associated with a 

particular hazard. Figure 2 shows a 

basic Haddon risk matrix, which can be 

customized to represent categories of 

probability and severity that are 

meaningful and useful to the railroad. 

Such a matrix provides a visual 

representation of risks. As shown in the 

matrix, when the probability of an 

incident is low and severity is low, the 

risk is also low. Conversely, when the 

probability of an incident is high and 

severity is high, the risk is also high. 

For example, overnight schedules will 

inevitably include the period identified 

as the Window of Circadian Low.30 This 

low point in performance could be 

evaluated in relation to the duties to be 

performed at that time because an 

expected raised level of fatigue is of 

greater concern if it coincides with the 

performance of critical or difficult tasks. 

Using a fatigue model can be helpful 

for determining both frequency and 

severity of fatigue risk associated with 

specific schedules. Modeling is 

extremely useful because it applies 

scientific principles about fatigue to 

find the specific operational and 

employee factors that could contribute 

to significant performance changes due 

to fatigue. In general, modeling cannot 

consider non-duty-related causes of 

fatigue, individual differences related to 

sleep loss tolerance, and individual 

differences in circadian phase and 

amplitude. Because of these limitations, 

modeling should never be used to 

contradict an individual’s reported 

fatigue level. However, these models 

can take into account the complex 

interactions among human physiology, 

work, and rest times. In the absence of 

such a model, the interaction of these 

factors would be very difficult to 

specify. 

For example, if a fatigue model 

identified a particular type of work 

schedule that would benefit from fatigue 

mitigation, the railroad may discover 

underlying systems issues and factors 

(e.g., inadequate rest facilities, lack of 

napping opportunities) that not only 

contribute to fatigue-related risks on 

that work schedule, but also on other 

schedules. The use of fatigue modeling 

in this way provides railroads with a 

method for systematically identifying 

and addressing the overall underlying 

system risks—not just the risks for a 

given work schedule. 

3. Prioritizing Risks and Implementing 

Mitigation 

Risk assessment processes must 

include a method for determining which 

risks most urgently require mitigation, 

which could be addressed at a later 

time, and which are minor enough that 

simply monitoring the hazard would be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP22DE20.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83493 

31Preventative countermeasures include: 

Adequate sleep/minimizing sleep loss, strategic 

napping at times such as before working or during 

an interim release period, good sleep habits/ 

environment to maximize opportunities for good 

quality sleep, limiting work schedule modification/ 

maximizing schedule predictability, diet, exercise, 

fatigue education, model-based schedule 

optimization/innovative scheduling and staffing 

practices, and opportunities to identify, diagnose, 

and treat sleep disorders. 

32Operational countermeasures include: 

Alertness aids including, workplace napping, split 

sleep, rest breaks, self and peer monitoring, mental 

stimulation, worker status alerting or monitoring 

technologies, strategies for shifting an employee’s 

biological clock, bursts of physical activity, 

increasing the number of consecutive hours of offduty rest, during which an employee receives no 

communication from the employing railroad’s 

managers, supervisors, officers, or agents, and 

avoiding abrupt changes in rest cycles for 

employees by improving schedule predictability. 

33Raslear, T.G., Gertler, J., & DiFiore, A., Work 

schedules, sleep, fatigue, and accidents in the US 

railroad industry, Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & 

Behavior, 1, 99–115 (2013), available at: http://

www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04272. 

sufficient. Methods commonly used in 

Safety Management Systems include, 

but are not limited to, ranking all risks 

based on their risk score, or setting a 

risk tolerance threshold. If the risk 

assessment process includes a risk 

tolerance threshold, hazards whose 

associated risk is above that threshold 

should be addressed; those with risk 

below the threshold need not be 

mitigated, but should be monitored for 

change. If a risk tolerance threshold is 

not used, the risks should be tackled in 

whatever priority order is established 

during the risk assessment. Once the 

assessment of risks associated with 

fatigue hazards has been completed, as 

part of their FRMP, railroads must 

develop and implement mitigations to 

reduce as many of those risks as 

possible. 

Based on an analysis of the factors 

that lead to fatigue and practical 

mitigation alternatives, one or more 

mitigation options may be applied to 

reduce fatigue associated with specific 

schedules or situations. Risk mitigations 

are changes to the way things are done, 

or to the conditions under which things 

are done, that can reduce either the 

likelihood or the severity of a hazard. 

Examples of mitigations range from 

small actions, such as replacing a faded 

sign to improve visibility, to very large 

interventions, such as a system-wide 

rule change or technology 

implementation and associated training. 

The mitigations selected must be 

tailored to address at least one of the 

risks assessed. Railroads should, 

however, be alert to potential 

unintended consequences of 

mitigations, and be careful to select 

mitigations that minimize the 

possibility of inadvertently increasing 

other risks. 

There are many ways railroads can 

mitigate the specific risk types that are 

required under the RSIA as part of an 

FRMP to be considered for mitigation. 

Below are some examples of how a 

railroad may mitigate these fatigue risks. 

If the risk assessment shows that 

fatigue risks to the population of safetyrelated railroad employees associated 

with general health and medical 

conditions meet the railroad’s 

established criteria for requiring 

mitigation, there are several approaches 

that can be taken. The railroad can 

establish new policies, such as those 

requiring periodic screening for specific 

medical conditions. The railroad can 

establish practices (e.g., exercise breaks 

or making healthy foods more available) 

that encourage greater general health 

and fitness to reduce the likelihood of 

sleep apnea. The railroad can also take 

steps to increase awareness of medical 

conditions that affect alertness. This can 

be accomplished by providing 

information about the specific medical 

condition, its risk factors, prevalence, 

and how to recognize symptoms, or by 

identifying when to seek treatment, how 

to obtain a diagnosis, and treatment 

options. 

Information relevant to determining 

when to seek treatment can include the 

time of onset, duration of symptoms, 

related health factors, comorbid 

conditions, and observations from the 

employee or family. Observation of 

these factors can be helpful in 

distinguishing a condition such as 

transient insomnia, which often resolves 

on its own, from chronic insomnia, 

which frequently requires medical 

treatment. Railroads could consider 

informing their safety-related employees 

that information from family members 

may provide insight into a sleep 

disorder of which an employee may 

otherwise be unaware. 

Railroads can collect information 

regarding the medical professionals 

involved in diagnosis. For some 

disorders, this may only involve an 

individual’s primary care physician. 

Other disorders may require 

consultation from a neurologist, sleep 

specialist, cognitive behavioral 

therapist, or other medical 

professionals. In addition, it may be 

helpful to list or describe the diagnostic 

tests involved and the typical time 

required to obtain diagnosis. For 

example, a diagnosis of obstructive 

sleep apnea may require a sleep study 

such as a polysomnography, which 

generally requires an individual to 

spend the night in a sleep center. 

Lastly, treatment options could be 

discussed. For some sleep disorders, 

behavioral modifications or lifestyle 

changes, such as weight loss, may be 

sufficient to address the medical 

condition. Other medical conditions 

may require breathing assistance via 

continuous positive airway pressure, 

medical devices (such as night guards or 

mandibular advancing devices), or 

medication. 

Sometimes scheduling issues affect 

the opportunities of safety-related 

railroad employees to obtain sufficient 

quality and quantity of sleep. When the 

risk assessment determines that the 

risks associated with those schedules 

meets the railroad’s established criteria 

for requiring mitigation, methods for 

mitigating those risks could include: (1) 

Identifying methods to minimize 

accidents and incidents that occur as a 

result of working at times when 

scientific and medical research has 

shown that increased fatigue levels 

disrupt employees’ circadian rhythm; 

and (2) developing and implementing 

alertness strategies, such as policies on 

napping, to address acute drowsiness 

and fatigue while an employee is on 

duty. 

Alertness strategies are generally 

classified into two broad categories: 

Preventative and operational. 

Preventative countermeasures are 

designed to minimize sleep loss and 

reduce the disruption to circadian 

cycles. The benefits of preventative 

countermeasures can be long-lasting.31

Operational countermeasures are 

designed to enhance alertness and task 

performance and are generally only 

effective for a short time.32

Work schedule systems are typically 

designed to organize the timing and 

structure of work to maximize efficiency 

and productivity, and seldom are these 

schedules designed to minimize the 

safety risks associated with work 

schedules that are incompatible with 

human biological limitations, such as 

circadian rhythm.33 Fatigue risk in an 

industry that operates 24 hours a day, 7 

days per week is not just dependent on 

how many hours per day a person is 

permitted to work, or the amount of 

time that a person is required to be offduty between periods of work. Other 

significant factors that influence the 

level of fatigue risk include the time of 

day that an employee works, the 

number of consecutive hours worked, 

direction and frequency of schedule 

rotation, the number of consecutive 

days that an employee works, amount of 

sleep, and sleep quality. In addition, 

individual factors such as sleep 

disorders, age, and ‘‘morningness/ 

eveningness’’ as well as natural 

circadian rhythms and environmental 

and social factors may affect one’s 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83494 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

34Horne, J.A., & O ̈ stberg, O., A self-assessment 

questionnaire to determine morningnesseveningness in human circadian rhythms, 

International Journal of Chronobiology, 4, 97–110 

(1976). 

35 Kumagai, J.K. & Harnett, M., Data analysis for 

maintenance-of-way worker fatigue, Washington, 

DC: Federal Railroad Administration (2019), 

retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/ 

Details/L1984.3. 

36United States Department of Transportation, 

Partnering in Safety: Managing Fatigue: A 

Significant Problem Affecting Safety, Security, and 

Productivity, p. 5 (1999). 

fatigue level and alertness.34 Developing 

work schedules that reduce the risks of 

fatigue as part of a systematic FRMP 

may help a railroad balance its 

productivity and safety needs. 

4. Summary of the Work of the FRMP 

Working Group’s Task Forces 

The FRMP Working Group’s Task 

Forces extensively discussed mitigation 

of identified fatigue risks in the areas set 

forth in the RSIA. 

a. The Education and Training Task 

Force 

The Education and Training Task 

Force focused on the content and 

dissemination of training on the fatigue 

issues specific to the railroad industry. 

The Education and Training Task Force 

began by preparing a document 

summarizing existing fatigue training 

and education materials and 

highlighting the diversity of the 

materials and some of the major topics 

they covered. The document also 

includes information on other fatigue 

educational resources, including The 

Railroaders’ Guide to Healthy Sleep 

website, existing FRA fatigue-related 

publications, other rail-related fatigue 

training and educational resources, and 

general fatigue resources. 

The Education and Training Task 

Force also created the ‘‘Training 

Topics’’ document, which identifies 

appropriate fatigue-related training 

topics. The ‘‘Training Topics’’ 

document covers four major categories: 

Introductory fatigue training, off-duty 

fatigue issues, preventative strategies, 

and operational strategies. The Task 

Force members agreed on the content of 

most of the sections and subsections. A 

few topics represented major areas of 

concern for both railroad labor and 

railroad management. 

Both labor and management members 

of the Task Force asked that a section 

on the role of individual differences in 

fatigue related to vulnerability, 

countermeasure efficacy, and 

performance be included in the 

‘‘Training Topics’’ document as a topic 

for introductory fatigue training. 

The Education and Training Task 

Force thoroughly discussed the 

‘‘Training Topics’’ section on shiftwork 

as a cause of fatigue. Much of this 

discussion centered on predictability 

issues inherent in this type of work 

schedule and differing perspectives on 

how to address predictability. 

Members of the Education and 

Training Task Force representing labor 

organizations also expressed major 

concerns with the ‘‘Training Topics’’ 

section on commuting. Specifically, 

labor did not feel the commuting section 

adequately captured the extended 

commuting requirements of some 

employees (e.g., maintenance-of-way), 

and the concern that extended 

commuting is a required activity that 

contributes to employee fatigue, even 

though it occurs during off-duty hours. 

In 2019, FRA released a report 

examining the relationship between 

accidents and incidents involving 

maintenance-of-way employees and 

their work schedules to determine the 

role of fatigue in such accidents and 

incidents.35 This report may help 

address some of the concerns raised by 

the Education and Training Task Force 

regarding fatigue issues experienced by 

these employees. 

The section of the Training Topics 

document on scheduling had the most 

areas of concern and protracted 

discussion, particularly on the issue of 

schedule predictability. 

The Task Force discussed that a 

fatigue education and training program 

must have the following characteristics 

to be effective: (1) The program must be 

technically correct, reflecting current 

scientific understanding of the issue 

being addressed; (2) information must 

be meaningful and useful to the 

intended audience; (3) the materials 

must be disseminated appropriately; 

and (4) the program’s impact must be 

evaluated. Furthermore, the Task Force 

discussed the following basic elements 

of any fatigue training and education 

program. 

(1) Fatigue definitions: Fatigue is a 

complex state that is characterized by a 

lack of alertness and reduced mental 

and physical performance, often 

accompanied by drowsiness.36

Railroads may also wish to provide 

other definitions that will be used 

throughout the training and education 

program, including those that are 

unique to the railroad. 

(2) Signs and symptoms of fatigue: 

Although signs and symptoms of fatigue 

can vary among individuals in both 

their presence and magnitude, it is 

useful to review common signs and 

symptoms of fatigue. These should not 

be limited to physiological symptoms 

such as excessive blinking, yawning, or 

physiological discomfort, but also 

should include fatigue-related 

performance decrements such as 

increased reaction time. 

(3) Causes of fatigue: Although 

individual differences play a significant 

role in how an individual will react to 

different causes of or risk factors for 

fatigue, some of the main causes of 

fatigue should be highlighted. These 

include: Amount of sleep, quality of 

sleep, amount of time since last sleep 

(i.e., number of continuous hours 

awake), time of day (circadian rhythm), 

workload and time on task, amount of 

recuperative time between wakeful 

episodes, sleep disorders and co-morbid 

conditions (e.g., stress, depression, 

anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), 

general health, and family factors 

(including caregiver responsibilities). In 

addition, employees may provide 

anecdotal information of fatigue factors 

for a particular job and a railroad may 

consider this information in addressing 

causes of fatigue in its training program. 

(4) Circadian rhythm: An individual’s 

circadian rhythm dictates when he or 

she will be most alert and at what times 

he or she will feel the most fatigued. 

Employees should have a general 

understanding of the circadian rhythm, 

how it affects fatigue levels, how it is 

impacted by the light-dark cycle, and its 

role in such processes as body 

temperature, brain wave activity, and 

other biological functions. 

(5) Individual differences: As part of 

a fatigue training and education 

program, the role individual differences 

play in fatigue should be understood. 

For example, there is a great deal of 

variability of sleep requirements among 

individuals. Some individuals may feel 

rested and alert after as few as 5 hours 

of sleep, while others may require 10 or 

more hours of sleep to feel rested and 

alert. These sleep requirements vary due 

to such factors as the exact phase and 

amplitude of an individual’s circadian 

rhythm, activity level, age, fatigue 

sensitivity, and health. Furthermore, 

some individuals may be more sensitive 

to the effects of fatigue, and efficacy of 

countermeasures may vary depending 

on the individual. 

(6) Fatigue misconceptions: There are 

some misconceptions associated with 

fatigue. Individuals are often poor 

judges of both their own fatigue level 

and the efficacy of fatigue 

countermeasures. This is an opportunity 

to debunk certain ineffective 

countermeasure myths and also to 

discuss the limitations associated with 

effective countermeasures. Certain 

stereotypes regarding fatigue can be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83495 

37 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(3)(A). 

38Example resources include: 

Calabrese, C., Mejia, B., McInnis, C.A., France, 

M., Nadler, E., & Raslear, T.G., Time of day effects 

on railroad roadway worker injury risk, Journal of 

Safety Research, 61, pp. 53–64 (2017). 

Dorrian, J., Baulk, S.D., & Dawson, D., Work 

hours, workload, sleep and fatigue in Australian 

Rail Industry employees, Applied Ergonomics, 

42(2), pp. 202–209 (2011). 

Dorrian, J., Hussey, F., & Dawson, D., Train 

driving efficiency and safety: Examining the cost of 

fatigue, Journal of Sleep Research, 16, pp. 1–11 

(2007). 

Gertler, J., Difiore, A., & Raslear, T., Fatigue 

Status of the U.S. Railroad Industry, Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration (2013). 

Gertler, J., & Viale, A., Work Schedules and Sleep 

Patterns of Railroad Maintenance of Way Workers, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration 

(2006). 

Kumagai, J. & Harnett, M. Data Analysis for 

Maintenance-of-Way Worker Fatigue (2019), 

available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/ 

L19843#p1_z50_gD_lRT. 

Sussman, D., & Coplen, M., Fatigue and Alertness 

in the United States Railroad Industry Part 1: The 

Nature of the Problem, Transportation Research 

Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 3(4), pp. 

211–220 (2000). 

Raslear, T.G., Gertler, J., & DiFiore, A., Work 

schedules, sleep, fatigue, and accidents in the US 

railroad industry, Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & 

Behavior, 1, pp. 99–115 (2013), available at: http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04272. 

https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/index.html and 

https://www.sleepfoundation.org./ 

addressed as well. For example, 

experiencing fatigue does not 

automatically indicate weakness or a 

lack of motivation. 

(7) Shiftwork: Many railroads operate 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days 

a year. This operational schedule 

requires employees to work different 

shifts. Passenger and freight operations, 

different railroad classes, and different 

jobs will all have different shiftwork 

needs. Some jobs will work a dedicated 

shift, while other jobs can be 

unpredictable and be based on a variety 

of factors including train schedules, 

employee availability, and other needs. 

When discussing shiftwork, training 

content will be influenced by a 

particular railroad’s operations and 

collective bargaining agreements. 

However, discussions of shiftwork 

should provide information on the 

fatigue risks associated with night work, 

split shifts, consecutive shifts worked, 

and working different shifts throughout 

the week. This information should 

include strategies to cope with those 

shifts occurring during circadian lows. 

(8) Illnesses and stress: Although it 

would be impractical to discuss the 

impact of every possible illness and 

stressor on fatigue, it nevertheless is 

worthwhile to discuss how illnesses and 

stress in general can impact sleep 

quality. Furthermore, some stressors 

and illnesses can lead to sensitization to 

fatigue-inducing factors. 

(9) Consequences of fatigue: The 

potential consequences of fatigue are 

numerous and varied. However, from a 

training perspective, the key 

information to convey is the 

relationship between fatigue and 

performance. Although individual 

differences will influence how fatigue 

affects performance, in general, as 

fatigue levels increase, task performance 

decreases, and this decrease in 

performance increases accident risk. 

(10) Introduction to FRA FRMP 

regulations: A railroad may choose to 

provide an overview of FRA regulations 

regarding the requirements for FRMPs. 

This overview can highlight any 

changes to operations as a result of the 

promulgation of the FRMP regulation as 

well as highlight the key requirements 

that all FRMPs must contain. 

(11) Railroad FRMP: Following 

information on FRA FRMP regulations, 

a railroad may wish to take time to 

familiarize its employees with its own 

FRMP. Railroads should highlight any 

new policies or procedures associated 

with the creation of the FRMP as well 

as detail any changes or benefits that 

have resulted from its implementation. 

A railroad may also wish to provide 

employees with a mechanism to provide 

feedback about the FRMP as part of the 

railroad’s own periodic review process. 

In addition, a railroad should 

familiarize its employees with its 

procedures and processes for reporting 

fatigue levels and fatigue mark-off 

policies. 

As provided in the RSIA, any training 

and education program should be based 

on a foundation of the most current 

medical and scientific research; 37 FRA 

interprets this to include relevant 

statistical information, to the extent 

possible. FRA notes that resources that 

provide information on the prevalence 

of sleep disorders, the number of 

Americans not obtaining adequate sleep, 

and the mental and physical 

implications that result are available 

and updated annually.38 Sleep research 

collected from and related to railroad 

employees of various crafts is also 

available. 

The Education and Training Task 

Force also identified training topics 

addressing off-duty fatigue issues and 

preventative strategies. These included 

common sleep disorders, physiological 

versus subjective assessments of fatigue, 

lifestyle factors, nutrition and 

hydration, exercise, substance use, the 

home environment, and commuting. 

The Task Force also created a 

‘‘Dissemination Strategies’’ document 

outlining steps railroads should 

consider when choosing delivery 

approaches for fatigue education and 

training, and suggesting methods 

railroads could use for successful 

evaluation of a fatigue education and 

training program. The ‘‘Dissemination 

Strategies’’ document identifies and 

discusses the following ten elements of 

an effective dissemination and 

evaluation plan listed below. 

1. Goals: The first step in an effective 

dissemination and evaluation plan is 

determining and documenting the goals 

for the training and education program. 

The primary question to ask at this step 

is: What is the desired outcome of the 

training and education program? 

Different railroads may have different 

training goals and these goals will help 

shape how information is presented to 

employees. 

2. Objectives: When considering 

objectives of a fatigue training and 

education program, determine specific 

areas of accomplishment for each goal. 

Once those areas have been established, 

the next step is to determine what will 

be required to measure success. 

3. Measuring Success: There is no 

single ‘‘correct’’ way to measure 

success. However, any measure of 

success should indicate if the material 

reached the intended audience, was 

understood, and had a positive effect. 

Evaluation strategies may be direct, 

such as administering a quiz to test 

knowledge of a particular topic, or 

indirect, such as looking at safety 

culture change as a result of training. 

Neither method is superior to the other, 

but multiple evaluation strategies may 

provide a more comprehensive 

understanding of program efficacy. 

4. Employees Covered: An effective 

dissemination and evaluation plan 

should identify the employees covered 

by the different elements of a training 

and education program. There may be 

some elements of a program that apply 

to all railroad employees, while other 

elements may only apply to a particular 

craft, shift, or schedule type. At this 

stage, thought should also be given to 

any special needs a covered group may 

have. For example, if a large percentage 

of a covered group does not have email 

access, disseminating information via 

email would be neither practical nor 

effective. 

5. Content: Perhaps the most 

important element to consider when 

developing a dissemination and 

evaluation plan is the content to be 

presented. At this step, proposed fatigue 

training and education content should 

be reviewed to make sure it is accurate 

and relevant to the covered groups. 

6. Source: Care should be given to 

ensure that information presented 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83496 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

39Under 49 U.S.C. 21106, a railroad may provide 

sleeping quarters for employees, and any 

individuals employed to maintain the right-of-way 

of a railroad carrier, only if the sleeping quarters are 

clean, safe, and sanitary, give those employees and 

individuals an opportunity for rest free from the 

interruptions caused by noise under the control of 

the carrier, and provide indoor toilet facilities, 

potable water, and other features to protect the 

health of employees. Further, 49 CFR part 228, 

subpart C, provides additional requirements for 

railroad-provided sleeping quarters. 

comes from credible and trusted 

sources. 

7. Presentation Medium: At this stage 

in the process, the program designer 

should determine the most effective 

methods to present different elements of 

the fatigue training and education 

program. Some information may be best 

suited for in-person training while other 

information might be best conveyed 

through publications. Some 

presentation media to consider include 

in-class training, informational videos, 

handouts, peer-to-peer efforts, job 

briefings, and conferences or other 

meetings. Depending on the covered 

group’s access to the internet, Web 

resources such as Web-based training, 

emails, websites, blogs, and social 

media could also be used. The 

preceding examples are not an 

exhaustive list, and each railroad will 

need to tailor its presentation media 

based on the identified goals, objectives, 

and employees to be covered. 

8. Access: Fatigue training and 

education should be an ongoing process. 

Therefore, it is important that 

employees have easy access to 

information. Employees should have a 

way to revisit information that was 

previously presented. Examples of 

making information accessible could 

include providing access to fatigue 

presentations on the company Intranet 

after an initial classroom presentation, 

handouts after a one-time job briefing, 

or posters that highlight key points. 

9. Availability: At this step, a railroad 

developing a fatigue training and 

education program should consider 

strategies for promoting awareness of 

the availability of training and 

educational materials. 

10. Challenges: The challenges related 

to effectively disseminating and 

evaluating information as part of a 

fatigue training and education program 

will vary greatly. These challenges 

could include a variety of issues, such 

as difficulty reaching a particular group, 

lack of resources to present a topic as 

originally planned, or even glitches in 

Web technology. Determining how best 

to deliver information in a manner that 

is understandable, appropriate, and 

engaging to different employee groups 

will present its own set of challenges. At 

this stage, potential challenges should 

be identified as well as solutions for 

overcoming or mitigating these 

challenges. 

Finally, the Education and Training 

Task Force created a document that 

highlights and explains two general 

categories of fatigue countermeasures 

(preventative and operational), and 

provides examples of each. Preventative 

countermeasures, as the name suggests, 

are countermeasures designed to 

minimize sleep loss and reduce the 

disruption of circadian cycles and the 

benefits of preventative 

countermeasures can be long-lasting. 

Operational countermeasures are 

designed to enhance alertness and task 

performance while on duty and are 

generally only effective for a short time. 

b. Scheduling Task Force 

The FRMP Working Group’s 

Scheduling Task Force discussed the 

scheduling issues that affect fatigue. 

However, several issues prevented 

agreement on scheduling including: (1) 

The need to differentiate between 

employees covered by HOS limitations 

(covered service employees) and 

employees not covered by such 

requirements; (2) the need for waivers 

and/or pilot projects to implement 

scheduling practices that might conflict 

with existing HOS limitations; (3) 

disagreement on whether using 

biomathematical fatigue models is 

appropriate for freight operations; (4) 

potential conflict with existing 

collective bargaining agreements; and 

(5) how much emphasis should be 

placed on an employee’s work schedule 

predictability. The Scheduling Task 

Force did not produce a document. 

c. Infrastructure and Environment Task 

Force 

The Infrastructure and Environment 

Task Force provided guidelines it 

suggested railroads should consider to 

mitigate fatigue when employees are 

involved in emergency work. The Task 

Force interpreted an emergency based 

on the nonapplication language in the 

HOS laws at 49 U.S.C. 21102(a). 

Specifically, the ‘‘Emergency Work’’ 

document provides that an emergency 

for purposes of the guidelines is defined 

in 49 U.S.C. 21102(a)(1)–(4), which 

states that the HOS requirements do not 

apply to situations involving a casualty, 

an unavoidable accident, an act of God, 

or a delay resulting from a cause 

unknown and unforeseeable to a 

railroad carrier or its officer or agent in 

charge of the employee when the 

employee left a terminal. 

This definition incorporates a wide 

variety of emergency situations, 

including those referred to in section 

20156(f)(3)(C), ‘‘derailments and natural 

disasters, or engagement in other 

intensive working conditions.’’ The 

employees responsible for responding to 

these emergency situations may include 

employees performing functions not 

covered by HOS requirements, and the 

‘‘Emergency Work’’ document makes 

clear that the Infrastructure and 

Environment Task Force intended it to 

apply to these employees as well. For 

example, the ‘‘Emergency Work’’ 

document includes provisions such as 

relief assignments when an emergency 

is anticipated to extend more than 16 

hours, and provisions to offer relief 

lodging for employees both between 

shifts of extended work at an emergency 

location, and, if necessary, for an 

employee to rest before commuting 

home after an extended period of 

emergency service. Such provisions 

would provide some protection against 

fatigue for those employees not subject 

to HOS requirements and, if the 

emergency situation resulted in the 

nonapplication of the HOS laws, for 

employees performing service normally 

covered by the HOS limitations. 

The Task Force also created two 

documents; ‘‘Accommodations’’ and 

‘‘Dispute Resolutions,’’ focused on 

mitigating fatigue related to issues at 

lodging facilities. The first document, 

‘‘Accommodations,’’ includes 

guidelines for accommodations where 

employees rest during off-duty periods, 

and the second document, ‘‘Dispute 

Resolutions,’’ provides dispute 

resolution procedures for issues arising 

with lodging facilities that interfere with 

an employee’s ability to rest.39 The Task 

Force made clear that the 

‘‘Accommodations’’ and ‘‘Dispute 

Resolution’’ documents were intended 

to apply to all employee lodging, even 

lodging that is not ‘‘railroad provided’’ 

(e.g., commercial hotels). 

The Task Force indicated that the 

accommodations guidelines are 

intended to provide elements for 

discussion during the required 

consultation between management and 

labor about a railroad’s FRMP, rather 

than to provide minimum standards for 

lodging facilities. The Task Force did 

not expect every lodging facility would 

meet all of the listed criteria. The Task 

Force agreed that while the listed 

elements were desirable, they may not 

be possible at all locations, and, in some 

cases, collective bargaining agreements 

might provide for other arrangements. 

For example, while the guidelines 

recommend a single occupancy room, 

some existing labor agreements may 

provide for four employees to a room. 

Similarly, while a full or double bed 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83497 

may be preferred, there may be locations 

where this is not an option and only 

single beds are available at the only 

available lodging facility. 

The ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ document 

recognizes that employees will first seek 

to resolve issues at lodging facilities 

with on-site staff, such as the front desk 

at a hotel. The ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ 

document recommends that FRMP 

plans include a railroad contact with 

authority over lodging decisions and 

require that contact to make a good faith 

effort to resolve lodging issues in a 

timely manner so the employee can 

obtain adequate rest before returning to 

duty. For example, if the heat is not 

working in a given room, the lodging 

facility will likely move the employee to 

a different room. However, if there were 

no other rooms available, or if the issue 

were something like electric power 

being out at an entire facility, the 

railroad contact should become 

involved to assist the employee in 

finding alternate lodging. 

The ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ document 

provides that FRMP plans should 

contain a dispute resolution process 

covering sleeping accommodations 

provided by or through the railroad. It 

should be noted that this process is not 

intended to supplant or modify the 

requirements established by 49 CFR 

228.333, Remedial action, as part of the 

Camp Car regulation. The Task Force 

suggested that any FRMP dispute 

resolution process should be designed 

to address problems associated with the 

sleeping accommodations that would 

interfere with an employee obtaining 

adequate rest. As part of the FRMP plan, 

the Task Force recommended that 

railroads identify a protocol for 

contacting a railroad representative 

should resolution with a lodging facility 

fail. 

The Task Force identified parameters 

it recommended employer-provided 

lodging should meet to the extent 

practicable. FRA notes that interim rest 

facilities provided by passenger train 

operators under 49 CFR 228.409, 

Requirements for railroad-provided 

employee sleeping quarters during 

interim releases and other periods 

available for rest within a duty tour, are 

subject to the requirements of that 

section. As such, the Task Force’s 

suggested parameters are not applicable 

to interim rest facilities under § 228.409. 

In addition, local labor agreements may 

supersede or supplement some of the 

elements of these parameters. The 

parameters the ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ 

document identifies include structural 

factors, availability of meal 

accommodations, building safety and 

security, and personal hygiene and 

sanitation. 

The Task Force ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’ 

document does not define ‘‘adequate 

rest,’’ nor does it specify the conditions 

at a lodging facility that would prevent 

an employee from obtaining adequate 

rest. Employees covered by HOS laws or 

regulations would be required to receive 

the amount of off-duty time provided 

under the relevant laws or regulations. 

For other employees, rest requirements 

may depend on the situation, or may be 

provided by a collective bargaining 

agreement or other mechanism. 

However, the Task Force ‘‘Dispute 

Resolution’’ document suggests that if 

an issue arises at a lodging facility that 

interferes with an employee’s ability to 

obtain rest, the employee should receive 

the amount of rest he or she would have 

had if the lodging issue had not 

occurred. For example, if there are no 

towels in the room when an employee 

arrives, but the front desk promptly 

brings towels upon request, this should 

not hinder the employee’s ability to get 

adequate rest. On the other hand, if an 

employee is provided a room with a 

broken bed, and it takes five hours to 

locate another room or bed, the railroad 

may need to adjust the time an 

employee is required to return to duty 

so the employee can obtain adequate 

rest. 

Lastly, as part of its discussions, the 

Task Force identified circumstances 

when employees may have to work 

under excessive fatigue conditions. In 

these instances, when, despite best 

efforts, employees must work under 

conditions identified as having an 

excessive risk for fatigue, the Task Force 

discussed that the specific risks and 

hazards associated with operations 

under excessive fatigue should be 

identified. Once identified, an excessive 

fatigue protocol can be implemented for 

employees at risk. The Task Force 

suggested that railroads may wish to 

consider formalizing these protocols 

into a Workplace Fatigue Policy. They 

also suggested that a fatigue policy may 

be an effective way to communicate 

how operations will be handled when 

employees are working under fatigued 

conditions. This policy could be systemwide or site or craft specific. A fatigue 

policy may include information about: 

(1) Roles and responsibilities of 

employees and supervisors when 

working under excessive fatigue 

conditions; (2) maximum shift length; 

(3) control measures for specific jobs, 

tasks, or operations; (4) fatigue selfassessment checklists; (5) identification 

of errors that are more likely to happen 

when fatigued and procedures to reduce 

the likelihood of these errors; (6) 

procedures for managing employees 

working under excessive fatigue 

conditions; (7) procedures for reporting 

potential hazards and risks; and (8) 

procedures for when an employee is too 

fatigued to continue work (e.g., 

temporary work assignment). 

5. Tracking Performance 

As required in 49 CFR 

270.103(p)(1)(viii) and 49 CFR 

271.105(c)(3), FRA proposes that each 

railroad must develop a system to track 

identified risks and mitigation strategies 

within the FRMP. Railroads must 

continually monitor all identified risks, 

not just risks that are currently being 

targeted for mitigation. As a railroad’s 

FRMP matures, mitigation strategies are 

implemented, and operations change, 

risks will also change. A railroad may 

find that certain risks have been 

essentially eliminated, while others may 

have been significantly reduced, and 

previously undetected risks may 

emerge. As risks develop, the system 

must be able to incorporate these newly 

identified risks into their processes. 

Evaluation of fatigue-related 

information might show that some 

mitigation strategies do not meet 

expectations for effectively reducing 

fatigue. It could also show that changes 

in schedules, the addition of new 

technologies, turnover in the workforce, 

added demands for service, and other 

operational changes could present new 

fatigue hazards or change the risks 

associated with hazards already known. 

When either of these circumstances 

arises, the fatigue risk landscape is 

altered, and the railroad should again 

use the risk factor analysis processes to 

address those changes. 

For risks being mitigated, the railroad 

should note the date the mitigation 

strategy was implemented and track the 

progress and success of the mitigation 

strategy over time. Risks that are not 

mitigated or have not been mitigated to 

the extent desired should be evaluated 

for changes in mitigation strategies, as 

appropriate. Risks that have been 

successfully eliminated should be 

noted, and new risks that have emerged 

should be assessed for probability and 

severity and incorporated into the 

railroad’s risk assessment catalog. 

Existing risks should also be reviewed 

for changes in probability and severity. 

As a railroad reviews its fatigue-related 

risks and risk tolerance, the risks to be 

mitigated and the types of mitigation 

strategy to be used may change over 

time. Evaluation might also show that 

some portion of the FRMP is not being 

implemented as designed. It could also 

identify aspects of the program that, 

even though they are working as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83498 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

40United States Department of Transportation, 

Partnering in Safety: Managing Fatigue: A 

Significant Problem Affecting Safety, Security, and 

Productivity, 1999; p. 5. 

41The RSIA requires railroads ‘‘to reduce the 

likelihood of accidents, incidents, injuries, and 

fatalities caused by fatigue.’’ Fatigue is a complex 

and multifaceted condition with varying effects 

among individuals; however, it is not always the 

primary cause of an accident or incident. The 

presence of fatigue can increase the likelihood of an 

accident happening, or it can make the 

consequences of an accident more severe. FRA uses 

the term ‘‘contributing factor’’ to make clear that 

railroads may choose mitigations that address either 

the likelihood or the severity of an accident, 

incident, injury, or fatality caused in part by fatigue. 

designed, are not effective. In any of 

these instances, the evaluation could 

lead to program improvements. 

Finally, consistent with 49 CFR 

271.107, an effective FRMP includes 

feedback mechanisms and regular 

information updates about the system to 

all affected employees to encourage 

cooperative participation in the FRMP. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

270 (SSP) by adding a new subpart E, 

and to amend 49 CFR part 271 (RRP) by 

adding new subpart G. As proposed, 

each of these new subparts would be 

titled ‘‘Fatigue Risk Management 

Programs;’’ substantively identical; and 

set forth the requirements for railroads 

to develop and implement FRMPs as 

part of their SSPs or RRPs. FRA also 

proposes to amend: § 270.103(a)(1) to 

ensure a railroad’s SSP plan includes 

subpart E, by replacing the word 

‘‘section’’ with the word ‘‘part’’; 

§ 271.101(a) by adding an FRMP to the 

list of required elements of an RRP; and 

§ 271.201, to include an FRMP plan as 

a required component of an RRP plan. 

The new subparts would require each 

railroad subject to part 270 or part 271 

(covered railroads) to establish and 

implement an FRMP that is supported 

by an FRA-approved written FRMP 

plan, as a component of a railroad’s SSP 

or RRP. This proposed rule would also 

require covered railroads to review their 

FRMP annually, and if necessary, make 

FRA-approved updates to their plans. 

FRA is proposing this rule in its effort 

to improve rail safety continually and to 

satisfy the statutory mandate in 49 

U.S.C. 20156. FRA seeks comments on 

all aspects of the proposed rule. 

Sections 270.401 and 271.601— 

Definitions 

Proposed §§ 270.401 and 271.601 

contain definitions for terms used in 

this NPRM. The sections include 

proposed definitions for the terms: 

Contributing factor, fatigue, fatigue-risk 

analysis, FRMP, FRMP plan, and safetyrelated railroad employee. The proposed 

definitions are intended to clarify the 

meaning of important terms used in this 

proposed rule and to minimize potential 

misinterpretation of the regulations. 

FRA is proposing to define 

‘‘contributing factor’’ as a circumstance 

or condition that helps cause a result 

(i.e., fatigue). Contributing factors do not 

necessarily cause fatigue by themselves, 

but they can increase the likelihood 

fatigue will occur, or can increase the 

severity of fatigue when it does occur. 

Eliminating or mitigating contributing 

factors may not eliminate fatigue and 

associated risk, but doing so can 

moderate the frequency with which it 

occurs, or reduce the severity of fatigue 

consequences. 

While the RSIA did not define 

‘‘fatigue,’’ FRA is proposing to define 

‘‘fatigue’’ consistent with the DOT 

operational definition 40 of the term, as 

‘‘a complex state characterized by a lack 

of alertness and reduced mental and 

physical performance, often 

accompanied by drowsiness.’’ 

FRA proposes to define ‘‘fatigue risk 

analysis’’ as a risk-based analysis that is 

focused on the hazards and risks 

associated with fatigue. In 49 CFR 

271.103(b), a covered railroad is 

required to conduct a risk-based hazard 

analysis of its operations that includes: 

(1) Identification of hazards; and (2) a 

calculation of risk by determining and 

analyzing the likelihood and severity of 

potential events associated with those 

hazards. See also 49 CFR 270.5, 

definition of risk based hazard 

management. FRA proposes to define 

FRMP as fatigue risk management 

program, and the FRMP plan is the 

documentation that describes the 

processes and procedures a railroad 

uses to implement its FRMP. 

Section 20156(f)(1) requires a railroad 

to have a fatigue management plan 

designed to reduce the fatigue 

experienced by ‘‘safety-related 

employees.’’ FRA proposes to define 

‘‘safety-related railroad employee’’ 

consistent with the definition of the 

term in 49 U.S.C. 20102. As proposed, 

‘‘safety-related railroad employee’’ 

would mean a person: (1) Subject to 49 

U.S.C. 21103, 21104, or 21105 or 49 CFR 

part 228 subpart F (the hours of service 

laws and regulations); (2) involved in 

railroad operations, but not subject to 

the hours of service laws and 

regulations; (3) who inspects, installs, 

repairs or maintains track, roadbed, 

signal and communication systems, and 

electric traction systems including a 

roadway or railroad bridge worker; (4) 

who is a hazmat employee as defined in 

49 U.S.C. 5102(3); (5) who inspects, 

repairs, or maintains locomotives, 

passenger cars, or freight cars; or (6) 

who is the employee of any person who 

enters into a contractual relationship 

with the railroad either to perform 

significant safety-related services on the 

railroad’s behalf or to utilize significant 

safety-related services provided by the 

railroad for railroad operations 

purposes, if the person performs one of 

the functions identified in paragraphs 

(1) through (5). 

The SSP and RRP rules do not use the 

term ‘‘safety-related employee’’ because 

the RSIA does not limit the railroad 

safety risk reduction requirement to 

these employees. See 49 U.S.C. 

20156(a)–(e). FRA requests comment on 

whether the proposed definition of 

‘‘safety-related employee’’ captures the 

intended scope of Congress’s mandate 

for fatigue management plans in Section 

20156. 

FRA requests public comment on 

these proposed definitions and whether 

other terms used in this proposal should 

be defined. 

Sections 270.403 and 271.603—Purpose 

and Scope of a FRMP 

Proposed §§ 270.403 and 271.603 

explain the purpose and scope of the 

proposed rule. As proposed, paragraph 

(a) of each section states that the 

purpose of the subparts is to require 

railroads to develop and implement 

FRMPs to improve railroad safety 

through structured, proactive processes 

and procedures to identify and mitigate 

the risks associated with fatigue on their 

employees. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of these 

sections address the scope of the 

proposed rule and would require 

railroads to develop their FRMPs to 

reduce the fatigue of their safety-related 

railroad employees and to reduce the 

risk of railroad accidents, incidents, 

injuries, and fatalities where the fatigue 

of any of these employees is a 

contributing factor.41 Proposed 

paragraph (b) further requires each 

railroad, in developing its FRMP, to 

identify and evaluate, systematically, 

the fatigue-related railroad safety 

hazards and risks on its system, 

determine the degree of risk associated 

with each hazard, and manage those 

risks to reduce the fatigue that its safetyrelated railroad employees experience. 

This system-wide fatigue risk 

identification and evaluation process 

must account for the varying 

circumstances of railroad operations on 

different parts of its system. The 

railroad would then be required to 

employ in its FRMP the appropriately 

identified fatigue risk mitigation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83499 

42See 49 CFR 270.407(c) and 271.607(c). 

43 Department of Defense, Standard practice 

system safety, (MIL–STD–882E) (2012), retrieved 

from https://www.dau.edu/cop/armyesoh/ 

DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/MIL-STD882E.pdf (last accessed on July 27, 2020). 

44https://www.trbtss.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

2016/03/APTA-Safety-Management-SystemManual.pdf (last accessed on July 27, 2020). 

45https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03191 

(last accessed on July 27, 2020). 

strategies to address those varying 

circumstances.42

Sections 270.405 and 271.605—General 

Requirements; Procedure 

These proposed sections set forth the 

rule’s general requirements. Paragraph 

(a) in each of these sections would 

require each railroad subject to either 

RRP or SSP to establish and implement 

an FRMP fully as part of its SSP or RRP. 

As proposed, these paragraphs would 

also require each railroad to develop 

and implement an FRMP plan to 

support its FRMP. A railroad’s FRMP 

plan would be required to meet the 

requirements of proposed § 270.409 or 

271.609, and be approved by FRA under 

the processes in subpart C of part 270 

or subpart D of part 271. Consistent with 

Section 20156’s mandate for railroads to 

update their fatigue mitigation plans 

periodically, proposed paragraph (a) 

would also require railroads to update 

their FRMP plans as necessary as part of 

the annual, internal assessment of the 

railroad’s SSP or RRP already required 

by existing §§ 270.303 and 271.401. FRA 

believes the annual internal assessment 

should be sufficient for a railroad to 

determine whether any aspect of its 

FRMP plan requires updating. FRA 

requests comments on whether the 

annual internal assessment provides an 

appropriate mechanism and timing for 

evaluating and updating railroads’ 

FRMP plans. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of these 

sections would require a railroad to 

explain in its FRMP plan its method for 

analyzing fatigue risks and its 

process(es) for implementing its FRMP. 

Proposed paragraphs (c) of these 

sections would require railroads to 

submit their FRMP plans to FRA for 

approval either within six months of 

publication of a final rule in this 

proceeding or within the applicable 

existing timelines in parts 270 and 271 

for filing SSP or RRP plans. These 

paragraphs would also require railroads 

to follow the existing processes in parts 

270 and 271 for submitting updates of 

their FRMP plans to FRA for approval. 

Proposed paragraph (d) would require 

FRA to approve or disapprove railroads’ 

FRMP plans (and any updates) under 

the existing approval processes in parts 

270 and 271 applicable to FRA approval 

of railroad SSP plans and RRP plans. 

Sections 270.407 and 271.607— 

Requirements for an FRMP 

Proposed §§ 270.407 and 271.607 set 

forth the proposed requirements for 

railroads’ FRMPs. As proposed, 

paragraph (a) of these sections sets forth 

the general requirement that a railroad 

subject to part 270 or 271 would have 

to establish and implement an FRMP 

that meets certain requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of these 

sections contains the minimum 

requirements for the fatigue-risk 

analysis part of a railroad’s FRMP. 

These paragraphs specify that a 

railroad’s fatigue-risk analysis must 

include identification of fatigue-related 

railroad safety hazards, assessment of 

the risks associated with those hazards, 

and prioritization of those risks for 

mitigation. The proposed paragraph also 

requires that the fatigue risk analysis 

consider, at a minimum, three categories 

of risk factors: 

(1) General health and medical 

conditions that can affect the fatigue 

levels of safety-related railroad 

employees; 

(2) scheduling issues that can affect 

the opportunities of safety-related 

railroad employees to obtain sufficient 

quality and quantity of sleep; and 

(3) characteristics of each job category 

worked by safety-related railroad 

employees that can affect the fatigue 

levels and risk for fatigue of safetyrelated railroad employees. 

Railroads are not limited to 

consideration of these three types of risk 

factors in their FRMPs and FRA 

encourages railroads to consider other 

relevant factors based on developments 

in fatigue science. The types of 

principles and processes that inform a 

fatigue-risk analysis are well-established 

and, as discussed in detail above and in 

the preamble of the SSP and RRP 

proposed rules, have been adopted into 

industry standards and described in 

detail in other written resources. See 77 

FR 55375 and 80 FR 10953. For 

example, as discussed in those 

preambles, MIL–STD–882,43 APTA’s 

Manual for the Development of System 

Safety Program Plans for Commuter 

Railroads,44 and FRA’s Collision Hazard 

Analysis Guide: Commuter and Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service discuss how to 

conduct risk analyses in detail.45 A 

railroad subject to this part could use 

any of these resources when developing 

and conducting a fatigue-risk analysis. 

FRA requests public comment as to 

whether additional resources are 

necessary to help railroads comply with 

the requirements of this proposed 

section and if so, what type of 

additional resources would be 

necessary. 

Paragraph (c) of these sections would 

require a railroad as part of its FRMP to 

develop and implement mitigation 

strategies that improve safety by 

reducing the risk of railroad accidents, 

incidents, injuries, and fatalities where 

fatigue of any of its safety-related 

railroad employees is a contributing 

factor. These paragraphs state that as a 

railroad develops and implements 

mitigation strategies, it would be 

required to consider, at a minimum, the 

railroad’s policies, practices, and 

communication. Paragraphs (c)(1)–(3) 

describe each of these three areas of 

consideration in more detail. 

Paragraph (c)(1) would require 

railroads to consider developing and 

implementing policies to reduce the risk 

of the exposure of its safety-related 

railroad employees to fatigue-related 

railroad safety hazards on its system. 

Paragraph (c)(2) would require 

railroads to consider developing and 

implementing operational practices to 

reduce the risk of the exposure of its 

safety-related railroad employees to 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

on its system. 

Paragraph (c)(3) would require 

railroads to consider developing and 

implementing training, education, and 

outreach methods to deliver fatiguerelated information effectively to its 

safety-related railroad employees. At a 

minimum, a railroad must consider the 

need to include employee education 

and training on the physiological and 

human factors that affect fatigue and 

strategies to reduce or mitigate the 

effects of fatigue based on the most 

current scientific and medical research 

and literature. If a railroad chooses to 

include these subjects in its training, 

this training would supplement the 

requirement in 49 CFR part 243 to 

develop minimum training standards for 

each occupational category that 

includes a list of the Federal railroad 

safety laws, regulations, and orders that 

an employee is required to comply with 

by adding employee fatigue education 

and training topics that relate to 

employee safety independent of any 

regulatory or statutory requirements. 

Paragraph (d) proposes requirements 

for a railroad to develop and implement 

procedures and processes for 

monitoring and evaluating its FRMP. 

Monitoring and evaluation are necessary 

parts of a railroad’s FRMP; they enable 

a railroad to determine whether the 

FRMP is effectively reducing the 

numbers and rates of railroad accidents, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83500 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

46As previously discussed, railroads could look 

to well-established safety management systems 

which describe processes for conducting a fatiguerisk analysis, such as MIL–STD–882, APTA’s 

Manual for the Development of System Safety 

Program Plans for Commuter Railroads, and FRA’s 

Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service. 

incidents, injuries, and fatalities where 

fatigue is a contributing factor. 

Sections 270.409 and 271.609— 

Requirements for a FRMP Plan 

Proposed §§ 270.409 and 271.609 

would require a railroad to adopt and 

implement its FRMP through an FRMP 

plan that meets certain requirements. As 

proposed, paragraph (a) of these 

sections would require railroads to 

develop their FRMP plans in 

consultation with directly-affected 

employees and FRA would have to 

approve a railroad’s FRMP. The existing 

consultation and approval processes of 

parts 270 and 271 would apply. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

the FRMP plan to describe specific, 

fatigue-related goals of the FRMP and 

clear strategies for attaining those goals. 

Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the 

methods a railroad uses to develop its 

FRMP plan. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) 

would require an FRMP plan to describe 

the railroad’s method(s) for conducting 

the fatigue-risk analysis as part of its 

FRMP.46 While FRA understands that 

railroads subject to a final FRMP rule 

would likely need to develop processes 

unique to their own operations, FRA 

expects that railroads’ fatigue-risk 

analysis processes will use techniques 

similar to those currently used in other 

safety management systems. This 

section also specifies information 

railroads must include in an FRMP 

plan’s description of a railroad’s fatiguerisk analysis. FRA requests comment on 

whether additional resources are 

necessary to help railroads comply with 

the requirements of this proposed 

section and if so, what type of resources 

would be helpful. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

require an FRMP plan to describe the 

railroad’s processes for identifying and 

selecting mitigation strategies, and for 

monitoring identified hazards while the 

risk associated with the hazard is being 

mitigated. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would 

require an FRMP plan to describe a 

railroad’s processes for monitoring and 

evaluating the overall effectiveness of 

the FRMP and the mitigation strategies, 

along with procedures for reviewing and 

updating the FRMP. As noted above, 

FRA anticipates this review will be the 

same as for the overall SSP or RRP. 

Proposed paragraph (d) of this section 

would require an FRMP plan to describe 

how the railroad will implement its 

FRMP. As proposed, a railroad may 

implement its FRMP in stages, provided 

the FRMP is fully implemented and 

operational within 36 months of FRA’s 

approval of the plan. This 

implementation plan would cover the 

entire implementation period and 

contain a timeline (beginning with the 

date FRA approves the railroad’s FRMP 

plan) describing when the railroad will 

achieve specific and measurable 

implementation milestones. 

Consistent with 49 CFR 

270.103(p)(2)(i) and 49 CFR 

271.203(b)(3), as part of the 

implementation description, proposed 

paragraph (d)(1) would require a 

railroad to include a description of the 

roles and responsibilities of each 

position or job function with significant 

responsibility for implementing the 

railroad’s FRMP (including any 

positions or job functions held by an 

entity or contractor that provides 

significant FRMP services for the 

railroad). 

Consistent with 49 CFR 271.225(b)(2), 

proposed paragraph (d)(2) would 

require a railroad to include a 

description of the planned timeline for 

meeting the milestones required for the 

FRMP plan to be fully implemented. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) 

would require a railroad to describe 

how it will make significant changes to 

the FRMP, and procedures for 

consultation with directly affected 

employees on substantive amendments 

to the FRMP plan. 

Proposed paragraph (e) would require 

that a railroad submit its FRMP plan to 

FRA by amending its SSP plan or RRP 

plan. Since this proposed rule would be 

published as a final rule after the SSP 

and RRP final rules are in effect and 

railroads have submitted their SSP 

plans or RRP plans to FRA under part 

270, subpart C, or part 271, subpart D, 

railroads would need to amend their 

SSP plans or RRP plans to include an 

FRMP plan. Thus, as proposed, a 

railroad would follow the procedures in 

§ 270.201(c) or 271.303 to amend its SSP 

plan or RRP plan. FRA proposes that an 

FRMP plan is not considered a safetycritical amendment of an SSP plan for 

the purposes of § 270.201(c)(1)(ii), so a 

railroad should be able to submit the 

FRMP plan to FRA as an amendment to 

its SSP plan or RRP plan 60 days before 

the proposed effective date of the FRMP 

plan. If a railroad is initially not 

required to submit an SSP plan or RRP 

plan, but is later required to, the 

railroad must include an FRMP plan as 

part of its SSP plan or RRP plan 

submission to FRA, or submit the FRMP 

plan by August 19, 2021, whichever is 

later. FRA will review the railroads’ 

FRMP plans under the amendment 

process in § 270.201(c)(2) or 271.303(c). 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 

12866) and DOT’s Administrative 

Rulemaking, Guidance, and 

Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 

5. 

FRA has prepared and placed a 

Regulatory Evaluation addressing the 

economic impact of this proposed rule 

in the docket (Docket No. FRA–2015– 

0122). The Regulatory Evaluation 

contains estimates of the costs and 

benefits of this proposed rule that are 

likely to be incurred over a ten-year 

period. FRA estimated the costs and 

benefits of this proposed rule using 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. FRA 

was unable to quantify the costs and 

benefits for all the elements within the 

proposed regulation for both passenger 

and freight railroads. FRA presents 

monetized costs and benefits where 

possible and discusses those nonquantified elements qualitatively where 

data was lacking. 

Section 103 of the RSIA mandates that 

FRA (as delegated by the Secretary) 

require certain railroads to establish a 

railroad safety risk reduction program, 

of which an FRMP is a required 

component. This proposed rule is part 

of FRA’s efforts to improve rail safety 

continually and to satisfy the statutory 

mandate in the RSIA. 

FRA anticipates railroads will 

develop and implement mitigation 

strategies that are either cost-beneficial 

or cost-neutral to the railroad. FRA 

requests public comment on this 

assumption. FRA is particularly 

interested in the experience of railroads 

that have already utilized mitigation 

strategies to reduce the risk of the 

exposure of safety-related railroad 

employees to fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards on their systems; 

specifically, whether the railroads have 

realized costs and benefits from the 

development and implementation of 

such mitigation strategies, and how 

much those strategies cost the railroads 

to implement. 

The Regulatory Evaluation analyzes 

two mitigation strategies to quantify 

potential costs and benefits that 

railroads may achieve through the 

proposed regulation: Training and 

screening for sleep conditions. 

However, since the proposed regulation 

gives railroads the flexibility to select 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83501 

47Unless otherwise noted, costs and benefits are 

presented in 2018 dollars. 

the mitigation strategies that would 

work best for them rather than 

prescribing standards, there is a high 

amount of uncertainty in FRA’s costs 

and benefit estimates, specifically 

pertaining to the training mitigation, as 

FRA is unsure how railroads will 

implement the various mitigations. 

The costs and benefits 47 associated 

with the proposed rule are presented in 

Table VI–1 below: 

TABLE VI–1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL 10-YEAR IMPACT (2018 Dollars) 

[In millions] 

Calculation aid Costs Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized at 

7% 

Annualized at 

3% 

A ........................................................ Training Only (low) ........................... $2.02 $2.04 $0.29 $0.24 

B ........................................................ Training Only (high) ......................... 4.13 4.18 0.59 0.49 

C ........................................................ FRMP Plan Creation ........................ 0.89 1.04 0.13 0.12 

D ........................................................ Government Costs ........................... 2.03 2.59 0.29 0.30 

A + C + D .......................................... Total Cost (low) ................................ 4.94 5.68 0.70 0.67 

B + C + D .......................................... Total Cost (high) .............................. 7.05 7.81 1.00 0.92 

A + C ................................................. Total Cost w/o Government Costs 

(low).

2.91 3.08 0.41 0.36 

B + C ................................................. Total Cost w/o Government Costs 

(high).

5.01 5.22 0.71 0.61 

Benefits 

Training Only (low) ........................... 5.41 6.33 0.77 0.74 

Training Only (high) ......................... 21.65 25.34 3.08 2.97 

FRA is interested in comments 

addressing the Regulatory Evaluation’s 

methodology for establishing the 

accident pool used to calculate benefits 

as well as establish the effectiveness 

rates of mitigations. Specifically, FRA 

seeks public input on the studies used 

to establish the effectiveness rates and 

the use of all human factor accidents 

within the benefit pool. As the proposed 

regulation does not specifically require 

railroads to implement specific 

mitigations, but rather allows railroads 

to implement the mitigation that best 

addresses their specific fatigue risks, 

FRA requests comments on any costs 

and benefits that might be associated 

with the elements that FRA was unable 

to quantify. 

FRA’s analysis shows there are many 

factors that are difficult to quantify both 

for passenger and freight railroads. 

Where possible, FRA’s Regulatory 

Evaluation estimates costs and benefits 

for each element within the proposed 

regulation. FRA also requests comments 

on the elements that are qualitatively 

discussed. Given current railroad 

business and operational practices, this 

analysis demonstrates the fatigue 

training element, an element that all 

railroads will most likely implement, 

may be cost effective. FRA also believes 

the napping mitigation presented within 

the Regulatory Evaluation’s alternative 

analysis could be cost beneficial. 

However, given the uncertainty 

surrounding the use of alertness as a 

measure of reduced fatigue, in an effort 

to not overestimate the benefits 

associated with the proposed regulation, 

FRA does not present the findings 

regarding napping in the main analysis 

of the Regulatory Evaluation. Despite 

the uncertainty, FRA believes that there 

could be significant reduction in fatigue 

with the implementation of a napping 

mitigation. Not only do various studies 

support the idea that napping reduces 

fatigue, but a large number of Class I 

railroads already have policies 

supporting napping, which suggests that 

the benefits outweigh the costs for those 

railroads. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272; Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Assessment 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 

Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 

2002) require agency review of proposed 

and final rules to assess their impacts on 

small entities. An agency must prepare 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines 

and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. FRA is publishing this IRFA to 

aid the public in commenting on the 

potential small business impacts of the 

requirements in this NPRM. FRA invites 

all interested parties to submit data and 

information regarding the potential 

economic impact on small entities that 

would result from the adoption of the 

proposals in this NPRM. FRA will 

consider all information, including 

comments received in the public 

comment process, to determine whether 

the rule will have a significant 

economic impact on small entities. 

1. Reasons FRA Is Considering the 

Proposed Rule 

FRA is initiating this NPRM pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 20156, which provides that 

FRA, by delegation from the Secretary, 

shall require certain railroads to develop 

and implement an FRMP as part of 

either their SSP or RRP. 

2. Objectives and the Legal Basis for the 

Proposed Rule 

This NPRM proposes to implement 

the FRMP element of the statutory 

mandate by requiring each Class I 

freight railroad, each railroad that 

provides intercity rail passenger 

transportation or commuter rail 

passenger transportation, and each ISP 

railroad to develop and implement an 

FRMP as one component of a larger 

railroad safety RRP or SSP. A detailed 

discussion of the objectives and legal 

basis for the proposed rule is provided 

in Section III of the preamble. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities Affected 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires a review 

of proposed and final rules to assess 

their impact on small entities, unless 

the Secretary certifies that the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. ‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 

U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern 

that is independently owned and 

operated, and is not dominant in its 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83502 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

48See 49 CFR 1201.1. 49See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003) (codified at 

Appendix C to 49 CFR part 209). 50Both the SSP rule and RRP rule exempts 

railroads not on the general system. See 49 CFR 

270.3(b) and 49 CFR 271.3(b). 

51There are State-sponsored intercity passenger 

rail services, the majority of which will be part of 

Amtrak’s SSP. 

52The Class II and Class III average costs per 

railroad come from the 2015 Edition of the ASLRRA 

Facts and Figures. 

53An average is used to better account for the 

impact as the cost schedule varies as the number 

of ISP railroads increases. See the RIA in the docket 

for more information on the cost structure for ISP 

railroads. 

54Calculation: $53,228 (program development 

cost) + $7,274 (ISP employee training costs) = 

$60,052 (Annual cost for 5 ISP railroads). 

55Calculation: ([$60,052/5 (ISP railroads)] 

(annual cost to ISP)) × 10 (number of years) = 

$121,004 (10-year cost to single ISP railroad). 

56Calculation: $121,004 (annual cost to ISP)/ 

$4,750,000 (average annual Class III revenue) = 

0.025 or 2.5 percent. 

field of operation. The U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

authority to regulate issues related to 

small businesses, and stipulates in its 

size standards that a ‘‘small entity’’ in 

the railroad industry is a for-profit 

‘‘line-haul railroad’’ that has fewer than 

1,500 employees, a ‘‘short line railroad’’ 

with fewer than 500 employees, or a 

‘‘commuter rail system’’ with annual 

receipts of less than seven million 

dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions 

and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part 121, 

subpart A. In addition, section 601(5) of 

the Small Business Act defines ‘‘small 

entities’’ as governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts with 

populations less than 50,000 that 

operate railroads. 

Federal agencies may adopt their own 

size standards for small entities in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Thus, in consultation with SBA, FRA 

has published a final statement of 

agency policy that formally establishes 

‘‘small entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ 

as railroads, contractors, and shippers 

that meet the revenue requirements of a 

Class III railroad 48—$20 million or less 

in inflation-adjusted annual revenue— 

and commuter railroads or small 

government jurisdictions that serve 

populations of 50,000 or less.49

The universe of entities this NPRM 

would affect includes only those small 

entities that can reasonably be expected 

to be directly affected by the provisions 

of this rule. In this case, the universe 

consists of railroads that would be 

subject to the requirements under 49 

CFR part 270 and under the RRP rule. 

For the purposes of this analysis, 736 

railroads would be considered ‘‘small 

entities,’’ since they are Class III freight 

railroads. Of the 736 small entities, 695 

are on the general system and could be 

potentially impacted by the proposed 

regulation.50 Since FRA does not 

currently know which railroads will be 

considered ISP railroads, but an ISP 

railroad could be either a Class II or 

Class III railroad, FRA is unable to 

provide a more accurate impact that the 

proposed regulation would have on 

small entities. 

For purposes of this analysis, this 

proposed rule will apply to 35 

commuter or other short-haul passenger 

railroads and two intercity passenger 

railroads, the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the 

Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC).51

Neither of the intercity passenger 

railroads is considered a small entity. 

Amtrak serves populations well in 

excess of 50,000, and the ARC is owned 

by the State of Alaska, which has a 

population well in excess of 50,000. 

Based on the definition of ‘‘small 

entity,’’ only one commuter or other 

short-haul passenger railroad is 

considered a small entity: The Hawkeye 

Express (operated by the Iowa Northern 

Railway Company). 

The impact of the proposed regulation 

on these small entities is unknown, 

since FRA is allowing the railroads to 

decide their fatigue mitigations based on 

their specific needs instead of 

mandating that railroads adopt specific 

mitigation programs. Furthermore, FRA 

estimates that only 50 ISP railroads 

would be impacted by the proposed 

regulation, which is approximately 7 

percent of small entities, assuming all 

the 50 ISP railroads are considered 

small entities. FRA estimates that the 50 

ISP railroads would be impacted over 

the course of 10 years, at a rate of 

approximately 5 ISPs per year. This 

estimate is consistent with the RRP final 

rule that FRA has published. Therefore, 

because of the uncertainty surrounding 

both the number of ISP railroads that 

would be considered small entities as 

well as the impact that the proposed 

regulation would have on those small 

entities, the impact that the NPRM 

would have on small entities is unclear. 

FRA requests comments about the 

impact that the proposed regulation 

would have on both freight and 

passenger rail small entities. 

4. Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Requirements 

The rule will require an ISP railroad 

to develop and implement an FRMP 

under an RRP or SSP plan that FRA has 

reviewed and approved. There are 

several reporting and recordkeeping 

costs associated with the proposed 

regulation. Since the railroads have the 

flexibility to adjust their FRMPs to their 

specific risks, these costs will vary 

based on the respective risks as well as 

the size of the ISP railroad. While FRA 

is unable to estimate the burden that the 

proposed regulation would have on 

small entities, FRA expects that the 

impact will be proportional to the 

number of employees as well as the 

mitigation strategy that is implemented. 

Other mitigation strategies such as 

screening for sleep disorders could 

include costs that are higher. 

While FRA is unable to identify the 

specific railroads that would be 

considered ISPs, to estimate the 

potential impact that developing an 

FRMP would have on an ISP railroad, 

FRA used the average Class III revenue 

to estimate the impact.52 Per the 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the 

average Class III railroad has an annual 

average revenue of $4.75 million. FRA 

estimated the annual cost to ISP 

railroads at $60,052, with approximately 

five ISP railroads incurring this cost per 

year. The $60,052 cost consists of an 

annual average of $53,228 53 for FRMP 

program development and $7,274 for 

employee training.54 The total 10-year 

cost that would impact a single ISP 

railroad would be $121,004.55 The 

annual cost represents approximately 

2.5 percent of the average Class III 

railroad’s revenue.56 However, as this 

estimate is based off of the average 

annual Class III railroad revenue, and 

there could be a large variance in the 

revenue of Class III railroads, FRA 

requests comments regarding the annual 

revenue of Class III railroads as well as 

the impact the proposed regulation 

would have on Class III railroads. 

FRA has identified several possible 

reporting and recordkeeping costs 

associated with the proposed regulation 

such as: 

(1) Development, submission to FRA, 

and recordkeeping of the FRMP plan; 

(2) identification of the specific 

fatigue risks that impact the specific 

ISP; and 

(3) recordkeeping associated with 

fatigue training. 

More information about the burden 

and associated costs for each of the 

projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other requirements can be found in the 

information collection request FRA will 

be submitting to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. FRA requests 

comments regarding the recordkeeping 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83503 

burden that the proposed regulation 

would have on ISP railroads to ensure 

that all cost elements of recordkeeping 

and how those elements would impact 

Class III railroads are captured. 

5. Identification of Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

While the proposed FRMP rule would 

be a component of the RRP and SSP 

rules, the proposed FRMP would 

specifically address fatigue-related risks 

and is aimed at mitigating those risks 

specifically. As such, there will be some 

coordination needed to ensure that a 

railroad’s FRMP is developed and 

worked into the railroad’s RRP or SSP. 

Regardless, considering that the 

proposed FRMP is a subpart within both 

RRP and SSP, neither RRP nor SSP 

provide any elements, outside of the 

proposed regulation, that are designed 

to mitigate fatigue related risk 

specifically. As such, FRA does not 

expect there to be any relevant Federal 

rules that would duplicate, overlap 

with, or conflict with the proposed 

regulations in this NPRM. 

6. Significant Regulatory Alternatives 

Within the preamble above, FRA 

outlines the various fatigue risks that 

railroads need to address. FRA does not 

specifically state, however, in what 

manner the railroads must address those 

risks. One alternative is for railroads to 

not create an FRMP and to continue to 

address their fatigue risks as they have 

currently been doing. This would result 

in the railroads violating the RSIA 

mandate. In addition, if railroads 

continue to address their fatigue risks as 

they have in the past, FRA expects that 

safety would continue to be negatively 

impacted because the fatigue risks are 

not adequately addressed currently. 

Since railroads have some flexibility in 

how they design their FRMPs, it is 

expected that the impact of each FRMP 

on a railroad will be minimal as the 

flexibility in implementing mitigations 

will most likely be done in a cost 

effective manner. FRA expects that 

railroads will consider the cost of the 

mitigation as well as the fatigue risks 

when creating their FRMPs. 

FRA invites all interested parties to 

submit data and information regarding 

the potential economic impact that 

would result from adoption of the 

proposals in this NPRM. FRA will 

consider all comments received in the 

public comment process when making a 

determination. 

C. Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires 

FRA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ The 

Executive Order defines ‘‘policies that 

have federalism implications’’ to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA analyzed this NPRM consistent 

with the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132. 

FRA has determined the proposed rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined this proposed rule 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

This NPRM proposes to add subpart 

E, Fatigue Management Plans, to 49 CFR 

part 270 and subpart G, Fatigue 

Management Plans, to 49 CFR part 271. 

FRA is not aware of any State with 

regulations similar to this proposed 

rule. However, FRA notes that this part 

could have preemptive effect by the 

operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106. 

Section 20106 provides that States may 

not adopt or continue in effect any law, 

regulation, or order related to railroad 

safety or security that covers the subject 

matter of a regulation prescribed or 

order issued by the Secretary of 

Transportation (with respect to railroad 

safety matters), unless the State law, 

regulation, or order (1) qualifies under 

the ‘‘essentially local safety or security 

hazard’’ exception to sec. 20106; (2) is 

not incompatible with a law, regulation, 

or order of the U.S. Government; and (3) 

does not unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce. 

In sum, FRA analyzed this proposed 

rule consistent with the principles and 

criteria in Executive Order 13132. FRA 

has determined this proposed rule has 

no federalism implications and has 

determined it is not required to prepare 

a federalism summary impact statement 

for this proposed rule. 

D. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

Act also requires consideration of 

international standards, and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This rulemaking is 

purely domestic in nature and will not 

affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms 

doing business overseas or for foreign 

firms doing business in the United 

States. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

being submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The 

sections that contain the new 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83504 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

57The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

2018 Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year 

Wage A&B data series using the appropriate 

employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75- 

percent overhead charges. 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time 

per response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 57

270.409—Fatigue Risk Management 

Program Plan (FRMP Plan) as part 

of its SSP—Comprehensive FRMP 

plan meeting all of this section’s requirements and under Part 270 

subpart C.

35 passenger railroads .. 12 plans ......................... 60 720 $63,144 

—(c)(3)(ii)—Annual internal FRMP 

Plan assessments/reports conducted by RRs.

35 passenger railroads .. 12 evaluations/reports ... 2 24 1,824 

—FRMP plans found deficient by FRA 

and requiring amendment.

35 passenger railroads .. 4 amended plans ........... 30 120 9,588 

—Review of amended FRMP plans 

found deficient and requiring further 

amendment by RRs.

35 passenger railroads .. 1 further amended plan 15 15 1,199 

—Consultation requirements—RR 

consultation with its directly affected 

employees on FRMP Plan.

35 passenger railroads .. 12 consultations (w/labor 

union reps.).

1.5 18 1,368 

271.609—Fatigue Risk Management 

Program Plan (FRMP Plan) as part 

of its RRP—Comprehensive written 

FRMP Plan meeting all of this section’s requirements and under Part 

271 subpart d.

7 Class I railroads ..........

15 ISP railroads .............

2 plans ...........................

5 plans ...........................

90 

50 

180 

250 

15,786 

21,925 

—(c)(3)(ii)—Annual internal FRMP 

Plan assessments/reports conducted by RRs.

7 Class I + 15 ISP railroads.7 evaluations/reports ..... 2 14 1,064 

—Consultation requirements—RR 

consultation with its directly affected 

employees on FRMP Plan.

7 Class I railroads .......... 2 consultations (w/labor 

union reps.).

1.5 3 228 

15 ISP railroads ............. 5 consultations (w/labor 

union reps.).

1 5 380 

—FRMP plans found deficient by FRA 

and requiring amendment.

7 Class I railroads .......... 1 amended plan ............. 40 40 3,196 

15 ISP railroads ............. 3 amended plans ........... 20 60 4,794 

—Review of amended FRMP plans 

found deficient and requiring further 

amendment by RRs.

7 Class I railroads .......... 1 further amended plan 20 20 1,598 

15 ISP railroads ............. 2 further amended plans 10 20 1,598 

Totals ........................................... 35 railroads .................... 69 responses ................. N/A 1,489 127,692

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad 

Administration, at 202–493–0440. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells 

via email at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements 

which do not display a current OMB 

control number, if required. FRA 

intends to obtain current OMB control 

numbers for any new information 

collection requirements resulting from 

this rulemaking action prior to the 

effective date of the final rule. The OMB 

control number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

F. Environmental Assessment 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 

771 and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83505 

58Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/ 

regulations/dot-order-56102b-departmenttransportation-actions-address-environmentaljustice. 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 

1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 23 

CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘[p]romulgation of 

rules, the issuance of policy statements, 

the waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

propose requirements for certain 

railroads to develop and implement an 

FRMP, as one component of the 

railroads’ larger railroad safety risk 

reduction programs. This rule does not 

directly or indirectly impact any 

environmental resources and will not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise. Instead, the proposed rule is 

likely to result in safety benefits. In 

analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA 

must also consider whether unusual 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant a more detailed environmental 

review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has 

concluded that no such unusual 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

proposed regulation and the proposal 

meets the requirements for categorical 

exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties. 

See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also 

determined that this rulemaking does 

not approve a project resulting in a use 

of a resource protected by Section 4(f). 

See Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 

Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. 

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, and DOT 

Order 5610.2B58 require DOT agencies 

to achieve environmental justice as part 

of their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects, 

including interrelated social and 

economic effects, of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations. The DOT Order instructs 

DOT agencies to address compliance 

with Executive Order 12898 and 

requirements within the DOT Order in 

rulemaking activities, as appropriate, 

and also requires consideration of the 

benefits of transportation programs, 

policies, and other activities where 

minority populations and low-income 

populations benefit, at a minimum, to 

the same level as the general population 

as a whole when determining impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations. FRA has evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12898 and the DOT Order and has 

determined it would not cause 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under Section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531), each Federal agency ‘‘shall, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector 

(other than to the extent that such 

regulations incorporate requirements 

specifically set forth in law).’’ Section 

202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further 

requires that ‘‘before promulgating any 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

that is likely to result in the 

promulgation of any rule that includes 

any Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year, and before promulgating any 

final rule for which a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule will 

not result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as 

adjusted annually for inflation), in any 

one year, and thus preparation of such 

a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001. FRA evaluated this NPRM under 

Executive Order 13211, and determined 

this NPRM is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ under the Executive Order 

13211. 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order 

to facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 270 

Fatigue, Penalties, Railroad safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, System safety. 

49 CFR Part 271 

Fatigue, Penalties, Railroad safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Risk reduction. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend 

chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 270—SYSTEM SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 270 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106–20107, 

20118–20119, 20156, 21301, 21304, 21311; 

28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. Section 270.103(a)(1) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 270.103 System safety program plan. 

(a) General. (1) Each railroad subject 

to this part shall adopt and fully 

implement a system safety program 

through a written SSP plan that, at a 

minimum, contains the elements in this 

section and in subpart E of this part. 

This SSP plan shall be approved by FRA 

under the process specified in 

§ 270.201. 

■ 3. Add subpart E to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Fatigue Risk Management 

Programs 

Sec. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83506 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

270.401 Definitions. 

270.403 Purpose and scope of a Fatigue 

Risk Management Program (FRMP). 

270.405 General requirements; procedure. 

270.407 Requirements for an FRMP. 

270.409 Requirements for a FRMP plan. 

Subpart E—Fatigue Risk Management 

Programs 

§ 270.401 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

Contributing factor means a 

circumstance or condition that helps 

cause a result. 

Fatigue means a complex state 

characterized by a lack of alertness and 

reduced mental and physical 

performance, often accompanied by 

drowsiness. 

Fatigue-risk analysis means a 

railroad’s analysis of its operations that: 

(1) Identifies and evaluates the 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

on its system(s); and 

(2) Determines the degree of risk 

associated with each of those hazards. 

FRMP means a Fatigue Risk 

Management Program. 

FRMP plan means a Fatigue Risk 

Management Program plan. 

Safety-related railroad employee 

means: 

(1) A person subject to 49 U.S.C. 

21103, 21104, or 21105; 

(2) Another person involved in 

railroad operations not subject to 49 

U.S.C. 21103, 21104, or 21105; 

(3) A person who inspects, installs, 

repairs or maintains track, roadbed, 

signal and communication systems, and 

electric traction systems including a 

roadway worker or railroad bridge 

worker; 

(4) A hazmat employee defined under 

49 U.S.C. 5102(3); 

(5) A person who inspects, repairs, or 

maintains locomotives, passenger cars, 

or freight cars; or 

(6) An employee of any person who 

utilizes or performs significant railroad 

safety-related services, as described in 

§ 270.103(d)(2), if that employee 

performs a function identified in 

paragraphs (1) through (5) of this 

definition. 

§ 270.403 Purpose and scope of a Fatigue 

Risk Management Program (FRMP). 

(a) Purpose. The purpose of an FRMP 

is to improve railroad safety through 

structured, systematic, proactive 

processes and procedures that a railroad 

subject to this part develops and 

implements to identify and mitigate the 

effects of fatigue on its employees. 

(b) Scope. A railroad shall: 

(1) Design its FRMP to reduce the 

fatigue its safety-related railroad 

employees experience and to reduce the 

risk of railroad accidents, incidents, 

injuries, and fatalities where the fatigue 

of any of these employees is a 

contributing factor; 

(2) Develop its FRMP by 

systematically identifying and 

evaluating the fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards on its system, 

determining the degree of risk 

associated with each hazard, and 

managing those risks to reduce the 

fatigue that its safety-related railroad 

employees experience. This systemwide fatigue risk identification and 

evaluation process must account for the 

varying circumstances of a railroad’s 

operations on different parts of its 

system; and 

(3) Employ in its FRMP the fatigue 

risk mitigation strategies a railroad 

identifies as appropriate to address 

those varying circumstances. 

§ 270.405 General requirements; 

procedure. 

(a) Each railroad subject to this part 

shall: 

(1) Establish and implement an FRMP 

as part of its SSP; and 

(2) Establish an FRA-approved FRMP 

plan as a component of a railroad’s 

FRA-approved SSP plan and then 

update its FRMP plan as necessary as 

part of the annual internal assessment of 

its SSP under § 270.303. 

(b) A railroad’s FRMP plan must 

explain the railroad’s method of 

analysis of fatigue risks and the 

railroad’s process(es) for implementing 

its FRMP. 

(c)(1) A railroad shall submit an 

FRMP plan to FRA for approval no later 

than either the applicable timeline in 

§ 270.201(a) for filing its SSP plan or 

[date six months after publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]. 

(2) A railroad shall submit updates to 

its FRMP plan under the process for 

amending its SSP plan in § 270.201(c). 

(d) FRA shall review and approve or 

disapprove a railroad’s FRMP plan and 

amendments to that plan under the 

process for reviewing SSP plans and 

amendments in § 270.201(b) and (c), 

respectively. 

§ 270.407 Requirements for an FRMP. 

(a) In general. An FRMP shall include 

an analysis of fatigue risks and 

mitigation strategies, as described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) Analysis of fatigue risks. A 

railroad shall conduct a fatigue-risk 

analysis as part of its FRA-approved 

FRMP, which includes identification of 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards, 

assessment of the risks associated with 

those hazards, and prioritization of risks 

for mitigation. At a minimum, a railroad 

must consider the following categories 

of risk factors: 

(1) General health and medical 

conditions that can affect the fatigue 

levels among the population of safetyrelated railroad employees; 

(2) Scheduling issues that can affect 

the opportunities of safety-related 

railroad employees to obtain sufficient 

quality and quantity of sleep; and 

(3) Characteristics of each job category 

of safety-related railroad employees 

work that can affect fatigue levels and 

risk for fatigue of those employees. 

(c) Mitigation strategies. A railroad 

shall develop and implement mitigation 

strategies to reduce the risk of railroad 

accidents, incidents, injuries, and 

fatalities where fatigue of any of its 

safety-related employees is a 

contributing factor. At a minimum, in 

developing and implementing these 

mitigation strategies, a railroad shall 

consider the railroad’s policies, 

practices, and communication related to 

its safety-related railroad employees. 

(1) Policies. A railroad shall consider 

developing and implementing policies 

to reduce the risk of the exposure of its 

safety-related railroad employees to 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

on its system. At a minimum, a railroad 

shall consider these policies: 

(i) Providing opportunities for 

identification, diagnosis, and treatment 

of any medical condition that may affect 

alertness or fatigue, including sleep 

disorders; 

(ii) Identifying methods to minimize 

accidents and incidents that occur as a 

result of working at times when 

scientific and medical research have 

shown increased fatigue disrupts 

employees’ circadian rhythms; 

(iii) Developing and implementing 

alertness strategies, such as policies on 

napping, to address acute drowsiness 

and fatigue while an employee is on 

duty; 

(iv) Increasing the number of 

consecutive hours of off-duty rest, 

during which an employee receives no 

communication from the employing 

railroad or its managers, supervisors, 

officers, or agents; and 

(v) Avoiding abrupt changes in rest 

cycles for employees. 

(2) Practices. A railroad shall consider 

developing and implementing 

operational practices to reduce the risk 

of exposure of its safety-related railroad 

employees to fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards on its system. At a 

minimum, a railroad shall consider 

these practices: 

(i) Minimizing the effects on 

employee fatigue of an employee’s 

short-term or sustained response to 

emergency situations, such as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83507 

derailments and natural disasters, or 

engagement in other intensive working 

conditions; 

(ii) Developing and implementing 

scheduling practices for employees, 

including innovative scheduling 

practices, on-duty call practices, work 

and rest cycles, increased consecutive 

days off for employees, changes in shift 

patterns, appropriate scheduling 

practices for varying types of work, and 

other aspects of employee scheduling to 

reduce employee fatigue and cumulative 

sleep loss; and 

(iii) Providing opportunities to obtain 

restful sleep at lodging facilities, 

including employee sleeping quarters 

provided by the railroad carrier. 

(3) Communications. A railroad shall 

consider developing and implementing 

training, education, and outreach 

methods to deliver fatigue-related 

information effectively to its safetyrelated railroad employees. At a 

minimum, a railroad shall consider 

including in its employee education and 

training information on the 

physiological and human factors that 

affect fatigue, as well as strategies to 

reduce or mitigate the effects of fatigue, 

based on the most current scientific and 

medical research and literature. 

(d) Evaluation. A railroad shall 

develop and implement procedures and 

processes for monitoring and evaluating 

its FRMP to assess whether the FRMP 

effectively meets the goals its FRMP 

plan describes, as required under 

§ 270.409(b). 

(1) The evaluation shall include, at a 

minimum: 

(i) Periodic monitoring of the 

railroad’s operational environment to 

detect changes that may generate new 

hazards; 

(ii) Analysis of the risks associated 

with any identified hazards; and 

(iii) Periodic safety assessments to 

determine the need for changes to its 

mitigation strategies. 

(2) A railroad shall evaluate newlyidentified hazards, and hazards 

associated with ineffective mitigation 

strategies, through processes for 

analyzing fatigue risks described in the 

railroad’s FRMP plan. 

(3) Any necessary changes not 

addressed prior to a railroad’s annual 

internal assessment must be included in 

the internal assessment improvement 

plans required under § 270.303. 

§ 270.409 Requirements for a FRMP plan. 

(a) In general. A railroad shall adopt 

and implement its FRMP through an 

FRA-approved FRMP plan, developed 

in consultation with directly affected 

employees as described under 

§ 270.107. A railroad FRMP plan must 

contain the elements described in this 

section. A railroad must submit the plan 

to FRA for approval under the criteria 

of subpart C. 

(b) Goals. An FRMP plan must 

contain a statement that defines the 

specific fatigue-related goals of the 

FRMP and describes strategies for 

reaching those goals. 

(c) Methods—(1) Analysis of fatigue 

risk. An FRMP plan shall describe a 

railroad’s method(s) for conducting its 

fatigue-risk analysis as part of its FRMP. 

The description shall specify: 

(i) The scope of the analysis, which is 

the covered population of safety-related 

railroad employees; 

(ii) The processes a railroad will use 

to identify fatigue-related railroad safety 

hazards on its system and determine the 

degree of risk associated with each 

fatigue-related hazard identified; 

(iii) The processes a railroad will use 

to compare and prioritize identified 

fatigue-related risks for mitigation 

purposes; and 

(iv) The information sources a 

railroad will use to support ongoing 

identification of fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards and determine the degree 

of risk associated with those hazards. 

(2) Mitigation strategies. An FRMP 

plan shall describe a railroad’s 

processes for: 

(i) Identifying and selecting fatigue 

risk mitigation strategies; and 

(ii) Monitoring identified fatiguerelated railroad safety hazards. 

(3) Evaluation. An FRMP plan shall 

describe: 

(i) A railroad’s processes for 

monitoring and evaluating the overall 

effectiveness of its FRMP and the 

effectiveness of fatigue-related 

mitigation strategies the railroad uses 

under § 270.407; and 

(ii) A railroad’s procedures for 

reviewing the FRMP as part of the 

annual internal assessment of its SSP 

under § 270.303 and for updating the 

FRMP plan under the process for 

amending its SSP plan under 

§ 270.201(c). 

(d) FRMP implementation plan. A 

railroad shall describe in its FRMP plan 

how it will implement its FRMP. This 

description must cover an 

implementation period not to exceed 36 

months, and shall include: 

(1) A description of the roles and 

responsibilities of each position or job 

function with significant responsibility 

for implementing the FRMP, including 

those held by employees, contractors 

who provide significant FRMP-related 

services, and other entities or persons 

that provide significant FRMP services; 

(2) A timeline describing when 

certain milestones that must be met to 

implement the FRMP fully will be 

achieved. Implementation milestones 

shall be specific and measurable; 

(3) A description of how a railroad 

may make significant changes to the 

FRMP plan under the process for 

amending its SSP plan in § 270.201(c); 

and 

(4) The procedures for consultation 

with directly affected employees on any 

subsequent substantive amendments to 

the railroad’s FRMP plan. The 

requirements of this section do not 

apply to non-substantive amendments 

(e.g., amendments that update names 

and addresses of railroad personnel). 

(e) Submittal. A railroad shall amend 

its SSP plan submitted under subpart C 

of this part to include its FRMP plan 

that meets the requirements of this 

section no later than August 19, 2021. 

(1) A railroad shall follow the 

procedures in § 270.201(c) to amend its 

SSP plan. 

(2) An FRMP plan is not considered 

a safety critical amendment for the 

purposes of § 270.201(c)(ii). 

(3) If a railroad was not required to 

submit an SSP plan initially, but is 

required to do so at a later date, the 

railroad shall either include an FRMP 

plan as part of its SSP plan submission 

under § 270.201(a), or submit its FRMP 

plan in accordance with the procedures 

for amending its SSP plan under 

§ 270.201(c) no later than August 19, 

2021, whichever is later. 

PART 271—RISK REDUCTION 

PROGRAM 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 271 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106–20107, 

20118–20119, 20156, 21301, 21304, 21311; 

28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 5. Amend § 271.101 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 271.101 Risk reduction programs. 

(a) Program required. Each railroad 

shall establish and fully implement an 

RRP meeting the requirements of this 

part. An RRP shall systematically 

evaluate railroad safety hazards on a 

railroad’s system and manage the 

resulting risks to reduce the number and 

rates of railroad accidents/incidents, 

injuries, and fatalities. An RRP is an 

ongoing program that supports 

continuous safety improvement. A 

railroad shall design its RRP so that it 

promotes and supports a positive safety 

culture at the railroad. An RRP shall 

include the following: 

(1) A risk-based hazard management 

program, as described in § 271.103; 

(2) A safety performance evaluation 

component, as described in § 271.105; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83508 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

(3) A safety outreach component, as 

described in § 271.107; 

(4) A technology analysis and 

technology implementation plan, as 

described in § 271.109; 

(5) RRP implementation and support 

training, as described in § 271.111; 

(6) Involvement of railroad employees 

in the establishment and 

implementation of an RRP, as described 

in § 271.113; and 

(7) An FRMP as described in 

§ 271.607. 

■ 6. Section 271.201 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 271.201 General. 

A railroad shall adopt and implement 

its RRP through a written RRP plan 

containing the elements described in 

this subpart and in § 271.609. A 

railroad’s RRP plan shall be approved 

by FRA according to the requirements 

contained in subpart D of this part. 

■ 7. Add subpart G to read as follows: 

Subpart G—Fatigue Risk Management 

Programs 

Sec. 

271.601 Definitions. 

271.603 Purpose and scope of a Fatigue 

Risk Management Program (FRMP). 

271.605 General requirements; procedure. 

271.607 Requirements for an FRMP. 

271.609 Requirements for a FRMP plan. 

Subpart G—Fatigue Risk Management 

Programs 

§ 271.601 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

Contributing factor means a 

circumstance or condition that helps 

cause a result. 

Fatigue means a complex state 

characterized by a lack of alertness and 

reduced mental and physical 

performance, often accompanied by 

drowsiness. 

Fatigue-risk analysis means a 

railroad’s analysis of its operations that: 

(1) Identifies and evaluates the 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

on its system(s) and; 

(2) Determines the degree of risk 

associated with each of those hazards. 

FRMP means a Fatigue Risk 

Management Program. 

FRMP plan means a Fatigue Risk 

Management Program plan. 

Safety-related railroad employee 

means: 

(1) A person subject to 49 U.S.C. 

21103, 21104, or 21105; 

(2) Another person involved in 

railroad operations not subject to 49 

U.S.C. 21103, 21104, or 21105; 

(3) A person who inspects, installs, 

repairs or maintains track, roadbed, 

signal and communication systems, and 

electric traction systems including a 

roadway worker or railroad bridge 

worker; 

(4) A hazmat employee defined under 

49 U.S.C. 5102(3); 

(5) A person who inspects, repairs, or 

maintains locomotives, passenger cars, 

or freight cars; or 

(6) An employee of any person who 

utilizes or performs significant railroad 

safety-related services, as described in 

§ 271.205(a)(3), if that employee 

performs a function identified in 

paragraphs (1) through (5) of this 

definition. 

§ 271.603 Purpose and scope of a Fatigue 

Risk Management Program (FRMP). 

(a) Purpose. The purpose of an FRMP 

is to improve railroad safety through 

structured, proactive processes and 

procedures a railroad subject to this part 

develops and implements. A railroad’s 

FRMP shall systematically identify and 

evaluate the fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards on its system, determine 

the degree of risk associated with each 

hazard, and manage those risks to 

reduce the fatigue that its safety-related 

railroad employees experience and to 

reduce the risk of railroad accidents, 

incidents, injuries, and fatalities where 

the fatigue of any of these employees is 

a contributing factor. 

(b) Scope. A railroad shall: 

(1) Design its FRMP to reduce the 

fatigue its safety-related railroad 

employees experience and to reduce the 

risk of railroad accidents, incidents, 

injuries, and fatalities where the fatigue 

of any of these employees is a 

contributing factor; 

(2) Develop its FRMP by conducting 

a system-wide fatigue-risk analysis that 

accounts for the varying circumstances 

of its operations on different parts of its 

system; and 

(3) Employ in its FRMP the fatigue 

risk mitigation strategies the railroad 

identifies as appropriate to address 

those varying circumstances. 

§ 271.605 General requirements; 

procedure. 

(a) Each railroad subject to this part 

shall: 

(1) Establish and implement an FRMP 

as part of its RRP; and 

(2) Establish an FRA-approved FRMP 

plan as a component of a railroad’s 

FRA-approved RRP plan and then 

update the FRMP plan as necessary as 

part of the annual internal assessment of 

its RRP under § 271.401. 

(b) A railroad’s FRMP plan must 

explain the railroad’s method of 

analysis of fatigue risks and the 

railroad’s process(es) for implementing 

its FRMP. 

(c)(1) A railroad shall submit an 

FRMP plan to FRA for approval no later 

than either the applicable timeline in 

§ 271.301(b) for filing its RRP plan or 

[date six months after publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register], 

whichever is later; and 

(2) A railroad shall submit updates to 

its FRMP plan under the process for 

amending its RRP plan in § 271.303. 

(d) FRA shall review and approve or 

disapprove a railroad’s FRMP plan 

under the process for reviewing RRP 

plans in § 271.301(d) and updates to the 

railroad’s FRMP plan under the process 

for reviewing amendments to an RRP 

plan in § 271.303(c). 

§ 271.607 Requirements for an FRMP. 

(a) In general. An FRMP shall include 

an analysis of fatigue risks and 

mitigation strategies described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) Analysis of fatigue risks. A 

railroad shall conduct a fatigue-risk 

analysis as part of its FRA-approved 

FRMP, which includes identification of 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards, 

assessment of the risks associated with 

those hazards, and prioritization of risks 

for mitigation. At a minimum, railroads 

must consider the following categories 

of risk factors, as applicable: 

(1) General health and medical 

conditions that can affect the fatigue 

levels among the population of safetyrelated railroad employees; 

(2) Scheduling issues that can affect 

the opportunities of safety-related 

railroad employees to obtain sufficient 

quality and quantity of sleep; and 

(3) Characteristics of each job category 

safety-related railroad employees work 

that can affect fatigue levels and risk for 

fatigue of those employees. 

(c) Mitigation strategies. A railroad 

shall develop and implement mitigation 

strategies to reduce the risk of railroad 

accidents, incidents, injuries, and 

fatalities where fatigue of any of its 

safety-related employees is a 

contributing factor. At a minimum, in 

developing and implementing these 

mitigation strategies, a railroad shall 

consider the railroad’s policies, 

practices, and communications related 

to its safety-related railroad employees. 

(1) Policies. A railroad shall consider 

developing and implementing policies 

to reduce the risk of the exposure of its 

safety-related railroad employees to 

fatigue-related railroad safety hazards 

on its system. At a minimum, a railroad 

shall consider these policies: 

(i) Providing opportunities for 

identification, diagnosis, and treatment 

of any medical condition that may affect 

alertness or fatigue, including sleep 

disorders; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83509 

(ii) Identifying methods to minimize 

accidents and incidents that occur as a 

result of working at times when 

scientific and medical research have 

shown increased fatigue disrupts 

employees’ circadian rhythms; 

(iii) Developing and implementing 

alertness strategies, such as policies on 

napping, to address acute drowsiness 

and fatigue while an employee is on 

duty; 

(iv) Increasing the number of 

consecutive hours of off-duty rest, 

during which an employee receives no 

communication from the employing 

railroad or its managers, supervisors, 

officers, or agents; and 

(v) Avoiding abrupt changes in rest 

cycles for employees. 

(2) Practices. A railroad shall consider 

developing and implementing 

operational practices to reduce the risk 

of exposure of its safety-related railroad 

employees to fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards on its system. At a 

minimum, a railroad shall consider 

these practices: 

(i) Minimizing the effects on 

employee fatigue of an employee’s 

short-term or sustained response to 

emergency situations, such as 

derailments and natural disasters, or 

engagement in other intensive working 

conditions; 

(ii) Developing and implementing 

scheduling practices for employees, 

including innovative scheduling 

practices, on-duty call practices, work 

and rest cycles, increased consecutive 

days off for employees, changes in shift 

patterns, appropriate scheduling 

practices for varying types of work, and 

other aspects of employee scheduling to 

reduce employee fatigue and cumulative 

sleep loss; and 

(iii) Providing opportunities to obtain 

restful sleep at lodging facilities, 

including employee sleeping quarters 

provided by the railroad carrier. 

(3) Communication. A railroad shall 

consider developing and implementing 

training, education, and outreach 

methods to deliver fatigue-related 

information effectively to its safetyrelated railroad employees. At a 

minimum, a railroad shall consider 

communications regarding employee 

education and training on the 

physiological and human factors that 

affect fatigue, as well as strategies to 

reduce or mitigate the effects of fatigue, 

based on the most current scientific and 

medical research and literature. 

(d) Evaluation. A railroad shall 

develop and implement procedures and 

processes for monitoring and evaluating 

its FRMP to assess whether the FRMP 

effectively meets the goals its FRMP 

plan describes under § 271.609(b). 

(1) The evaluation shall include, at a 

minimum: 

(i) Periodic monitoring of the 

railroad’s operational environment to 

detect changes that may generate new 

hazards; 

(ii) Analysis of the risks associated 

with any identified hazards; and 

(iii) Periodic safety assessments to 

determine the need for changes to its 

mitigation strategies. 

(2) A railroad shall evaluate newlyidentified hazards, and hazards 

associated with ineffective mitigation 

strategies, through processes for 

analyzing fatigue risks described in the 

railroad’s FRMP plan. 

(3) Any necessary changes not 

addressed prior to a railroad’s annual 

internal assessment must be included in 

the internal assessment improvement 

plans required under § 271.403. 

§ 271.609 Requirements for a FRMP plan. 

(a) In general. A railroad shall adopt 

and implement its FRMP through an 

FRA-approved FRMP plan, developed 

in consultation with directly affected 

employees as described under 

§ 271.207. A railroad FRMP plan must 

contain the elements described in this 

section. The railroad must submit the 

plan to FRA for approval under the 

criteria of subpart D. 

(b) Goals. An FRMP plan must 

contain a statement that defines the 

specific fatigue-related goals of the 

FRMP and describes strategies for 

reaching those goals. 

(c) Methods—(1) Analysis of fatigue 

risk. An FRMP plan shall describe a 

railroad’s method(s) for conducting its 

fatigue-risk analysis as part of its FRMP. 

The description shall specify: 

(i) The scope of the analysis, which is 

the covered population of safety-related 

railroad employees; 

(ii) The processes a railroad will use 

to identify fatigue-related railroad safety 

hazards on its system and determine the 

degree of risk associated with each 

fatigue-related hazard identified; 

(iii) The processes a railroad will use 

to compare and prioritize identified 

fatigue-related risks for mitigation 

purposes; and 

(iv) The information sources a 

railroad will use to support ongoing 

identification of fatigue-related railroad 

safety hazards and determine the degree 

of risk associated with those hazards. 

(2) Mitigation strategies. An FRMP 

plan shall describe a railroad’s 

processes for: 

(i) Identifying and selecting fatigue 

risk mitigation strategies; and 

(ii) Monitoring identified fatiguerelated railroad safety hazards. 

(3) Evaluation. An FRMP plan shall 

describe: 

(i) A railroad’s processes for 

monitoring and evaluating the overall 

effectiveness of its FRMP and the 

effectiveness of fatigue-related 

mitigation strategies the railroad uses 

under § 271.607; and 

(ii) A railroad’s procedures for 

reviewing the FRMP as part of the 

annual assessment of its RRP under 

§ 271.401 and for updating the FRMP 

plan under the process for amending its 

RRP plan under § 271.303. 

(d) FRMP implementation plan. A 

railroad shall describe in its FRMP plan 

how it will implement its FRMP. This 

description must cover an 

implementation period not to exceed 36 

months, and shall include: 

(1) A description of the roles and 

responsibilities of each position or job 

function with significant responsibility 

for implementing the FRMP, including 

those held by employees, contractors 

who provide significant FRMP-related 

services, and other entities or persons 

that provide significant FRMP services; 

(2) A timeline describing when 

certain milestones that must be met to 

implement the FRMP fully will be 

achieved. Implementation milestones 

shall be specific and measurable; 

(3) A description of how the railroad 

may make significant changes to the 

FRMP plan under the process for 

amending its RRP plan in § 271.303; and 

(4) The procedures for consultation 

with directly affected employees on any 

subsequent substantive amendments to 

the railroad’s FRMP plan. The 

requirements of this section do not 

apply to non-substantive amendments 

(e.g., amendments that update names 

and addresses of railroad personnel). 

(e) Submittal. A railroad shall amend 

its RRP plan submitted under subpart D 

of this part to include its FRMP plan 

that meets the requirements of this 

section no later than August 19, 2021. 

(1) A railroad shall follow the 

procedures in § 271.303 to amend its 

RRP plan. 

(2) If a railroad was not required to 

submit an RRP plan initially, but is 

required to do so at a later date, the 

railroad shall either include an FRMP 

plan as part of its RRP plan submission 

under § 271.301 or submit its FRMP 

plan in accordance with the procedures 

for amending its RRP plan under 

§ 271.303 no later than August 19, 2021, 

whichever is later. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Quintin C. Kendall, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27085 Filed 12–21–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS