35660 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Insurance 

Insurance Restricted Delivery 

[Revise the ‘‘Note:’’ under 

‘‘Insurance’’ to read as follows:] 

Note: Priority Mail Express includes 

$100.00 of insurance and Priority Mail 

includes $100.00 of insurance; see 

503.4.0. 

* * * * * 

4.0 Insured Mail 

* * * * * 

4.2 Insurance Coverage—Priority Mail 

[Revise the introductory text of 4.2 to 

read as follows:] 

Priority Mail pieces, including 

Priority Mail Return service, are insured 

against loss, damage, or missing 

contents, up to a maximum of $100.00, 

subject to the following: 

[Revise the text of item a to read as 

follows:] 

a. Insurance coverage is provided 

against loss, damage, or missing 

contents and is limited to a maximum 

liability of $100.00 when the Priority 

Mail pieces bear an Intelligent Mail 

package barcode (IMpb) or USPS retail 

tracking barcode (see 4.3.4) and the 

mailer pays retail or commercial prices. 

[Delete item b in its entirety and 

renumber items c through f as b through 

e, respectively.] 

* * * * * 

[Revise the text of item d (as 

renumbered) to read as follows:] 

Insurance coverage under 4.2a is 

provided for Priority Mail pieces mailed 

as Priority Mail Open and Distribute or 

Premium Forwarding Service. 

* * * * * 

505 Return Services 

1.0 Business Reply Mail (BRM) 

* * * * * 

1.6 Additional Standards for 

Qualified Business Reply Mail (QBRM) 

1.6.1 Description 

* * * * * 

[Revise the text of 1.6.1a, through 

1.6.1e; to read as follows:] 

a. Meets all the Business Reply Mail 

(BRM) standards in 1.3 through 1.8. 

b. Has postage and per piece charges 

deducted from a BRM advance deposit 

account. 

c. Is a letter weighing 3.5 ounces or 

less or card that is prepared to meet the 

automation compatibility requirements 

in 201.3.0. 

d. Is authorized to mail at QBRM 

prices and fees under 1.6.2. During the 

authorization process, a proper ZIP+4 

code is assigned to the mailer (under 

1.6.2) for each QBRM to be returned 

under the system (one for card priced 

pieces and one for letter-size pieces 

weighing up to and including 3.5 

ounces). 

e. Bears the proper ZIP+4 code, 

assigned by USPS, in the address of 

each piece. The ZIP+4 codes assigned 

for this program must be used only on 

the organization’s appropriate QBRM 

pieces.* * * 

* * * * * 

3.0 USPS Returns Service 

3.1 Basic Standards 

* * * * * 

3.1.3 Postage and Prices 

* * * * * 

[Revise item c1 to read as follows:] 

1. Insurance is available for USPS 

Returns service (see 503.4). Insurance is 

included with the postage for Priority 

Mail Return service (see 503.4.2). 

Insurance for First-Class Package Return 

service and Ground Return service, and 

additional insurance for Priority Mail 

Return service is available to the 

account holder for a fee on packages 

that have the applicable STC embedded 

into the IMpb on the authentic USPS 

label with valid postage, and for which 

the account holder has provided 

electronic data that supports the value 

of the merchandise (see 503.4.3.1a). 

Only the account holder of record may 

file a claim (see 609). Except for Priority 

Mail Return service, mailers mailing a 

USPS Returns service package may 

obtain insurance at their own expense at 

the time of mailing by presenting an 

authentic USPS Returns label with valid 

postage affixed to the package at a Post 

Office retail unit to obtain the service. 

* * * * * 

Notice 123 (Price List) 

[Revise prices as applicable.] 

* * * * * 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12594 Filed 6–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 270 and 271 

[Docket No. FRA–2015–0122, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC54 

Fatigue Risk Management Programs 

for Certain Passenger and Freight 

Railroads 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, FRA is 

issuing 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: This final rule is effective July 

13, 2022. 

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., Engineering Psychologist, 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 Benefits and Costs 

II. Response to Public Comments 

A. Comments Pertaining to Particular 

Fatigue Management Strategies 

B. Comments Pertaining to Employee 

Involvement 

C. Comments Pertaining to the Regulatory 

Timeline 

D. Comments Pertaining to the Contents of 

FRMP plans 

E. Other Comments 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

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 

I. Introduction and Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Rulemaking 

This rule is part of FRA’s efforts to 

improve rail safety continually and to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35661 

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 the 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), 85 

FR 12826 (Mar. 4, 2020) and 85 FR 9262 (Feb. 18, 

2020)), elsewhere throughout this proposed rule, 

FRA uses the terms ‘‘fatigue risk management 

program’’ (FRMP) and ‘‘FRMP plan.’’ Notably, the 

RSAC recommended FRA use the term ‘‘fatigue risk 

management program’’ in its regulations (as 

opposed to the term ‘‘fatigue management plan’’ 

used in Section 20156), because it concluded that 

the term was broader and more appropriately 

encompassed the intent of the statutory mandate— 

i.e., to manage both the causes of and the risks 

related to fatigue). 

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. 4Section 20156 requires railroads to consider 

including the following elements in their plans: (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 off-duty 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. 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(3). 

5 49 U.S.C. 20156(g). 

6 49 U.S.C. 20156(g)(2). 

7 85 FR 83484 (Dec 22, 2020), available at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/22/ 

2020-27085/fatigue-risk-management-programs-forcertain-passenger-and-freight-railroads. 

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 the 

development and implementation of 

safety risk reduction programs to 

improve the operational safety of: 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. FRA 

addressed Section 20156’s general ‘‘risk 

reduction’’ mandate in two rules: its 

Risk Reduction Program (RRP) 

rulemaking (for Class I and ISP 

railroads) and in its System Safety 

Program (SSP) rulemaking (for 

commuter and intercity passenger 

railroad carriers). Section 20156 further 

requires a railroad’s safety risk 

reduction program to include a ‘‘fatigue 

management plan’’ meeting certain 

requirements. This rule fulfills the 

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) as part of their RRPs or SSPs.2

A railroad implements its FRMP 

through an FRMP plan. 

Consistent with the mandate of 

Section 20156, an FRMP is a 

comprehensive, system-oriented 

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 Covered railroads are 

required to prepare a written FRMP plan 

and submit it to FRA for review and 

approval. Section 20156 requires 

covered railroads to consider the need 

to include in their plans elements 

addressing several factors that may 

influence employee fatigue, including 

scheduling practices and an employee’s 

consecutive hours off-duty.4 A railroad’s 

written FRMP plan becomes part of its 

existing safety RRP or SSP plan. A 

railroad is also 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 is also subject to assessments by 

FRA. 

The statutory mandate also requires a 

railroad to ‘‘consult with, employ good 

faith, and use its best efforts’’ to reach 

agreement with directly affected 

employees, including nonprofit 

employee labor organizations of such 

employees, on the contents of the plan.5

FRA is aware that consultation on some 

RRP plans has not met the spirit of this 

statutory requirement. The intent of 

consultation is to engage with directly 

affected employees at all stages of plan 

development and program 

implementation. Ideally, railroads will 

look to their directly affected employees 

as partners throughout the process 

rather than as reviewers of a finished 

product. FRA expects consultation on 

FRMP plans will genuinely involve 

good faith and best efforts. FRA will 

separately provide further guidance on 

its expectations of the consultation 

process. In addition, the statute also 

provides that if a railroad and its 

directly affected employees, including 

labor organizations, are unable to reach 

consensus on a plan, the employees and 

labor organizations may file a statement 

explaining their views on the plan, and 

FRA shall consider those views during 

its review and approval of the plan.6

FRA also notes that, as discussed in 

detail in the NPRM, the task forces of 

the Fatigue Working Group of the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC), which included all industry 

stakeholders, extensively discussed 

methods of mitigation for the specific 

issues listed in the statute and 

developed documents that could be 

used in consultation discussions during 

the development of the FRMP plan. 

Those documents are included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

statutory and scientific foundation for 

this rulemaking, the process for 

identifying fatigue risks and developing 

the FRMP plan, and the regulatory 

process, including the RSAC working 

group, please see the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking.7

FRA recognizes that fatigue of railroad 

employees is a longstanding concern 

and challenge in the railroad industry. 

Accordingly, this rule is just one of 

several ongoing FRA efforts designed to 

address the adverse impacts and 

underlying causes of fatigue in the 

railroad industry. For example, FRA 

enforces the Federal Hours of Service 

(HOS) law under 49 U.S.C. chapter 211. 

These statutory requirements include 

maximum time on duty, minimum 

periods of uninterrupted rest, and 

cumulative limitations for train 

employees on consecutive on-duty days 

and hours in a calendar month. FRA 

takes seriously all violations of the HOS 

and closely monitors railroad 

compliance with statutory requirements, 

taking enforcement action under the 

statute as appropriate. FRA also recently 

conducted a survey of locomotive 

engineers and conductors to gain indepth understanding of the factors that 

contribute to fatigue and the resulting 

impacts on safety. Survey questions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35662 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

8 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(2). 

9See 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(3) (specifying elements 

railroads must consider the need to address in an 

FRMP). 

addressed potential contributing factors 

to fatigue, such as work schedules, 

commute times, and work/life balance. 

FRA will use the survey results to 

identify research needs related to 

fatigue. The survey’s descriptive data 

will also help FRA facilitate mutually 

beneficial solutions between railroad 

workers and management. Further, FRA 

investigates rail accidents and injuries 

to determine root causes and make 

recommendations to prevent further 

occurrences. For accidents suspected of 

being human-factor caused, FRA 

routinely performs fatigue analyses 

using tools such as the Fatigue Audit 

InterDyne (FAID) program. The FAID 

program is an analytical tool, used to 

identify, quantify and predict the 

likelihood of fatigue exposure 

associated with different work hours. In 

addition to this type of scientific 

analysis in the conduct of FRA’s 

accident and incident investigations, as 

appropriate, FRA has revised its 

accident and incident investigation 

procedures to collect and analyze 

information related to the involved 

railroads’ attendance policies and train 

lineup procedures as appropriate. 

B. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

FRA estimated the benefits and costs 

of this rule using discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent over a ten-year time horizon. 

FRA presents monetized benefits and 

costs where possible and discusses 

those non-quantifiable elements 

qualitatively where data is lacking. 

Details on the estimated benefits and 

costs 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 the total benefits and 

costs 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 (i.e., 

covered railroads). FRA was unable to 

quantify benefits or costs for passenger 

railroads and discusses the 

implementation of the regulation 

qualitatively within the Regulatory 

Evaluation. 

FRA also estimated the total costs 

over 10 years to develop and monitor 

FRMP plans for the covered railroads. 

The 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 

benefits and costs associated with the 

rule. 

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

[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 

II. Response to Public Comments 

FRA received 15 comments on the 

proposed rule, including comments 

from organizations representing railroad 

labor and management, experts in 

fatigue science, and other individual 

commenters. 

A. Comments Pertaining to Particular 

Fatigue Management Strategies 

Many commenters offered specific 

strategies for compliance with the rule 

that they believed should be required 

components of an FRMP, including 

medical recommendations, alterations 

to current scheduling practices, topics 

upon which to train, and many other 

possible fatigue mitigations. These 

comments are valuable and demonstrate 

the breadth of potential ways for 

railroads to comply. However, 

mandating any one of these strategies as 

a requirement of the final rule would 

contradict RSIA’s directive that FRMPs 

be individually tailored to a railroad’s 

unique operating circumstances and 

may not effectively reduce the fatigue of 

the railroad’s employees or reduce the 

probability of fatigue-related accidents 

and incidents. Therefore, FRA declines 

to adopt the suggested strategies as a 

requirement of the final rule. 

The RSIA, in 49 U.S.C. 20156, 

requires a railroad, who must develop 

an FRMP, to tailor its program to its 

unique operating characteristics. 

Indeed, the railroad must take into 

account the varying circumstances of 

operations by the railroad on different 

parts of its system and prescribe the 

appropriate fatigue countermeasures to 

address its varying circumstances.8

Accordingly, 49 U.S.C. 20156 does not 

require a railroad’s FRMP to adopt any 

particular strategy or fatigue mitigation, 

but rather requires railroads to consider 

whether to include a variety of 

elements, as noted above. Ultimately 

railroads must design and implement 

their FRMPs to effectively reduce the 

fatigue experienced by their employees 

and to reduce the probability of fatiguerelated accidents and incidents.9

Dr. Thomas Raslear and the Institutes 

for Behavior Resources (IBR) both 

commented that biomathematical 

models of fatigue and human 

performance are essential to monitor 

and manage fatigue and risk from 

fatigue, as a part of building an FRMP. 

While such models provide valuable 

information regarding fatigue caused by 

employees’ work schedules, and the 

effectiveness of any work schedule 

mitigations intended to reduce fatigue, 

they are not so vital to fatigue 

management that a railroad could not 

create an effective FRMP without using 

them. Indeed, biomathematical models 

of fatigue and human performance are 

valuable tools for quantifying fatigue to 

create a regulatory threshold, as in the 

regulatory structure of the hours of 

service regulations for passenger train 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35663 

employees, 49 CFR part 228 subpart F. 

However, fatigue risk analysis does not 

require such a threshold to be effective. 

While some railroads may find it 

valuable to model schedules, other 

railroads may not identify fatigue risks 

that can be quantified by analysis of 

their employees’ work schedules. In 

addition, many railroad operations are 

unscheduled, and therefore are 

impossible to model prospectively. 

Ultimately, these recommendations to 

require the analysis of fatigue using 

biomathematical models are 

requirements that FRA declines to 

adopt. Similarly, FRA declines to 

require biomathematical modeling as a 

universal evaluation process; while FRA 

believes that biomathematical models of 

fatigue and human performance provide 

valuable quantitative methods of 

evaluating the success of an FRMP, they 

are not useful for all situations. 

IBR also expresses concern that 

railroads will not keep sufficient records 

to allow for effective enforcement of the 

rule, because there is not a specific 

recordkeeping requirement. However, it 

would be impossible for FRA to preemptively list what records would be 

necessary to prove that each railroad is 

in compliance with its particular plan. 

Railroads have a statutory obligation to 

create and implement FRMPs, and it is 

in the railroads’ interests to keep the 

records necessary for FRA to ascertain 

whether a railroad is complying with its 

FRMP plan, even without a specific 

requirement that they keep any 

particular records. 

NTSB was supportive of the NPRM, 

but suggested FRA should require 

railroads to employ personnel trained to 

make fatigue determinations, especially 

since not all railroads will use 

biomathematical models to make those 

determinations, and that FRA should 

require railroads to collect and evaluate 

all employee medical information 

necessary to make an assessment for 

medical conditions or medications that 

cause fatigue. Railroads are required to 

develop and implement an FRMP 

tailored to their particular 

circumstances, and FRA will not require 

specific personnel decisions or the 

gathering or evaluation of particular 

information that may not be appropriate 

for every situation. In addition, FRA 

could provide assistance to railroads 

that need help with modeling 

schedules, such as short line railroads. 

The Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the 

Transportation Division of the 

International Association of Sheet 

Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation 

Workers (SMART–TD) and individual 

commenters also discuss railroad 

scheduling practices; these scheduling 

practices may be addressed in a 

railroad’s FRMP plan, but it is contrary 

to the structure and aim of this 

rulemaking to mandate any particular 

scheduling practice. 

Similarly, it is outside the scope of 

the rule to prohibit, as BLET and 

SMART suggest, inward-facing cameras 

that may be a hindrance to employees 

who wish to nap while on duty, even if 

railroad policies permit it. In addition, 

policies that would permit napping in 

certain circumstances are a strategy a 

railroad could, in consultation with its 

employees, choose to implement to 

mitigate fatigue, but FRA does not 

require or prohibit such policies. 

B. Comments Pertaining to Employee 

Involvement 

BLET and SMART–TD filed a joint 

comment discussing the employee 

consultation portion of the statutory 

mandate and the present rulemaking. 

Several individual commenters also 

discussed the consultation requirement. 

This consultation is mandated by 

Congress in the RSIA (49 U.S.C. 

20156(g)). BLET and SMART–TD raise 

the issue of collective bargaining 

agreements, asserting that, from their 

experience in the collective bargaining 

arena, railroads are not willing to 

negotiate on attendance policies or other 

fatigue-related matters. However, as 

FRA has stated in the past, interpreting 

existing collective bargaining 

agreements, and engaging in their 

negotiation, is outside of the agency’s 

power. Collective bargaining is an 

activity separate and apart from the 

consultation requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

20156(g) (‘‘Consensus’’). The statutory 

mandate requires a railroad to ‘‘consult 

with, employ good faith, and use its best 

efforts’’ to reach agreement with directly 

affected employees, including nonprofit 

employee labor organizations of such 

employees, on the contents of the plan; 

the SSP and RRP regulations require 

approved plans to have a process for 

consultation for subsequent 

amendments, including the amendment 

of those plans to add the FRMP plan. 

Because compliance with crafting and 

implementing an FRMP entails periodic 

review and reassessment of the contents 

of the plan, the consultation obligation 

applies to implementation of the plans 

as well. This consultation obligation is 

not a part of collective bargaining 

agreements and exists outside of that 

structure. Non-profit employee labor 

organizations are entitled by statute to 

provide input into the FRMP plan, and 

they also have a right to submit a 

statement to FRA when FRA considers 

the first plan and subsequent plan 

amendments. 

BLET and SMART–TD ask if the rule 

permits them to file comments on 

updated plans with changes the railroad 

indicates to be non-substantive, where 

FRA approval is not required. FRA 

welcomes comment whenever there is 

an issue of railroad safety. An employee, 

group of employees, or union 

organization, etc., is free to comment on 

an FRMP update submission that they 

contend is, in fact, substantive, and 

such a filing could cause FRA to 

determine that substantive changes exist 

and the amended FRMP plan is subject 

to FRA review and approval. 

C. Comments Pertaining to the 

Regulatory Timeline 

Several commenters expressed 

concern with railroads’ ability to 

comply with the time prescribed for 

both developing and implementing 

FRMP plans and programs. Some 

comments exhibited confusion about 

when elements of the regulation become 

effective. In the proposed rule, FRA 

prescribed that FRMP plans would be 

required to be submitted for review and 

approval no later than either six months 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

or the applicable timeline for filing of 

the railroad’s SSP plan or RRP plan. 

Many commenters, including the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) and the American Short Line 

Regional Railroad Association 

(ASLRRA) in their joint comment, and 

the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA), commented that 

six months was an insufficient amount 

of time to prepare FRMP plans. 

AAR and ASLRRA assert that six 

months from the effective date of the 

rule is insufficient time to comply, 

estimating that it will take thousands of 

hours for railroads to formulate their 

fatigue risk management plans. 

However, these estimates lacked detail 

indicating how they were derived or an 

evidentiary basis for their adoption. 

AAR and ASLRRA note how much 

effort railroads have already exerted to 

manage risk from fatigue; FRA accounts 

for that effort in arriving at its estimate 

of how long it will take railroads to 

create compliant FRMP plans. The 

estimate of costs is the marginal cost 

imposed by the existence of the rule. 

Because many railroads are already 

working to address risk from fatigue, it 

will not take long to formalize those 

efforts into a discrete plan. The 

commenters’ extreme estimates of time 

required to create FRMP plans are not 

consistent with FRA’s understanding of 

how FRMP plans fit into the structure 

of system safety plans and risk 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35664 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

10https://railroadersleep.fra.dot.gov/. Originally 

launched in 2012, the Railroaders’ Guide to Healthy 

Sleep website is a non-regulatory, educational 

resource. Designed for railroads and their support 

networks, the website provides scientifically valid 

information about the importance of sleep, tools to 

monitor and self-assess risks for sleep disorders, 

and practical strategies for improving sleep health. 

11 49 CFR 270.201(c)(1)(ii). See also 49 CFR 

271.303(a)(1). 

reduction plans. FRA delayed 

promulgation of this rule to complete 

the SSP and RRP rulemakings, as the 

agency views fatigue risk management 

plans as a component of system safety 

plans and risk reduction plans, rather 

than an entirely separate effort that 

might require something closer to the 

labor estimated by these commenters. 

As a routine part of estimating the 

benefits and costs of rulemakings, FRA 

assumes that entities required to comply 

with a rule will employ an efficient 

method. As an example, APTA notes 

that its members have taken fatigue 

mitigation efforts prior to this rule, 

including compliance with the 

substantive regulations for train 

employee hours of service in 49 CFR 

part 228 subpart F. Passenger railroad 

operations can use existing programs 

and modeling performed for compliance 

with that prior regulation as a starting 

point for development of an FRMP plan, 

though compliance with the passenger 

train employee hours of service 

regulation does not cover all employees 

required to be covered by the statutory 

mandate for FRMP plans. Further, the 

formulation of an FRMP plan does not 

require a different plan for each craft of 

employee service the plan addresses. 

While different crafts may have different 

norms as to work schedules, fatigue risk 

analysis is predicated on fatigue having 

the same base biological effects on 

employees, regardless of what form their 

work takes, such that the planning is not 

expected to wildly differ between crafts. 

Instead, FRA anticipates that many 

entities will create a master FRMP plan, 

that includes minor modifications to 

account for differences in crafts, to 

reflect the specific ways in which those 

crafts differ. The description of 

processes and procedures (i.e., the plan) 

could be the same across crafts, but with 

different hazards and mitigations (i.e., 

the program). Railroads subject to this 

rule are familiar with safety 

management systems through their work 

to comply with the SSP and RRP rules, 

and FRA performs outreach to smaller 

entities to help them comply with the 

SSP, RRP, and FRMP rules. Further, 

with respect to training mitigations, 

there is a significant amount of material 

railroads could draw from, including 

FRA resources such as the Railroaders’ 

Guide to Healthy Sleep.10

In an effort to reduce regulatory 

burden and simplify the rule, the final 

rule requires that FRMP plans shall be 

filed within a year of the effective date 

of this rule, July 13, 2023. The rule also 

provides that railroads, who are not 

presently required to submit an SSP or 

RRP but become required to do so in the 

future, are required to submit an FRMP 

plan as a component of their respective 

SSP plan or RRP plan in accordance 

with the timelines for SSP plans and 

RRP plans respectively. Before a 

railroad is required to begin 

implementing the FRMP plan, it must 

first be reviewed and approved by FRA. 

The three-year implementation period 

does not begin until the date of FRA 

approval of the plan, at which point it 

becomes a component of the applicable 

SSP plan or RRP plan, with 

implementation of the plan required 

within the three years prescribed by the 

rule. FRA has also removed the 

provisions in the proposed rule 

(proposed §§ 270.409(e) and 271.609(e), 

that would have required the amended 

SSP plan or RRP plan be resubmitted 

after FRA has approved the addition of 

the FRMP plan; FRA approval of the 

FRMP plan amends the respective SSP 

plan or RRP plan without the need for 

an additional filing. 

In addition, APTA further commented 

that FRA’s review and approval timeline 

is excessive and will add to the costs of 

the rule and suggests that a plan be 

passively approved by FRA if the 

agency has not rejected it within 30 

days. However, the timelines set in the 

rule for FRA approval are consistent 

with the timelines for system safety and 

risk reduction plans, and FRA’s 

experience with reviewing and 

approving those plans gives the agency 

confidence that it can handle the 

receipt, review, and approval of 

compliant FRMP plans with the same 

efficiency. 

The aim of the rule is for FRA, 

railroads, and labor organizations to 

work collaboratively over time to reduce 

the risk from fatigue in the rail industry 

through cycles of plan development, 

review, approval, and implementation. 

For this reason, FRA also is not 

adopting APTA’s suggestion that only 

‘‘substantive’’ changes to the FRMP plan 

need be submitted to FRA. To determine 

if railroads are complying with their 

FRMP plans, FRA must necessarily have 

the complete FRMP plans in their 

current forms. In the SSP and RRP rules, 

FRA spoke very clearly regarding the 

narrow set of amendments that do not 

require FRA approval: ‘‘adding or 

changing a name, title, address, or 

telephone number of a person.’’ 11 All 

other amendments must follow the 

approval process. 

D. Comments Pertaining to the Contents 

of FRMP Plans 

In its comment, APTA characterizes 

FRA’s discussion in the NPRM of signs 

and symptoms of fatigue as a 

requirement to monitor these signs and 

symptoms on all employees at all times. 

The rule does not do so. Rather, FRA 

explains the work product of the 

Education and Training Task Force of 

the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

to include, as a basic element of a 

fatigue training and education, a review 

of the signs and symptoms of fatigue as 

a human biological factor, as naturally 

follows from the definition of fatigue. 

Dr. Raslear similarly expresses 

concern that FRA has not been 

sufficiently clear as to what constitutes 

a fatigue-related safety hazard. However, 

the lack of specificity is due to the 

nature of the individualized fatigue risk 

analysis each railroad must complete. 

The fatigue-related safety hazards will 

vary from railroad to railroad, as they 

are closely related to the specifics of 

operations. In crafting this rule, FRA is 

looking at fatigue holistically, and it 

would be contrary to that effort to craft 

a prescriptive list of fatigue-related 

safety hazards. Any list FRA could 

create would create a false sense of 

exclusivity, while likely missing 

hazards and becoming outdated as 

railroad practices change. Railroads 

might then only look at the elements on 

the list, regardless of the actual fatiguerelated safety hazards in their 

operations. By not imposing this degree 

of specificity, each railroad will be able 

to address the fatigue hazards in its 

operations in a way that will give the 

railroad the flexibility to meaningfully 

reduce the most critical fatigue risks in 

its operations. 

APTA also interprets FRA’s definition 

of fatigue ‘‘as primarily related to 

mental fatigue as opposed to physical 

fatigue.’’ This is not the case, as the 

definition specifically includes physical 

factors and encompasses fatigue 

generally, without differentiating 

between ‘‘mental’’ and ‘‘physical’’ 

fatigue. 

APTA also asserts that the FRA 

estimates of the costs of creating and 

maintaining FRMP plans does not 

include the cost of establishing a fatigue 

committee or consultation with 

employees. However, there is not a 

requirement for a standing committee 

for this rule; the rule is intended to fit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35665 

12Sutherland Statutory Construction section 46:5. 

13For more discussion, see Section III of the 

NPRM, 85 FR 83484 at 83487. 14 49 U.S.C. 20156(f)(3)(D). 

within the structure created by the SSP 

and RRP rulemakings, so as to minimize 

compliance costs. 

BLET and SMART–TD express 

concern over the quality of training 

provided under FRMP plans. BLET and 

SMART–TD are concerned that 

lackluster training will impede the 

ability of FRMPs to achieve results. FRA 

notes that training and education can 

(and is expected to) vary among 

railroads and even within railroads, 

between different crafts, based on 

differences in operations. These 

variations will allow each railroad to 

create training and education 

information that is targeted to its 

employees, or a specific subset of 

employees, and deploy that information 

in a manner that is best received by the 

target audience. FRA will review and 

approve plans based on their merit and 

will audit programs to ensure efficacy. 

Different forms of education may be 

more or less effective in different 

situations. A pamphlet may be an 

invaluable quick reference in certain 

situations, just as an all-day, in-person, 

classroom training session may or may 

not communicate useful information. 

FRA also notes that the type of training 

is expected to be tailored to the nature 

of the railroads creating the FRMP plans 

(e.g., the size of the railroad; the nature 

and scope of its operations; the nature 

and extent of fatigue risks; etc.) and 

consequently result in different plans 

and different training. 

E. Other Comments 

AAR and ASLRRA assert that FRMP 

plans should not consider contractors, 

arguing that to do so would go beyond 

Congressional intent. However, the 

statute makes clear that contractors 

should be included. In defining the set 

of employees included within FRMP 

plans, Congress first points to chapter 

211 of United States Code Title 49. That 

chapter, defining the statutory 

requirements for hours of service of 

some ‘‘employees,’’ explicitly includes 

contractors. Further, in the RSIA, 

Congress amended the definition of a 

signal employee in that chapter to 

ensure that contractors were included. 

To allow railroads to exclude such 

employees from their FRMPs would 

defy explicit Congressional action. 

Consequently, under the ‘‘whole 

statute’’ canon of interpretation,12 the 

RSIA requirement for FRMPs must be 

construed to be harmonious with this 

concurrent legislative change to the 

hours of service laws. It would make 

little sense for Congress to address the 

fatigue experienced by employees of 

contractors and subcontractors, by 

including such contractors within the 

hours of service laws, and yet 

simultaneously exclude employees of 

contractors and subcontractors from the 

mandate to create railroad fatigue risk 

management plans. Accordingly, FRA 

concludes that the statute requires 

contractors and subcontractors to be 

included within the scope of a railroad’s 

FRMP. 

APTA requests that the information 

protections that were a key element of 

SSP plans and RRP plans also apply to 

FRMP plans. Because the data 

protections are already in force for SSP 

plans and RRP plans, and because 

FRMP plans are a Congressionallymandated element of those plans, the 

data protections applicable to those two 

rules are already in force upon the 

effective date of this rule for the purpose 

of development and implementation of 

FRMP plans. 

Several commenters discuss the rule 

in relation to crew size. However, those 

comments are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking and are not discussed here. 

Several commenters suggested 

diagnostic methods for determining if 

affected employees have fatigue 

disorders that may require mitigation. 

While those comments may be useful to 

railroads who create the plans, this rule 

does not require the use of any 

particular diagnostic methods. 

One commenter requests that FRA 

regulate the electrical sockets of lodging 

facilities for affected employees, so that 

employees are guaranteed to be able to 

power medical equipment necessary for 

some sleep disorders. FRA lacks the 

authority to regulate lodging facilities, 

except where the railroad is directly 

operating the lodging. However, these 

issues may be addressed with the 

railroad during the consultation process 

for the FRMP plan, and, if the plan 

includes a dispute resolution process for 

lodging issues 13 employees could 

utilize that process if issues arise that 

prevent an employee getting sufficient 

rest. 

One commenter notes that studies 

from the trucking industry may be a 

helpful resource. While, as FRA noted 

above, fatigue risk analysis is predicated 

on fatigue having the same base 

biological effects on employees, FRA 

also notes that the hours of service 

regime for the trucking industry is very 

different than that of the railroad 

industry. 

An individual commenter explains 

his experience with work policies 

requiring employees to work 27 of 30 

days per month. The Congressional 

mandate for FRMP plans dictates that 

covered railroads ‘‘consider the need to’’ 

address employee scheduling 

practices.14 Accordingly, FRA would 

expect that a railroad with a scheduling 

practice requiring employees to work 

with only three days off per month 

would address that practice in its FRMP 

and indicate how the railroad is 

addressing the fatigue risks identified 

with such a schedule. 

The American Academy of Sleep 

Medicine draws attention to its 

conclusion that work shifts poorly 

aligned to circadian rhythms of 

employees pose potential fatigue risks. 

Such potential risks are among the 

factors a railroad may likely need to 

consider when considering scheduling 

in general as part of FRMP development 

and implementation. 

BLET and SMART–TD request an 

amendment to the rule to require 

reconsideration of a railroad’s FRMP 

plan and its implementation, after any 

fatigue-related accident or injury. While 

a particular accident or incident may be 

cause for FRA to review a plan and its 

implementation, reviewing the plan 

after each accident or incident runs the 

risk of undermining the wider hazard 

analysis. Reviewing the FRMP plan after 

every accident or incident would be a 

piece-meal analysis, and it would move 

away from the comprehensive systems 

approach to improving safety at the 

heart of this rule. However, when 

investigating any fatigue-related 

accident, FRA will consider the 

railroad’s compliance with its FRMP. 

Additionally, FRA always has the right 

to reopen and reconsider its approval of 

an FRMP, as it does any other FRA 

approvals, in light of information 

related to rail safety not previously 

considered. 

Several commenters discussed 

‘‘precision scheduled railroading.’’ FRA 

understands that many in the railroad 

industry use this term for varied and 

different scheduling practices. Such 

practices may be addressed in railroads’ 

FRMP plans, subject to the process for 

such plans, which includes both 

employee consultation and FRA review 

and approval. FRA’s understanding of 

precision scheduled railroading is that 

railroads claim it optimizes railroad 

operations for scheduled movement of 

trains. Such a system must include 

limitations such as the hours of service 

laws, but it could create fatigue-related 

safety hazards, and railroads are 

required to consider their scheduling 

practices as part of the creation of FRMP 

plans. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35666 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Dr. Raslear suggests that, as a part of 

FRA enforcement of the rule, the agency 

should periodically analyze a sample of 

railroad schedules using a 

biomathematical model of fatigue and 

human performance, to quantify the 

status of fatigue in the railroad industry, 

and accordingly, require railroads to 

provide FRA with schedules to perform 

such analysis. The statute and this 

regulation permit FRA to analyze 

railroad schedules using a 

biomathematical model, and FRA will 

conduct such analyses as appropriate. 

The statute requires FRA to annually 

review compliance with FRMP plans. 

To this end, FRA requires railroads to 

annually make an internal assessment of 

the FRMP, and FRA reviews these 

assessments. In addition, FRA possesses 

authority to audit programs for 

compliance in connection with its 

enforcement authority. As a part of its 

oversight, FRA may run railroad 

schedules through a biomathematical 

model of fatigue and performance. 

Moreover, FRA declines to limit the 

scope of evaluation to a particular 

moment in time. Rather, FRA expects 

railroads to look at trends as a part of 

the required periodic safety 

assessments. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

FRA amends 49 CFR part 270 (SSP) 

by adding a new subpart E, and 49 CFR 

part 271 (RRP) by adding new subpart 

G. Each of these new subparts are titled 

‘‘Fatigue Risk Management Programs;’’ 

are substantively identical; and set forth 

the requirements for railroads to 

develop and implement FRMPs as part 

of their SSPs or RRPs. FRA also amends: 

§ 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. FRA received no 

comments on its proposed revisions to 

§§ 270.103, 270.101, and 271.201, and is 

therefore adopting these revisions as 

proposed. 

The new subparts 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 rule also requires covered 

railroads to review their FRMP 

annually, and if necessary, make FRAapproved updates to their plans after 

consultation with affected employees. 

FRA is promulgating this rule in its 

effort to improve rail safety continually 

and to satisfy the statutory mandate in 

49 U.S.C. 20156. 

Sections 270.401 and 271.601— 

Definitions 

Sections 270.401 and 271.601 contain 

definitions for terms used in this rule. 

The sections include definitions for the 

terms: contributing factor, fatigue, 

fatigue-risk analysis, FRMP, FRMP plan, 

and safety-related railroad employee. 

The definitions are intended to clarify 

the meaning of important terms used in 

this rule and to minimize potential 

misinterpretation of the regulations. 

FRA received comments only on the 

definition of fatigue, as discussed in 

Section II, Response to Comments, 

above. FRA has not revised any of its 

proposed definitions in response to 

comments and is adopting the 

definitions as proposed. 

Sections 270.403 and 271.603—Purpose 

and Scope of an FRMP 

Sections 270.403 and 271.603 explain 

the purpose and scope of the rule. FRA 

received no comments on this section, 

and adopts it as proposed. 

Sections 270.405 and 271.605—General 

Requirements; Procedure 

These sections set forth the rule’s 

general requirements. FRA received no 

comments related to these sections, and 

therefore adopts paragraphs (a) and (b) 

as proposed, and revises paragraphs (c) 

and (d) as described below. 

Paragraphs (c) of these sections 

require railroads to submit their FRMP 

plans to FRA for approval either within 

one year of effective date of a final rule 

in this proceeding or within the 

applicable existing timelines in parts 

270 and 271 for filing SSP or RRP plans, 

whichever is later. 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. As 

discussed above, FRA revised this 

timeline in response to comments 

suggesting railroads needed additional 

time. 

Paragraph (d) requires 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. Unlike the 

proposed rule, which included a 

separate requirement to resubmit the 

SSP plan or RRP plan, including the 

FRMP plan as a component, the final 

rule construes the filing and approval of 

an FRMP plan to be a process by which 

the applicable SSP plan or RRP plan is 

amended to incorporate the FRMP plan 

as a component. This eliminates the 

need for railroads, having received FRA 

approval for the FRMP plan, to then 

submit their SSP plan or RRP plan for 

FRA to review the incorporation of the 

FRMP plan. Instead, the SSP plan or 

RRP plan is amended to include the 

FRMP plan upon FRA approval of the 

FRMP plan. 

Sections 270.407 and 271.607— 

Requirements for an FRMP 

Sections 270.407 and 271.607 set 

forth the requirements for railroads’ 

FRMPs. FRA received comments on the 

requirements for an FRMP, as discussed 

in the Response to Comments in Section 

II above, but has not revised the text of 

these sections based on those 

comments, and adopts these sections as 

proposed. 

Sections 270.409 and 271.609— 

Requirements for an FRMP Plan 

Sections 270.409 and 271.609 require 

a railroad to adopt and implement its 

FRMP through an FRMP plan that meets 

certain requirements. FRA received 

comments on various aspects of the 

FRMP plan, as discussed in the 

Response to Comments in Section II 

above. FRA has not revised the text of 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of §§ 270.409 

and 271.609, and therefore adopts them 

as proposed. 

Paragraph (e) of §§ 270.409 and 

271.609, as proposed, would have 

required that a railroad submit its FRMP 

plan to FRA by amending its SSP plan 

or RRP plan. However, FRA approval of 

an FRMP plan amends the railroads’ 

SSP plan or RRP plan to incorporate the 

FRMP plan as a component. FRA has 

therefore eliminated the duplicative 

requirement on railroads to submit the 

SSP plan or RRP plan amended solely 

to include the FRA-approved FRMP 

plan. Accordingly, proposed paragraph 

(e) has been removed. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rule is a non-significant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and 

DOT Order 2100.6A Rulemaking and 

Guidance Procedures. 

FRA has prepared and placed a 

Regulatory Evaluation addressing the 

economic impact of this rule in the 

docket (Docket No. FRA–2015–0122). 

The Regulatory Evaluation contains 

estimates of the benefits and costs of 

this rule that are likely to be incurred 

over a ten-year period. FRA estimated 

the benefits and costs of this rule using 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. FRA 

was unable to quantify the benefits and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35667 

15Unless otherwise noted, benefits and costs are 

presented in 2018 dollars. 

costs for all the elements within the 

regulation for both passenger and freight 

railroads. FRA presents monetized 

benefits and costs where possible and 

discusses those non-quantified 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 rule is part of FRA’s 

efforts to improve rail safety continually 

and to satisfy the statutory mandate in 

the RSIA. 

The Regulatory Evaluation analyzes 

two mitigation strategies to quantify 

potential benefits and costs that 

railroads may achieve through the 

regulation: (1) training and (2) screening 

for sleep conditions. However, there is 

a high amount of uncertainty in FRA’s 

benefit and cost estimates because the 

RSIA and this regulation gives railroads 

the flexibility to select the mitigation 

strategies most appropriate for their 

operations and identified risks. 

The benefits and costs 15 associated 

with the rule are presented in Table VII– 

1 below: 

TABLE VII–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 

In comparison to the NPRM, the final 

rule provides the railroads additional 

time to submit FRMP plans to FRA. A 

railroad’s plan submission may still 

occur in the same year as before the 

time extension, but pushed out later in 

the same year, or it may occur in the 

following year during the ten-year 

period of analysis. The costs will 

decrease slightly because of this 

flexibility, but the overall cost estimate 

remains primarily the same as in the 

NPRM. The final rule also clarifies that 

a railroad’s approved SSP plan or RRP 

plan does not need to be resubmitted to 

FRA when amended with the FRAapproved FRMP plan. The NPRM 

regulatory analysis assumed only one 

submission and therefore is unchanged. 

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 benefits and costs 

for each element within the regulation. 

Given current railroad business and 

operational practices, this analysis 

demonstrates the fatigue training 

element, is an element that all railroads 

will most likely implement. FRA also 

believes the napping mitigation 

presented within the Regulatory 

Evaluation’s alternative analysis would 

be cost beneficial in certain instances. In 

an effort to not overestimate the benefits 

associated with the regulation, FRA 

does not present the findings regarding 

napping in the main analysis of the 

Regulatory Evaluation. FRA believes 

that there could be significant reduction 

in fatigue with the implementation of a 

napping mitigation, based on various 

supporting studies, and the fact that 

Class I railroads under the General Code 

of Operating Rules (GCOR) already have 

policies supporting napping. 

FRA requested comments on the 

methods and inputs used in the 

Regulatory Evaluation. While comments 

relevant to the economic analysis are 

discussed briefly here, please see 

Section II of the preamble, above, for a 

fuller discussion of the comments 

received. Many commenters said the 

cost of mitigations for compliance with 

the rule would be high. As rational 

actors, railroads are expected to choose 

mitigations most appropriate for their 

operations and employees. FRA 

reiterates that railroads are not required 

to implement any particular mitigation, 

except training as a prerequisite 

requirement. The railroads also asserted 

in their comments that developing 

FRMP plans is more burdensome than 

FRA’s estimate. Similar to choosing 

mitigations, FRA assumes railroads will 

use efficient means to comply with the 

regulation. For example, existing work 

done by the railroads can count toward 

mitigations in a railroad’s FRMP. FRA 

further suggests that railroads may 

formulate a master FRMP plan that 

includes minor modifications to account 

for variations in different crafts of 

employees. With regard to 

administrative costs, APTA was 

concerned about the time that FRA’s 

review might take, adding to costs, and 

suggested FRA passively approve plans 

not approved in a timely manner. FRA 

notes the timelines in this final rule 

follow the timelines in the SSP and RRP 

rules. Overall, the aim is for a process 

of continuous improvement in safety. 

The labor organizations also commented 

that Congress does not perform benefitcost analysis and to not let 

unquantifiable benefits undermine the 

FRMP rulemaking. FRA responds that it 

is bound by executive orders and 

Departmental guidance to perform 

benefit-cost analysis. FRA presents its 

analysis for stakeholders, and identifies 

quantitative and qualitative factors, 

along with noting where information is 

uncertain or unavailable, for 

transparency. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 allows the Secretary of 

Transportation to certify a rule if that 

rule will not have a significant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

16FRA 2020 Form 6180.55 Operational Data 

includes Railroad Class and Number of Employees. 

See https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/ 

publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx. In 2020, 

there were 744 Class III railroads: 704 freight 

railroads and 40 Tourist Railroads. Tourist railroads 

are not subject to the final rule. 

17FRA defines ‘‘small entities’’ as entities that 

meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad 

as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is 20 million 

or less in annual revenues as adjusted for inflation. 

See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 2003. In addition, note 

both the SSP rule and RRP rule exempt railroads 

not on the general system. See 49 CFR 270.3(b) and 

49 CFR 271.3(b). 

18American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association, Facts and Figures, 12, (2017). (A 2019 

edition is available that is a reprint of the 2017 

edition.). 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. FRA published 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Assessment (IRFA) to aid the public in 

commenting on the potential small 

business impacts of the proposed FRMP 

NPRM requirements. AAR and ASLRRA 

jointly submitted comments to the 

NPRM. In particular, AAR and ASLRRA 

said that short line railroads may lack 

resources for fatigue plans, and to 

manage contractor groups. With regard 

to resources, FRA has granted additional 

time for all railroads to submit plans to 

FRA. Also, smaller railroads are likely 

to have simpler operations than Class I 

railroads, and therefore their plans will 

likely be less complex. That is, smaller 

railroads’ operations involve less 

equipment and fewer employees. In 

addition, FRA provides outreach and 

assistance for small railroads. Regarding 

contractors, FRA has included 

contractors in FRMP plans, as it would 

be illogical for Congress to include them 

in hours of service laws, but not in 

fatigue planning. Please refer to the 

preamble comment discussion, in 

Section II, above, for a more detailed 

discussion of these comments. 

This rule requires an ISP railroad to 

develop and implement an FRMP under 

an RRP plan that FRA has reviewed and 

approved. (This analysis uses the same 

cohort of ISP railroads as the RRP final 

rule.) Since railroads have the flexibility 

to adjust their FRMPs to their specific 

risks, FRA expects the economic impact 

on small entities to be proportional to 

the number of employees, as well as the 

mitigation strategies implemented. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the 

704 Class III freight railroads 16 that 

operate on the general rail system are 

considered small entities and could 

potentially be impacted by this final 

rule.17 The final rule estimates that 50 

ISP railroads will be identified over the 

ten-year period. FRA can identify Class 

II or Class III railroads as ISP. If all 

railroads identified as ISP are Class IIIs, 

only 7 percent of the 704 Class III 

railroads would be affected by the final 

rule. 

The ASLRRA reports the average 

Class III railroad has annual revenues of 

4.75 million and 22 railroad employees. 

To measure the economic impact on an 

individual Class III ISP railroad, FRA 

compared the average Class III 

revenue 18 to the final rule’s cost. FRA 

used the requirements of the final rule 

to estimate the ISP railroad compliance 

costs. While ISP railroad program 

consulting costs are the same for ISP 

railroads regardless of size, the costs to 

develop, implement, and update ISP 

railroad plans, and to provide employee 

training, vary from low to high 

depending on whether firms employ 

below or above the Class III railroad 

industry average. The average annual 

cost of ISP railroad compliance is 

provided below in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ISP RAILROAD ANNUALIZED COST BY FIRM SIZE

Year 

Total ISP costs per firm discounted at 7% rate 

All ISP firms 

Low High 

FRMP plan * 

Develop 

training 

program 

Employee 

training 

Develop 

training 

program 

Employee 

training 

1 ........................................................................................... $11 $3,031 $7,241 $12,124 $14,481 

2 ........................................................................................... 634 2,833 6,767 11,331 13,534 

3 ........................................................................................... 951 2,647 6,324 10,590 12,648 

4 ........................................................................................... 1,178 2,474 5,911 9,897 11,821 

5 ........................................................................................... 1,359 2,312 5,524 9,249 11,048 

6 ........................................................................................... 1,541 2,161 5,162 8,644 10,325 

7 ........................................................................................... 1,722 2,020 4,825 8,079 9,649 

8 ........................................................................................... 1,904 1,888 4,509 7,550 9,018 

9 ........................................................................................... 2,085 1,764 4,214 7,056 8,428 

10 ......................................................................................... 2,267 1,649 3,938 6,595 7,877 

Total .............................................................................. 13,651 22,779 54,415 91,115 108,829 

Annualized 7% rate .............................................................. 1,944 3,243 7,747 12,973 15,495 

Annual Total Cost per Firm ...................................................................... Low 12,934 High 30,411 

Annual Average ISP Cost = 22,000 (average of Low and High). 

* Includes preliminary meeting and notification to labor organizations, preparation of an FRMP plan, further consultation, and amendments that 

might occur. 

The Class III (ISP) railroad costs range 

from 13,000 to 30,000 with an average 

cost of 22,000 for all small entities that 

could be affected by the final rule. FRA 

estimates this cost, as a percent of Class 

III railroad annual average revenues 

(4.75 million), to be minimal at 0.46 

percent. 

Given that Class III railroads’ size 

varies widely, FRA classified the small 

entities by the number of employees to 

further examine small entity impacts. 

The purpose is to determine if the 

‘‘smaller’’ of the small entities would 

incur a significant economic impact. 

Table 2 presents the Class III railroads 

by number of employees using the 2020 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35669 

19FRA 2020 Form 6180.55 Operational Data 

includes Railroad Class and Number of Employees. 

See https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/ 

publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx. 

20One third of Class III average annual revenue 

of 4.75M equals 1.58M. The high ISP cost is 30,411 

or 1.9 percent of estimated small Class III revenue 

(30,411/1.58 million ≈1.9). High ISP costs are used 

out of caution to not underestimate the impact. 

21 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

data submitted by the Class III railroads 

on the FRA 2020 Form 6180.55.19

TABLE 2—CLASS III RAILROADS BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Number of employees Number of 

firms 

Percent 

firms 

Total 

number of 

employees 

Percent 

total 

employees 

1–8 ................................................................................................................... 385 55 1,325 9 

9–22 ................................................................................................................. 144 20 2,004 13 

23–100 ............................................................................................................. 147 21 7,149 46 

101–200 ........................................................................................................... 22 3 2,662 17

201–883 ........................................................................................................... 6 1 2,413 16 

Total .......................................................................................................... 704 100 15,553 100 

According to Table 2, most Class III 

railroads (55 percent) operate with 

fewer than 9 employees and 75 percent 

have less than 23 employees. The 

remaining 25 percent of Class III 

railroads employ 78 percent of all Class 

III employees. To estimate the 

maximum economic impact of the rule 

on the smallest Class III railroads (those 

with fewer than 9 employees), FRA 

compares one-third of average annual 

Class III revenue (1.58 million) 20 in 

Table 1. FRA assumes further that firms 

that employ 1⁄3 the number of employees 

as the average firm will have 1⁄3 the 

average revenues. This approach 

confirms a minimal loss of 1.9 percent 

of total revenue required for the smallest 

Class III railroads to cover the highest 

expected ISP costs in the worst case. 

Separately, the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis accompanying this rule 

estimates its safety benefits will equal or 

exceed ISP costs. 

Consistent with the findings of FRA’s 

IRFA, and determination that the 

economic impact of the rule will not be 

significant, the FRA Administrator 

hereby certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

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 rule consistent 

with the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132. 

FRA has determined the rule does 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 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 rule adds 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 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 rule 

consistent with the principles and 

criteria in Executive Order 13132. FRA 

has determined this 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 final rule are being 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.21


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35670 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

22The 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. 

The entire table contains the new 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) = C * wage 

rates 22

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.11.67 plans .......... 60 hours ............... 700.20 hours ........ $61,198.88 

—(c)(3)(ii) Annual internal FRMP Plan 

assessments/reports conducted by 

RRs.

35 passenger railroads.11.67 reviews ....... 16 hours ............... 186.72 hours ........ 14,872.99 

—FRMP plans found deficient by FRA 

and requiring amendment.

35 passenger railroads.1.33 amended 

plans.

30 hours ............... 39.90 hours .......... 3,178.19 

—Consultation requirements—RR 

consultation with its directly affected 

employees on FRMP Plan.

35 passenger railroads.11.67 consultations (w/labor 

union reps.).

90 minutes ........... 17.51 hours .......... 1,394.74 

271.609—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 2.33 plans ............ 90 hours ............... 209.70 hours ........ 18,328.20 

15 ISP railroads ... 3.33 plans ............ 50 hours ............... 166.50 hours ........ 14,552.43 

—(c)(3)(ii) Annual internal FRMP Plan 

assessments/reports conducted by 

RRs.

7 Class I + ........... 2.33 reviews ......... 22 hours ............... 51.26 hours .......... 4,083.06 

15 ISP railroads ... 1.67 reviews ......... 16 hours ............... 26.72 hours .......... 2,128.35 

—Consultation requirements—RR 

consultation with its directly affected 

employees on FRMP Plan.

7 Class I railroads 2.33 consultations 

(w/labor union 

reps.).

90 minutes ........... 3.50 hours ............ 278.79 

15 ISP railroads ... 5 consultations (w/ 

labor union 

reps.).

1 hour ................... 5 hours ................. 398.27 

—FRMP plans found deficient by FRA 

and requiring amendment.

7 Class I railroads 0.33 amended 

plan.

40 hours ............... 13.20 hours .......... 1,051.43 

15 ISP railroads ... 1 amended plan ... 20 hours ............... 20 hours ............... 1,593.08 

Totals ............................................ 35 railroads .......... 55 responses ....... N/A ....................... 1,440 hours .......... 123,058 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, at 202–493–0440. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them via email to Ms. 

Wells at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this 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. FRA is not authorized to 

impose a penalty on persons for 

violating information collection 

requirements that do not display a 

current OMB control number, if 

required. The current OMB control 

number for 49 CFR 270 and 271 is 

2130–0633. 

F. Environmental Assessment 

FRA has evaluated this 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 

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 

establish requirements for certain 

railroads to develop and implement an 

FRMP, as one component of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35671 

23Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/ 

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

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 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 

regulation and the rule 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) 

of the Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966. 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 5610.2B23 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 

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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13211, and has 

determined this NPRM is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

Executive Order 13211. 

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 Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA amends 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. Amend § 270.103 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 270.103 System safety program plan. 

(a) * * * 

(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. 

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 an 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

July 13, 2023, whichever is later. 

(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. FRA approval of a 

railroad’s FRMP plan amends a 

railroad’s SSP plan to include the FRMP 

plan as a component. 

§ 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 

shall 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 

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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35673 

(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 an 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). 

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; 

(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 an 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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
35674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

July 13, 2023, 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). FRA approval of a 

railroad’s FRMP plan amends a 

railroad’s RRP plan to include the FRMP 

plan as a component. 

§ 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; 

(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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35675 

1 86 FR 63266 (‘‘Final Rule’’). PHMSA 

subsequently published technical corrections of 

certain regulatory amendments in the Final Rule 

(specifically, §§ 191.23 and 192.8) not relevant here. 

87 FR 26296 (May 4, 2022). 

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 an 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). 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12614 Filed 6–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 191 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0023; Amdt. No. 

191–32] 

RIN 2137–AF38 

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas 

Gathering Pipelines: Extension of 

Reporting Requirements, Regulation of 

Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other 

Related Amendments: Technical 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing corrections 

of certain changes to incident and 

annual reporting requirements for 

offshore gathering pipelines in its 

November 15, 2021, final rule titled 

‘‘Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: 

Extension of Reporting Requirements, 

Regulation of Large, High-Pressure 

Lines, and Other Related Amendments.’’ 

DATES: These corrections are June 13, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical questions: Steve Nanney, 

Senior Technical Advisor, by telephone 

at 713–272–2855. 

General information: Sayler Palabrica, 

Transportation Specialist, by telephone 

at 202–366–0559. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Corrections 

On November 15, 2021, PHMSA 

published a final rule titled ‘‘Safety of 

Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of 

Reporting Requirements, Regulation of 

Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other 

Related Amendments’’ 1 (Final Rule) 

amending the Federal pipeline safety 

regulations (49 CFR parts 190–199) to 

introduce, among other things, incident 

and annual reporting requirements for 

previously unregulated Types C and R 

onshore gas gathering pipelines. The 

preamble to the Final Rule explicitly 

disclaimed amendment of then-existing 

part 191 reporting and part 192 safety 

requirements pertaining to offshore gas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES