The Australian Approach to Fatigue Management: Context and Details

1. The Australian Approach to Fatigue Management: Context and Details Michael Coplen, M.A., Co-Chair, HFCC Operator Fatigue Management Initiative Federal Railroad Administration Stephen Popkin, Ph.D. Co-Chair, HFCC Operator Fatigue Management Initiative Volpe Center April 22, 2003 Washington, DC

2. Overview • Why Australia? • Evaluation Questions • Fatigue Context Factors in the Australian Railroad Industry • Principles and Philosophy of the Australian Approach OH&S Framework • Perceived benefits and current challenges • Next Steps Human Factors R&D Program Office of Research and Development

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

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

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

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

7. Why Australia?2003 Meeting Schedule • State Rail, Sydney, New South Wales (NSW) • Pacific National Railway, Sydney • Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), Sydney • NSW Department of Transport, Sydney • Australian Rail Track Corp. (ARTC) • Australian Railroad Group (ARG) • University of South Australia • 5th Int’l Conference on Fatigue in Transportation • Australian Rail Consortium

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

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

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

11. Principles and Philosophy of Australian Approach • OH&S framework • Management-based regulations and company policies • Alternate compliance model • Risk-based implementation • Performance-based outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

17. Obtained Sleep Metric Sleep Sleep Work B A End-of-shift Wake-up Sleep in prior 24 hours Sleep in prior 48 hours Time Awake

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

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

20. Evaluation of AUS Approach:Perceived Benefits • FMP’s viewed as a profit center rather than a cost center • Attraction and retention tool • Marketing strategy, competitive advantage • Sustainability and commitment • Unified direction with Australian Rail Consortium • Regulatory standards being adopted from Codes of Practice and company policies

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

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

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

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

25. Questions & Feedback