Transit Worker Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk Management, 74107-74113 [2023-23916]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
arise from bad actors that access
numbering resources indirectly (i.e.,
without a direct access authorization),
by requiring the direct access
authorization holders that supply them
with numbering resources to obtain
from them the same certifications,
acknowledgments, and disclosures
required of direct access applicants.
46. The Commission anticipates some
of the approaches proposed to
implement the requirements in the
Second Report and Order on existing
direct access authorization holders will
have minimal or de minimis cost
implications because many of these
obligations are required to comply with
existing Commission regulations. At this
time however, the Commission is not in
a position to determine whether, if
adopted, proposals and the matters
upon which we seek comment will
require small entities to hire
professionals to comply, and cannot
quantify the cost of compliance with the
potential rule changes discussed herein.
We anticipate the information we
receive in comments including where
requested, cost and benefit analyses,
will help the Commission identify and
evaluate relevant compliance matters for
small entities, including compliance
costs and other burdens that may result
from the proposals and inquiries we
make in the Second Further Notice.
Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
47. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
48. The Commission considered the
possibility that burdens may be imposed
on interconnected VoIP service
providers (small or large) if we adopt
rules that propose to strengthen
requirements for existing direct access
authorization holders. The Commission
welcomes comments on any of the
issues raised in the Second Further
Notice that will impact small providers.
In particular, the Second Further Notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
considered and seeks comment on
whether requiring existing direct access
authorization holders to meet the new
requirements of the Second Report and
Order is necessary, or would be unduly
burdensome, and whether the proposed
30-day timeframe for compliance is
sufficient. The Second Further Notice
also requests comment on possible
burdens associated with requiring direct
access applicants to provide their initial
proposed service area and the states
where they intend to provide service
and whether better options exist. In
addition, the Second Further Notice
seeks comment on the potential burdens
and impact of requiring direct access
authorization holders that sell, lease, or
otherwise provide telephone numbers to
an interconnected VoIP provider to
obtain certifications, acknowledgments,
and disclosures from them as if they
were applying for a direct access
authorization.
49. The Second Further Notice
proposes that authorization holders be
allowed to continue to use numbers
they obtained prior to submitting
updated or corrected ownership
information to the Bureau unless the
Bureau determines that the
authorization must be revoked per the
formal revocation procedure we adopt
in the Second Report and Order.
Alternatively, we seek comment on
whether this step is necessary to narrow
the gap in our oversight ability to reach
bad actors with respect to numbering
resources, and other factors the
Commission should consider to enforce
these rules.
50. To assist in the Commission’s
evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities, as a result of actions that
have been proposed in the Second
Further Notice, and to better explore
options and alternatives, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
any of the burdens associated with the
filing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described above can be
minimized for small entities.
Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether any of the costs
associated with any of the proposed
requirements to eliminate unlawful
robocalls can be alleviated for small
entities. The Commission expects to
more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small
entities based on its review of the record
and any comments filed in response to
the Second Further Notice and this
IRFA.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74107
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–23903 Filed 10–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. FTA–2023–0018]
RIN 2132–AB46
Transit Worker Hours of Service and
Fatigue Risk Management
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) is considering
proposing minimum safety standards to
provide protections for transit workers
to obtain adequate rest thereby reducing
the risk of fatigue-related safety
incidents. FTA seeks public input in
two areas: hours of service; and fatigue
risk management programs. FTA seeks
information to understand better current
industry practices, priorities,
requirements, and the costs and benefits
of Federal requirements. The
information received in response to this
ANPRM will assist FTA as it considers
potential regulatory requirements.
DATES: Comments should be filed by
December 29, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by docket number FTA–
2023–0018, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for sending comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Dockets
Operations, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
74108
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Background
documents and comments received may
also be viewed at the U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590–0001,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program matters, contact Valerie Beck,
Office of Transit Safety and Oversight,
FTA, telephone (202) 366–9178 or
FTAFitnessforDuty@dot.gov. For legal
matters, contact Emily Jessup, Attorney
Advisor, 202–366–8907 or
emily.jessup@dot.gov.
Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Legal Basis for Rulemaking
II. Background
A. Hours of Service
B. Fatigue Risk Management Programs
III. Comments Sought
A. Regulatory Options
B. Benefits and Costs
C. Fatigue Data Collection
D. Current Hours of Service and Fatigue
Risk Management Policies
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Legal Basis for Rulemaking
Congress directed the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to establish a
comprehensive Public Transportation
Safety Program in the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub.
L. 112–141) (MAP–21), which was
reauthorized by the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L.
114–94). The Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117–
58) (IIJA), continues FTA’s authority to
regulate public transportation systems
that receive Federal financial assistance
under chapter 53 of title 49.1 Section
5329(f)(7) of title 49, United States
Code, authorizes FTA to issue rules to
carry out the public transportation
safety program.
1 Enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. Public Law 117–58 (November 15, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
Section 5329(b)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, directs FTA to develop and
implement a National Public
Transportation Safety Plan (NSP) that
includes minimum safety standards to
ensure the safe operation of public
transportation systems. In 2017, FTA
published its first iteration of the NSP,
which was intended to be FTA’s
primary tool for communicating with
the transit industry about its safety
performance.2 Subsequently, on May 31,
2023, FTA published proposed
revisions to the NSP to address new
requirements in the IIJA, to continue to
mature FTA’s national safety program
and to advance transit safety further (88
FR 34917). While the NSP currently
contains only voluntary standards, FTA
is considering whether to propose
mandatory standards for transit worker
hours of service and fatigue risk
management through a new rulemaking.
II. Background
At present, there are no Federal
minimum standards for hours of service
(HOS) and fatigue risk management
programs (FRMP) in the transit industry.
HOS regulations reduce excessively
long work hours, while FRMP address
other workplace factors impacting
fatigue, such as training and scheduling.
Public transit is the only mode of
transportation without such standards
for its workers. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
FTA’s Transit Advisory Committee for
Safety (TRACS), among others, have
recommended regulatory action to
address safety concerns associated with
transit worker fatigue. NTSB has found
fatigue to be a cause and contributing
factor for dozens of fatal transportation
events dating back almost 40 years.
NTSB has repeatedly identified rail
transit crashes in which fatigue played
a role. In 2004, two Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Metrorail trains collided at the Woodley
Park station, resulting in the transport of
about 20 people to local hospitals and
causing an estimated $3.45 million in
property damage. NTSB found that the
train operator, who had only 8 hours off
between shifts, did not have the
opportunity to receive adequate sleep to
be fully alert and to operate safely.3 In
2014, a Chicago Transit Authority train
collided with a bumping post at O’Hare
Station and went up an escalator at the
2 82
FR 5628 (January 18, 2017).
NTSB RAR–06/01 ‘‘Collision Between Two
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Trains at the Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan
Station in Washington, DC’’ (November 3, 2004),
available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
AccidentReports/Reports/RAR0601.pdf (last visited
May 16, 2023).
3 See
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
end of the track, resulting in 33 injured
passengers, an injured train operator,
and $11.1 million in damages. NTSB
found that the train operator had
worked 12 consecutive days and nights
and experienced the effects of a
cumulative sleep debt, which
contributed to them falling asleep.4 In
2021, two Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority light rail
vehicles collided, resulting in 24 injured
passengers, 3 injured crewmembers, and
about $2 million in equipment damage.
The train operator told investigators that
they believed they had fallen asleep.5
In addition to NTSB’s reports, local
investigations have identified fatiguerelated transit crashes. For example, on
March 11, 2023, a Denver Regional
Transportation District (RTD) light rail
train derailed, resulting in injuries to
two people, the train and RTD track,
and station infrastructure. RTD
determined that the train operator likely
fell asleep before impact.6 In addition,
the Washington Metrorail Safety
Commission has identified at least two
recent incidents in which a train
operator appeared to fall asleep while
operating the train.7
FTA’s stakeholders have also
identified fatigue as an area of concern.
On July 15, 2021, FTA published a
Request for Information to solicit input
from the public regarding information
and data on transit safety concerns that
FTA should evaluate for potential
action.8 FTA received 86 comments
from 78 individuals and organizations,
including rail transit agencies, State
Safety Oversight Agencies, labor unions,
industry businesses and organizations,
and private individuals. Respondents,
4 See NTSB/RAR–15–01 ‘‘Railroad Accident
Report: Chicago Train Authority Train Collides
with Bumping Post and Escalator at O’Hare Station’’
(March 24, 2014), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/accidentreports/reports/rar1501.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
5 See NTSB/RIR–22–15 ‘‘Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority Trolley Collision with
Derailment’’ (July 30, 2021), available at https://
www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/
Reports/RIR2215.pdf (last visited May 16, 2023).
6 See Corrective Action Plan CAP01–03112023,
The Regional Transportation District (RTD)—
Denver (April 25, 2023), available at https://
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789054/
042523-cap01-03112023-jeffco-stationderailment.pdf (last visited May 17, 2023).
7 See WMSC Commissioner Brief: W–0128—Red
Signal Overrun—Largo Town Center Station—
August 18, 2021 (Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://
wmsc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/W-0129Red-Signal-Overrun-at-Largo-Town-Center-StationAugust-18-2021.pdf (last visited May 17, 2023);
Final Report of Investigation A&I E19328 (June 25,
2019), available at https://wmsc.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2020/02/W-0019-Adoption-of-WMATAFinal-Report_E19326_2019_06_25-Failure-toservice-station-merged.pdf (last visited May 17,
2023).
8 86 FR 37400 (July 15, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
including 4 transit agencies, offered 21
comments recommending FTA develop
HOS requirements.
Studies and medical research reports
indicate that fatigue can deleteriously
affect transportation worker
performance. FTA’s 2022 report,
Medical Fitness for Duty and Fatigue
Risk Management prepared by the
Center for Urban Transportation
Research (‘‘CUTR 2022 Report’’),
concluded that a fatigued transit worker
may be unable to effectively perform
safety-critical tasks, which may lead to
‘‘catastrophic events.’’ 9 A 2017 National
Safety Council report, Fatigue in SafetyCritical Industries, found that 97
percent of employers in the
transportation industry state that
workers feel the impact of fatigue (the
highest among all the safety-critical
industries surveyed), that 66 percent
reported decreases in productivity due
to fatigue, and that 45 percent stated
they had experienced safety incidents
due to fatigue-related issues.10 In a
study of railroad employees, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) found
that exposure to fatigue raised the
chance of a human factors accident by
11 to 65 percent.11 Two research studies
specifically examine transit bus operator
fatigue. The first study found an
increased propensity for collision
involvement with an increase in weekly
driving hours.12 The second study
found that most bus operators work split
schedules, which use shifts that are
broken by a long break, typically two or
more hours. The study found that split
schedules are the most fatigue-inducing
schedule.13 News reports of fatigue9 See FTA Report No. 0223 ‘‘FTA Standards
Development Program: Medical Fitness for Duty
and Fatigue Risk Management’’ (June 2022),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/
fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
10 See National Safety Council Report ’’Fatigue in
Safety-Critical Industries: Impact, Risks &
Recommendations’’ (2017), available at: https://
nsccdn.azureedge.net/nsc.org/media/site-media/
docs/fatigue/part3-fatigue-survey-report.pdf (last
visited June 22, 2023).
11 See Federal Railroad Administration, ‘‘Fatigue
Status of the U.S. Railroad Industry’’ (2013),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/2929/TR_
Fatigue%20Status%20US%20
Railroad%20Industry_CO%2020121119_20130221_
FINAL.pdf (last visited April 21, 2023).
12 See Sando, T., Mtoi, E., & Moses, R., ‘‘Potential
Causes of Driver Fatigue: A Study on Transit Bus
Operators in Florida,’’ Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ 2011 90th Annual
Meeting, paper no. 11–3398, November 2010,
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
13 See Sando, T., Angel, M., Mtoi, E., & Moses, R.,
‘‘Analysis of the Relationship Between Operator
Cumulative Driving Hours and Involvement in
Preventable Collisions,’’ Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ 2011 90th Annual
Meeting, paper no. 11–4165, November 2010,
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
related transit bus crashes also indicate,
anecdotally, that transit bus operator
fatigue is more prevalent than is
captured in NTSB accident reports and
State Safety Oversight Agency incident
reports to FTA.14 FTA does not collect
fatigue data as part of its National
Transit Database (NTD), and there are
no Federal requirements that the
influence of fatigue be recorded during
safety incident investigations.
This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) does not make
specific proposals but requests public
input in two areas: (1) HOS; and (2)
FRMP. FTA will use information
received in response to this ANPRM to
inform FTA’s future decision-making on
whether and how to pursue Federal
regulatory action in those two areas.
This ANPRM is not requesting input on
other topics that may impact a transit
worker’s fitness for duty, including
medical qualifications and prescription
and over-the-counter drug use, unless
they are relevant to HOS or FRMP. FTA
may address those topics independently
in the future.
A. Hours of Service
The goal of HOS regulations is to
prevent excessively long work hours to
lower the risk of fatigue and fatiguerelated safety incidents. While HOS
regulations alone cannot ensure that
individuals receive adequate restorative
rest, they can ensure that individuals
have enough time off to obtain adequate
rest on a daily and weekly basis. HOS
regulations generally define parameters
for active work time, time on duty, time
off duty between shifts, work week
hours, and the maximum number of
consecutive workdays.
1. NTSB and TRACS Recommendations
NTSB has four open fatigue-related
safety recommendations to FTA arising
from a March 2014 rail collision in
which a train collided with a bumping
post and went up an escalator at the
O’Hare Station in Chicago, Illinois.15
NTSB determined that the probable
14 See, e.g., ‘‘New Video released in 2021 Pace bus
crash that killed woman after driver fell asleep at
the wheel’’ (March 27, 2023), available at https://
www.fox32chicago.com/news/pace-to-pay-13msettlement-after-bus-driver-fell-asleep-at-wheelcausing-crash-that-killed-68-year-old-woman (last
visited May 17, 2023); ‘‘Sleepy SMART bus driver
who caused crash gets 93 days in jail’’ (May 4,
2015), available at https://www.clickondetroit.com/
news/2015/05/04/sleepy-smart-bus-driver-whocaused-crash-gets-93-days-in-jail/ (last visited May
17, 2023).
15 See NTSB/RAR–15–01 ‘‘Railroad Accident
Report: Chicago Train Authority Train Collides
with Bumping Post and Escalator at O’Hare Station’’
(March 24, 2014), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/accidentreports/reports/rar1501.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74109
cause of the collision was the failure of
the train operator to stop the train due
to falling asleep as a result of fatigue.
Safety Recommendation R–15–019
recommends FTA establish regulations
that set HOS limitations, provide
predictable work and rest schedules,
and consider circadian rhythms and
sleep and rest requirements. The other
three recommendations are discussed in
the Fatigue Risk Management section
below.
In October 2014, FTA tasked TRACS
with developing recommendations on
the elements that should comprise a
Safety Management System (SMS)
approach to a fatigue management
program. TRACS found that transit
worker fatigue is a serious problem and
recommended in 2015 that FTA develop
a Federal regulation mandating
minimum HOS requirements as its first
priority.16 TRACS issued a report which
noted that the committee ‘‘feels strongly
that HOS is a fundamental, initial pillar
of an SMS framework and should be
implemented by FTA as soon as
possible.’’ In the same report, TRACS
recommended that FTA’s HOS
regulations apply to employees involved
with moving revenue and maintenance
equipment, including bus and rail
operators, dispatchers, conductors, and
controllers. TRACS further
recommended a maximum of 12 onduty hours over a maximum duty tour
of 14 hours, including any periods of
interim release, with a minimum of 10
consecutive hours off-duty between
shifts, and a maximum number of 6
consecutive working days.
TRACS considered whether FTA
should identify a maximum number of
on-duty hours over the six consecutive
working days. In its report, TRACS
noted that experts from the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center
recommended a limit of 60 on-duty
hours over 6 consecutive working days,
which would allow for a 10-hour
workday, 9 hours of sleep, a 2-hour
commute, and 5 hours of personal time
(e.g., eating, showering, and family
time). TRACS found that some agencies
expressed concern about the need to
hire and train new employees to achieve
the staffing levels necessary to operate
under the recommended HOS
requirements, which could result in
managing large numbers of
inexperienced employees. The TRACS
report noted that the committee
considered anecdotal evidence from one
16 See TRACS Report 14–02, ‘‘Establishing a
Fatigue Management Program for the Bus and Rail
Transit Industry’’ (July 30, 2015), available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/
docs/TRACS_Fatigue_Report_14-02_Final_(2).pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
74110
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
agency that despite initial resistance
from operators to give up overtime,
employees came to cite an overall
increase in quality of life from the
agency’s adoption of a 60-hour
maximum limit. TRACS members did
not reach a consensus on the issue of
including a maximum number of hours
over six days and therefore did not
make a recommendation in this regard
to FTA.
2. Consensus Standards
Through its bus and rail working
groups, the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA)
develops voluntary, consensus-based
industry operating and maintenance
standards. APTA’s consensus HOS
standards for train operators limit
maximum operating hours to 12 hours,
with a maximum duty day of 16 hours.
APTA’s consensus standards suggest
that train operators have a minimum offduty time of 10 hours and a maximum
period of 7 consecutive workdays.
APTA’s voluntary standards do not
include a maximum number of on-duty
hours over the 7 consecutive
workdays.17
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Federal and State Regulations
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), FRA, Federal
Aviation Administration, and United
States Coast Guard prescribe HOS
limitations applicable to their regulated
industries, as summarized in detail in
the CUTR 2022 Report.18 Of particular
relevance to transit operators, FMCSA
prohibits drivers of passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicles from driving
more than 10 hours following 8
consecutive hours off duty. Such drivers
also may not drive after being on duty
for 15 hours following 8 consecutive
hours off duty. FMCSA limits on-duty
time to no more than 60 hours over 7
consecutive days for motor carriers that
do not operate every day of the week,
and to no more than 70 hours over eight
consecutive days for motor carriers that
operate every day of the week.19
FMCSA’s HOS requirements do not
apply to transit buses operated by any
political subdivision of a State.20 Transit
buses operated by contractors that
17 See APTA RT–OP–S–015–09 Rev 1, ‘‘Train
Operator Hours-of-Service Requirements’’ (June 7,
2019), available at https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/APTA-RT-OP-S-015-09_Rev_-11.pdf (last visited April 5, 2023).
18 See FTA Report No. 0223 ‘‘FTA Standards
Development Program: Medical Fitness for Duty
and Fatigue Risk Management’’ (June 2022),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/
fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
19 49 CFR 395.5 (January 3, 2017).
20 49 CFR 390.3T(f)(2) (November 11, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
operate under their own USDOT
registration, however, may be subject to
FMCSA’s requirements if they operate
in interstate commerce. FRA requires
that before a train employee engaged in
commuter or intercity rail passenger
transportation remains or goes on-duty
the employee must have had at least 8
consecutive hours off duty during the
prior 24 hours or at least 10 consecutive
hours off duty after working 12
consecutive hours. Those train
employees may not spend more than 14
consecutive calendar days on duty,
although there are some specific,
additional limitations for train
employees who engage in service during
the hours of 8 p.m.–3:59 a.m. (known as
‘‘Type II’’ schedules).21 Train employees
working at least one Type II schedule
may not spend more than 6 consecutive
calendar days on duty. FRA HOS
regulations for passenger train crews
also require a commuter or intercity
passenger railroad to evaluate Type II
schedules using a validated
biomathematical model of human
performance and fatigue determine
whether train employees may be at
increased risk of fatigue. Railroads must
develop a fatigue risk mitigation plan to
reduce the risk of fatigue in those
schedules having an increased risk for
fatigue.22 Train crews must also receive
initial and refresher training on fatigue
awareness and other topics related to
understanding and mitigating fatigue as
part of HOS requirements.23
In addition to Federal regulations, a
number of States have their own State
HOS limitations that apply to bus and
rail operators.24 FTA’s understanding,
however, is that State HOS limitations
do not apply to transit workers in most
States. Some States and transit agencies
also have policy requirements, not
codified in State law, that include HOS
limitations.
B. Fatigue Risk Management Programs
HOS limitations do not account for
other factors that contribute to fatigue,
including work schedules;
environmental factors, such as
temperature and humidity; circadian
rhythms; and the effects of the type of
task being performed, such as the level
of monotony or stress. FRMPs
complement HOS requirements by
addressing various workplace factors
CFR 228.405 (January 3, 2017).
CFR 228.407 (January 3, 2017).
23 49 CFR 228.411 (January 3, 2017).
24 See FTA Report No. 0223 ‘‘FTA Standards
Development Program: Medical Fitness for Duty
and Fatigue Risk Management’’ (June 2022),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/
fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
that contribute to fatigue to reduce the
potential for fatigue-related safety
incidents. An effective FRMP
implements processes to measure,
manage, and mitigate fatigue risk in a
specific operational setting.
1. NTSB and TRACS Recommendations
As a result of its March 2014
investigation of the Chicago train
collision, NTSB issued three
recommendations to FTA relating to
fatigue risk management. Safety
Recommendation R–15–018
recommends FTA develop and
implement a work scheduling program
for rail transit agencies that incorporates
the management of fatigue risk. Safety
Recommendations R–15–020 and R–15–
021 focus on identifying training and
certification necessary for work
schedulers and training personnel who
are responsible for developing rail
transit employee work schedules.
TRACS made several
recommendations to FTA relating to
FRMP requirements in its 2015 report.25
TRACS noted that shift scheduling is an
essential part of managing fatigue.
TRACS recommended that FTA require
transit agencies to provide the necessary
training for their work schedulers to
understand elements of fatigue science,
including circadian rhythms. In
addition, TRACS recommended that
agencies provide mandatory fatigue
awareness training for all safetysensitive personnel, including bus and
train operators, conductors, tower
operators, starters, inspectors, yard
persons, shift schedulers, maintenanceof-way employees, signal and electric
traction employees, mechanical
department employees, dispatchers, and
supervisors, and consider fatigue as a
potential underlying factor in all safety
investigations of incidents and
accidents. TRACS also recommended
that FTA require transit agencies to
collect and track data on fatigue
performance measures to evaluate the
success of their FRMPs.
2. Consensus Standards
APTA’s consensus standards for rail
transit system fatigue management
programs establish formal steps to
develop and implement an
organization’s fatigue management
program for operators, controllers, and
any other safety-critical personnel.26
21 49
22 49
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25 See TRACS Report 14–02, ‘‘Establishing a
Fatigue Management Program for the Bus and Rail
Transit Industry’’ (July 30, 2015), available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/
docs/TRACS_Fatigue_Report_14-02_Final_(2).pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
26 See APTA RT–OP–S–23–17 ‘‘Fatigue
Management Program Requirements’’ (April 7,
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
APTA’s standards include the
establishment of a fatigue management
program steering committee and a
fatigue management policy with core
program elements. APTA’s standards
also provide that agencies must consider
fatigue as a line of inquiry when
conducting accident investigations or
developing schedules and that agencies
must collect and assess fatigue-related
data.
3. Federal Regulations
In 2022, FRA promulgated regulations
that require railroads that operate
commuter and intercity passenger
service to develop and implement an
FRMP.27 Pursuant to those regulations,
a railroad must develop, and FRA must
approve, an FRMP that contains the
goals of the program; describes
processes to conduct a fatigue risk
assessment, identify mitigations, and
monitor identified fatigue-related
hazards; and describes how railroads
plan to implement an FRMP. At a
minimum, when conducting a risk
assessment, a railroad must evaluate the
general health and medical conditions
that can affect the fatigue levels,
scheduling issues that can impact
quality and quantity of sleep, and
characteristics of each job category of
safety-related railroad employees that
can affect fatigue levels.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Comments Sought
FTA seeks comments, information,
and data from the public in response to
this ANPRM. We request that
commenters address their comments
specifically to the enumerated list of
issues below, and number their
comments to correspond to each issue.
In the following questions, FTA uses the
term ‘‘transit worker’’ to indicate any
employee, contractor, or volunteer
working on behalf of a public transit
agency. This includes vehicle operators,
dispatchers, maintenance workers,
managerial staff, and all other workers
whose information could aid the
development of a future Hours of
Service and Fatigue Risk Management
rule. Please indicate which worker
groups you are addressing when
commenting.
A. Regulatory Options
1. Generally, why should or should
not FTA adopt mandatory Federal hours
of service (HOS) and fatigue risk
management programs (FRMP)
requirements for transit workers?
2017), available at https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/Standards_Documents/APTA-RTOP-S-023-17.pdf (last visited April 5, 2023).
27 87 FR 35660 (June 13, 2022), codified at 49 CFR
part 270 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
2. What aspects of transit operations
should FTA consider if it develops
Federal HOS and FRMP requirements
for transit workers? Are there unique
characteristics of transit operations, as
compared to motor carrier and railroad
operations, that FTA should consider
when evaluating existing FMCSA and
FRA requirements? How should FTA
consider differences in urban and rural
operating environments and agency
size?
3. Specifically, what are the reasons
you would or would not support any of
the following options? What alternatives
should FTA consider? Please explain.
a. The TRACS recommendation for a
maximum of 12 on-duty hours over a
maximum duty tour of 14 hours, with a
minimum of 10 consecutive hours offduty between shifts, and a maximum of
6 working days.
b. The Volpe recommendation to
TRACS for a limit of 60 on-duty hours
over 6 consecutive working days.
c. The APTA train operator standard
of a maximum time of 12 operating
hours, a maximum duty day of 16 hours,
a minimum off-duty time of 10 hours,
and a maximum period of l7
consecutive workdays. Is there a likely
increase in safety risk by adopting the
APTA standard for a maximum duty
day of 16 rather than 14 hours? How
would a 16-hour duty day change transit
agency operations as compared to a 14hour duty day?
d. For transit bus operators, FMCSA’s
passenger carrier HOS requirements of a
15-hour on-duty limit and a 10-hour
driving limit following 8 consecutive
hours off-duty, and no more than 70
hours over 8 consecutive days. Could
adoption of different HOS requirements
for transit bus drivers than FMCSA’s
passenger carrier requirements cause
confusion for drivers?
e. A requirement for transit agencies
to develop and implement an FRMP. If
transit agencies were required to
develop and implement an FRMP, what
elements should the FRMP include?
Should transit agencies have primary
responsibility for developing the FRMP?
For agencies that have a Safety
Committee, should the Safety
Committee have a role in developing or
approving the FRMP?
4. What specific qualities of workers’
regular tasks should FTA consider to
make them subject to HOS
requirements? Does the definition of
‘‘safety-sensitive function’’ in 49 CFR
655.4 include all categories of
employees who FTA should consider
for HOS requirements? Are there
employees who perform safety-sensitive
functions who should not be subject to
HOS requirements?
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74111
5. Would you support a single HOS
standard that applies across all transit
modes subject to safety regulation by
FTA? Or would you support multiple
HOS standards based on the varying
characteristics of different transit
modes, for example, one set of standards
for bus operators and a different set of
standards for rail operators? Please
explain.
6. Should shift schedulers who create
work schedules have minimum
certification and training requirements?
If so, please explain what minimum
requirements for training and/or
certification FTA should consider
establishing.
B. Benefits and Costs
7. How would changes in hours, as a
result of new HOS requirements, impact
worker health and safety?
8. Do you have information on any
HOS research FTA should consider as
part of this or future rulemakings?
9. How would changes in hours, as a
result of HOS requirements, impact
transit agency operations (e.g., their
ability to fully staff service)? How
would changes in hours impact
customers? What costs would agencies
incur to change their operations and
ensure that workers comply with the
requirements?
C. Fatigue Data Collection
10. Is the prevalence of fatigue among
transit workers and its safety
implications tracked or measured?
Please explain. Do you have any data on
the prevalence or impact of fatigue
among transit workers?
11. As a standard process, do
investigations consider whether fatigue
was a probable cause or contributing
factor in a transit safety event? If so,
please explain. How are such data
recorded or tracked? Do you have any
data on transit safety events in which
fatigue was determined to be a probable
cause or contributing factor?
12. Would you support requirements
for State Safety Oversight Agencies in
investigating the potential role of fatigue
in rail safety events and near misses? If
so, what requirements would you
support? What would be the burdens to
the industry? What would be the
benefits?
13. Would you support routine data
collection through the National Transit
Database on whether an incident was
fatigue related? What additional data
would help assess national trend
analyses on the safety impacts of
fatigue? For example, FTA could update
National Transit Database reporting for
major safety events to include elements,
such as the number of hours the
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
74112
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operator was on duty, the end time of
the operator’s previous shift before the
current shift, and the number of
consecutive days the operator was on
duty. Which of these would be useful?
Would other data elements be useful?
What barriers might impact the
collection of additional data? Would
this data be useful for both bus and rail
events?
14. What would the burdens to the
industry be if FTA instituted new
requirements to record transit worker
fatigue data in the National Transit
Database? What would be the benefits to
the industry of having such worker
fatigue data for transit safety events?
15. FTA recently began collecting
annual counts of fatal bus collisions
from transit operators that are not
currently required to file major safety
event reports. These are primarily
operators in rural areas, or operators
with fewer than 30 vehicles in peak
service. Some of these fatal bus
collisions may be fatigue-related.
Should FTA consider gathering data on
fatigue from these events?
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Current Hours of Service and Fatigue
Risk Management Policies
16. Do you have information or data
on whether and how transit agencies are
currently using their documented safety
risk management processes to assess the
associated safety risk and, based on the
results of the safety risk assessment,
identify safety risk mitigations or
strategies as necessary to address the
safety risk of transit worker fatigue
through their Agency Safety Plan?
17. Do you have information or data
on existing State or local HOS or FRMP
requirements that apply to transit
workers?
a. To which transit agencies do they
apply?
b. To which modes do they apply?
c. To which classifications of workers
do they apply (e.g., operators,
maintenance, dispatchers)?
d. Are waivers allowed to
accommodate exigent or other
circumstances? Please explain.
e. Please describe the HOS and FRMP
requirements (e.g., hours restrictions,
training requirements, designated
breaks, and rest areas).
f. Has the effectiveness of the HOS or
FRMP requirements been evaluated?
How were they evaluated and what
were the results?
g. Are existing HOS requirements part
of collective bargaining agreements? If
so, what are the details? If not, how
would HOS or FRMP requirements
interact with existing collective
bargaining agreements?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
18. Is transit worker secondary
employment tracked? If so, how? Are
secondary employment hours tracked in
addition to primary employment? Do
transit agencies face any limitations on
their ability to track secondary
employment?
19. Do you have information on
transit worker schedules for operators,
maintenance workers, control center
workers, and other workers?
a. How long are shifts? How long are
overtime shifts?
b. What are the non-operational job
responsibilities of bus and rail
operators? How much time do workers
spend on-task, for example, operating a
vehicle or performing maintenance
work, as compared to other work, such
as office administrative work?
c. How many breaks do workers get?
How long are the breaks?
d. How much off-duty time do
workers get?
e. What split-shift policies are used?
What is their service span on their
longest service days? Which workers
work split shifts?
f. How consistent are transit workers’
shift schedules? Are assigned service
hours stable week-to-week? Month-tomonth? Year-to-year?
20. What fatigue-related factors are
considered when developing bus and
rail schedules? Why are these factors
considered?
21. Do you have information on
transit agency use of other safety
enhancing policies or technology
solutions that FTA should consider?
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
Executive Order 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’), as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review’’), and the Executive
order on Modernizing Regulatory
Review, directs Federal agencies to
assess the benefits and costs of
regulations, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
when possible, and to consider
economic, environmental, and
distributional effects. It also directs the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to review significant regulatory
actions, including regulations with
annual economic effects of $200 million
or more. The agency has considered the
impact of this ANPRM under these
Executive orders and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. In this ANPRM, the agency
requests comments that would help
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FTA assess and make judgments on the
benefits, costs, and other impacts, of
transit worker fitness for duty standards.
FTA believes that a notice relating to
new requirements for hours of service
and fatigue risk management programs
may generate raise legal or policy issues
for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities or the principles set forth in
the Executive order on Modernizing
Regulatory Review, and therefore is
significant.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. This ANPRM would not
establish any new information
collection requirements.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to https://
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
National Environmental Policy Act
Federal agencies are required to adopt
implementing procedures for the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) that establish specific criteria
for, and identification of, three classes
of actions: (1) Those that normally
require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement, (2) those that
normally require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment, and (3)
those that are categorically excluded
from further NEPA review (40 CFR
1507.3(b)). This ANPRM qualifies for
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR
771.118(c)(4) (planning and
administrative activities that do not
involve or lead directly to construction).
FTA has evaluated whether the ANPRM
will involve unusual or extraordinary
circumstances and has determined that
it will not.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. FTA does not believe this
ANPRM affects a taking of private
property or otherwise has taking
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules
implications under Executive Order
12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This ANRPM meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies
that this action will not cause an
environmental risk to health or safety
that might disproportionately affect
children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under
Executive Order 13175, dated November
6, 2000, and believes that it will not
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes; will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments; and will not
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FTA has analyzed this action under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FTA has
determined that this action is not a
significant energy action under that
order and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations) and DOT
Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10,
2012) (https://www.transportation.gov/
transportation-policy/environmentaljustice/department-transportationorder-56102a) require DOT agencies to
achieve Environmental Justice (EJ) 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 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Oct 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
low-income populations. All DOT
agencies must address compliance with
Executive Order 12898 and the DOT
Order in all rulemaking activities. On
August 15, 2012, FTA’s Circular 4703.1
became effective, which contains
guidance for recipients of FTA financial
assistance to incorporate EJ principles
into plans, projects, and activities
(https://www.transit.dot.gov/
regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/
environmental-justice-policy-guidancefederal-transit).
FTA has evaluated this action under
the Executive order, the DOT Order, and
the FTA Circular and FTA has
determined that this action will not
cause disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations.
Regulation Identifier Number
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. The RIN number contained in the
heading of this document can be used
to cross-reference this rulemaking with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 675
Mass transportation, Safety.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR 1.91)
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–23916 Filed 10–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 217
[Docket No. 231023–0251]
RIN 0648–BL79
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Naval
Magazine Indian Island Ammunition
Wharf Maintenance and Pile
Replacement Project, Puget Sound,
Washington
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for
comments.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74113
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the maintenance and pile
replacement construction activities at
the Ammunition Wharf at Naval
Magazine (NAVMAG) Indian Island in
Puget Sound, Washington, over the
course of 5 years (2024–2029). As
required by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
proposing regulations to govern that
take, and requests comments on the
proposed regulations. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested MMPA
authorization and agency responses will
be summarized in the final notice of our
decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than November 29,
2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2023–0122, by the following
method:
• Electronic submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
NOAA–NMFS–2023–0122 in the Search
box, click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Availability of Navy’s Application,
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, and
List of References
A copy of the Navy’s application,
monitoring plan, and any supporting
documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may
be obtained online at: https://
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74107-74113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. FTA-2023-0018]
RIN 2132-AB46
Transit Worker Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk Management
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is considering
proposing minimum safety standards to provide protections for transit
workers to obtain adequate rest thereby reducing the risk of fatigue-
related safety incidents. FTA seeks public input in two areas: hours of
service; and fatigue risk management programs. FTA seeks information to
understand better current industry practices, priorities, requirements,
and the costs and benefits of Federal requirements. The information
received in response to this ANPRM will assist FTA as it considers
potential regulatory requirements.
DATES: Comments should be filed by December 29, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by docket number FTA-2023-
0018, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for sending comments.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Dockets Operations, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
https://
[[Page 74108]]
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Background
documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Valerie
Beck, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, FTA, telephone (202) 366-
9178 or [email protected]. For legal matters, contact Emily
Jessup, Attorney Advisor, 202-366-8907 or [email protected].
Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Legal Basis for Rulemaking
II. Background
A. Hours of Service
B. Fatigue Risk Management Programs
III. Comments Sought
A. Regulatory Options
B. Benefits and Costs
C. Fatigue Data Collection
D. Current Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk Management Policies
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Legal Basis for Rulemaking
Congress directed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program in the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141)
(MAP-21), which was reauthorized by the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94). The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L.
117-58) (IIJA), continues FTA's authority to regulate public
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under
chapter 53 of title 49.\1\ Section 5329(f)(7) of title 49, United
States Code, authorizes FTA to issue rules to carry out the public
transportation safety program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Public Law 117-58 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5329(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, directs FTA to
develop and implement a National Public Transportation Safety Plan
(NSP) that includes minimum safety standards to ensure the safe
operation of public transportation systems. In 2017, FTA published its
first iteration of the NSP, which was intended to be FTA's primary tool
for communicating with the transit industry about its safety
performance.\2\ Subsequently, on May 31, 2023, FTA published proposed
revisions to the NSP to address new requirements in the IIJA, to
continue to mature FTA's national safety program and to advance transit
safety further (88 FR 34917). While the NSP currently contains only
voluntary standards, FTA is considering whether to propose mandatory
standards for transit worker hours of service and fatigue risk
management through a new rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 82 FR 5628 (January 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
At present, there are no Federal minimum standards for hours of
service (HOS) and fatigue risk management programs (FRMP) in the
transit industry. HOS regulations reduce excessively long work hours,
while FRMP address other workplace factors impacting fatigue, such as
training and scheduling. Public transit is the only mode of
transportation without such standards for its workers. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FTA's Transit Advisory Committee
for Safety (TRACS), among others, have recommended regulatory action to
address safety concerns associated with transit worker fatigue. NTSB
has found fatigue to be a cause and contributing factor for dozens of
fatal transportation events dating back almost 40 years.
NTSB has repeatedly identified rail transit crashes in which
fatigue played a role. In 2004, two Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority Metrorail trains collided at the Woodley Park
station, resulting in the transport of about 20 people to local
hospitals and causing an estimated $3.45 million in property damage.
NTSB found that the train operator, who had only 8 hours off between
shifts, did not have the opportunity to receive adequate sleep to be
fully alert and to operate safely.\3\ In 2014, a Chicago Transit
Authority train collided with a bumping post at O'Hare Station and went
up an escalator at the end of the track, resulting in 33 injured
passengers, an injured train operator, and $11.1 million in damages.
NTSB found that the train operator had worked 12 consecutive days and
nights and experienced the effects of a cumulative sleep debt, which
contributed to them falling asleep.\4\ In 2021, two Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority light rail vehicles collided, resulting in 24
injured passengers, 3 injured crewmembers, and about $2 million in
equipment damage. The train operator told investigators that they
believed they had fallen asleep.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See NTSB RAR-06/01 ``Collision Between Two Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Trains at the Woodley Park-Zoo/
Adams Morgan Station in Washington, DC'' (November 3, 2004),
available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR0601.pdf (last visited May 16, 2023).
\4\ See NTSB/RAR-15-01 ``Railroad Accident Report: Chicago Train
Authority Train Collides with Bumping Post and Escalator at O'Hare
Station'' (March 24, 2014), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/rar1501.pdf (last visited
April 5, 2023).
\5\ See NTSB/RIR-22-15 ``Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority Trolley Collision with Derailment'' (July 30, 2021),
available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RIR2215.pdf (last visited May 16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to NTSB's reports, local investigations have identified
fatigue-related transit crashes. For example, on March 11, 2023, a
Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail train
derailed, resulting in injuries to two people, the train and RTD track,
and station infrastructure. RTD determined that the train operator
likely fell asleep before impact.\6\ In addition, the Washington
Metrorail Safety Commission has identified at least two recent
incidents in which a train operator appeared to fall asleep while
operating the train.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Corrective Action Plan CAP01-03112023, The Regional
Transportation District (RTD)--Denver (April 25, 2023), available at
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789054/042523-cap01-03112023-jeffco-station-derailment.pdf (last visited May 17, 2023).
\7\ See WMSC Commissioner Brief: W-0128--Red Signal Overrun--
Largo Town Center Station--August 18, 2021 (Dec. 7, 2021), available
at https://wmsc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/W-0129-Red-Signal-Overrun-at-Largo-Town-Center-Station-August-18-2021.pdf (last
visited May 17, 2023); Final Report of Investigation A&I E19328
(June 25, 2019), available at https://wmsc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/W-0019-Adoption-of-WMATA-Final-Report_E19326_2019_06_25-Failure-to-service-station-merged.pdf (last visited May 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA's stakeholders have also identified fatigue as an area of
concern. On July 15, 2021, FTA published a Request for Information to
solicit input from the public regarding information and data on transit
safety concerns that FTA should evaluate for potential action.\8\ FTA
received 86 comments from 78 individuals and organizations, including
rail transit agencies, State Safety Oversight Agencies, labor unions,
industry businesses and organizations, and private individuals.
Respondents,
[[Page 74109]]
including 4 transit agencies, offered 21 comments recommending FTA
develop HOS requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 86 FR 37400 (July 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies and medical research reports indicate that fatigue can
deleteriously affect transportation worker performance. FTA's 2022
report, Medical Fitness for Duty and Fatigue Risk Management prepared
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (``CUTR 2022 Report''),
concluded that a fatigued transit worker may be unable to effectively
perform safety-critical tasks, which may lead to ``catastrophic
events.'' \9\ A 2017 National Safety Council report, Fatigue in Safety-
Critical Industries, found that 97 percent of employers in the
transportation industry state that workers feel the impact of fatigue
(the highest among all the safety-critical industries surveyed), that
66 percent reported decreases in productivity due to fatigue, and that
45 percent stated they had experienced safety incidents due to fatigue-
related issues.\10\ In a study of railroad employees, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) found that exposure to fatigue raised the
chance of a human factors accident by 11 to 65 percent.\11\ Two
research studies specifically examine transit bus operator fatigue. The
first study found an increased propensity for collision involvement
with an increase in weekly driving hours.\12\ The second study found
that most bus operators work split schedules, which use shifts that are
broken by a long break, typically two or more hours. The study found
that split schedules are the most fatigue-inducing schedule.\13\ News
reports of fatigue-related transit bus crashes also indicate,
anecdotally, that transit bus operator fatigue is more prevalent than
is captured in NTSB accident reports and State Safety Oversight Agency
incident reports to FTA.\14\ FTA does not collect fatigue data as part
of its National Transit Database (NTD), and there are no Federal
requirements that the influence of fatigue be recorded during safety
incident investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See FTA Report No. 0223 ``FTA Standards Development Program:
Medical Fitness for Duty and Fatigue Risk Management'' (June 2022),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf (last visited April 5, 2023).
\10\ See National Safety Council Report ''Fatigue in Safety-
Critical Industries: Impact, Risks & Recommendations'' (2017),
available at: https://nsccdn.azureedge.net/nsc.org/media/site-media/docs/fatigue/part3-fatigue-survey-report.pdf (last visited June 22,
2023).
\11\ See Federal Railroad Administration, ``Fatigue Status of
the U.S. Railroad Industry'' (2013), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/2929/TR_Fatigue%20Status%20US%20Railroad%20Industry_CO%2020121119_20130221_FINAL.pdf (last visited April 21, 2023).
\12\ See Sando, T., Mtoi, E., & Moses, R., ``Potential Causes of
Driver Fatigue: A Study on Transit Bus Operators in Florida,''
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies' 2011 90th
Annual Meeting, paper no. 11-3398, November 2010, available in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
\13\ See Sando, T., Angel, M., Mtoi, E., & Moses, R., ``Analysis
of the Relationship Between Operator Cumulative Driving Hours and
Involvement in Preventable Collisions,'' Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies' 2011 90th Annual Meeting, paper no.
11-4165, November 2010, available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
\14\ See, e.g., ``New Video released in 2021 Pace bus crash that
killed woman after driver fell asleep at the wheel'' (March 27,
2023), available at https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/pace-to-pay-13m-settlement-after-bus-driver-fell-asleep-at-wheel-causing-crash-that-killed-68-year-old-woman (last visited May 17, 2023); ``Sleepy
SMART bus driver who caused crash gets 93 days in jail'' (May 4,
2015), available at https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2015/05/04/sleepy-smart-bus-driver-who-caused-crash-gets-93-days-in-jail/ (last
visited May 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) does not make
specific proposals but requests public input in two areas: (1) HOS; and
(2) FRMP. FTA will use information received in response to this ANPRM
to inform FTA's future decision-making on whether and how to pursue
Federal regulatory action in those two areas. This ANPRM is not
requesting input on other topics that may impact a transit worker's
fitness for duty, including medical qualifications and prescription and
over-the-counter drug use, unless they are relevant to HOS or FRMP. FTA
may address those topics independently in the future.
A. Hours of Service
The goal of HOS regulations is to prevent excessively long work
hours to lower the risk of fatigue and fatigue-related safety
incidents. While HOS regulations alone cannot ensure that individuals
receive adequate restorative rest, they can ensure that individuals
have enough time off to obtain adequate rest on a daily and weekly
basis. HOS regulations generally define parameters for active work
time, time on duty, time off duty between shifts, work week hours, and
the maximum number of consecutive workdays.
1. NTSB and TRACS Recommendations
NTSB has four open fatigue-related safety recommendations to FTA
arising from a March 2014 rail collision in which a train collided with
a bumping post and went up an escalator at the O'Hare Station in
Chicago, Illinois.\15\ NTSB determined that the probable cause of the
collision was the failure of the train operator to stop the train due
to falling asleep as a result of fatigue. Safety Recommendation R-15-
019 recommends FTA establish regulations that set HOS limitations,
provide predictable work and rest schedules, and consider circadian
rhythms and sleep and rest requirements. The other three
recommendations are discussed in the Fatigue Risk Management section
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See NTSB/RAR-15-01 ``Railroad Accident Report: Chicago
Train Authority Train Collides with Bumping Post and Escalator at
O'Hare Station'' (March 24, 2014), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/rar1501.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2014, FTA tasked TRACS with developing recommendations
on the elements that should comprise a Safety Management System (SMS)
approach to a fatigue management program. TRACS found that transit
worker fatigue is a serious problem and recommended in 2015 that FTA
develop a Federal regulation mandating minimum HOS requirements as its
first priority.\16\ TRACS issued a report which noted that the
committee ``feels strongly that HOS is a fundamental, initial pillar of
an SMS framework and should be implemented by FTA as soon as
possible.'' In the same report, TRACS recommended that FTA's HOS
regulations apply to employees involved with moving revenue and
maintenance equipment, including bus and rail operators, dispatchers,
conductors, and controllers. TRACS further recommended a maximum of 12
on-duty hours over a maximum duty tour of 14 hours, including any
periods of interim release, with a minimum of 10 consecutive hours off-
duty between shifts, and a maximum number of 6 consecutive working
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See TRACS Report 14-02, ``Establishing a Fatigue Management
Program for the Bus and Rail Transit Industry'' (July 30, 2015),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/TRACS_Fatigue_Report_14-02_Final_(2).pdf (last visited April 5,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACS considered whether FTA should identify a maximum number of
on-duty hours over the six consecutive working days. In its report,
TRACS noted that experts from the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center recommended a limit of 60 on-duty hours over 6 consecutive
working days, which would allow for a 10-hour workday, 9 hours of
sleep, a 2-hour commute, and 5 hours of personal time (e.g., eating,
showering, and family time). TRACS found that some agencies expressed
concern about the need to hire and train new employees to achieve the
staffing levels necessary to operate under the recommended HOS
requirements, which could result in managing large numbers of
inexperienced employees. The TRACS report noted that the committee
considered anecdotal evidence from one
[[Page 74110]]
agency that despite initial resistance from operators to give up
overtime, employees came to cite an overall increase in quality of life
from the agency's adoption of a 60-hour maximum limit. TRACS members
did not reach a consensus on the issue of including a maximum number of
hours over six days and therefore did not make a recommendation in this
regard to FTA.
2. Consensus Standards
Through its bus and rail working groups, the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) develops voluntary, consensus-based
industry operating and maintenance standards. APTA's consensus HOS
standards for train operators limit maximum operating hours to 12
hours, with a maximum duty day of 16 hours. APTA's consensus standards
suggest that train operators have a minimum off-duty time of 10 hours
and a maximum period of 7 consecutive workdays. APTA's voluntary
standards do not include a maximum number of on-duty hours over the 7
consecutive workdays.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See APTA RT-OP-S-015-09 Rev 1, ``Train Operator Hours-of-
Service Requirements'' (June 7, 2019), available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-RT-OP-S-015-09_Rev_-1-1.pdf
(last visited April 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Federal and State Regulations
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), FRA,
Federal Aviation Administration, and United States Coast Guard
prescribe HOS limitations applicable to their regulated industries, as
summarized in detail in the CUTR 2022 Report.\18\ Of particular
relevance to transit operators, FMCSA prohibits drivers of passenger-
carrying commercial motor vehicles from driving more than 10 hours
following 8 consecutive hours off duty. Such drivers also may not drive
after being on duty for 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off
duty. FMCSA limits on-duty time to no more than 60 hours over 7
consecutive days for motor carriers that do not operate every day of
the week, and to no more than 70 hours over eight consecutive days for
motor carriers that operate every day of the week.\19\ FMCSA's HOS
requirements do not apply to transit buses operated by any political
subdivision of a State.\20\ Transit buses operated by contractors that
operate under their own USDOT registration, however, may be subject to
FMCSA's requirements if they operate in interstate commerce. FRA
requires that before a train employee engaged in commuter or intercity
rail passenger transportation remains or goes on-duty the employee must
have had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty during the prior 24
hours or at least 10 consecutive hours off duty after working 12
consecutive hours. Those train employees may not spend more than 14
consecutive calendar days on duty, although there are some specific,
additional limitations for train employees who engage in service during
the hours of 8 p.m.-3:59 a.m. (known as ``Type II'' schedules).\21\
Train employees working at least one Type II schedule may not spend
more than 6 consecutive calendar days on duty. FRA HOS regulations for
passenger train crews also require a commuter or intercity passenger
railroad to evaluate Type II schedules using a validated
biomathematical model of human performance and fatigue determine
whether train employees may be at increased risk of fatigue. Railroads
must develop a fatigue risk mitigation plan to reduce the risk of
fatigue in those schedules having an increased risk for fatigue.\22\
Train crews must also receive initial and refresher training on fatigue
awareness and other topics related to understanding and mitigating
fatigue as part of HOS requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See FTA Report No. 0223 ``FTA Standards Development
Program: Medical Fitness for Duty and Fatigue Risk Management''
(June 2022), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf (last visited April
5, 2023).
\19\ 49 CFR 395.5 (January 3, 2017).
\20\ 49 CFR 390.3T(f)(2) (November 11, 2021).
\21\ 49 CFR 228.405 (January 3, 2017).
\22\ 49 CFR 228.407 (January 3, 2017).
\23\ 49 CFR 228.411 (January 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Federal regulations, a number of States have their
own State HOS limitations that apply to bus and rail operators.\24\
FTA's understanding, however, is that State HOS limitations do not
apply to transit workers in most States. Some States and transit
agencies also have policy requirements, not codified in State law, that
include HOS limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See FTA Report No. 0223 ``FTA Standards Development
Program: Medical Fitness for Duty and Fatigue Risk Management''
(June 2022), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-07/FTA-Report-No-0223.pdf (last visited April
5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fatigue Risk Management Programs
HOS limitations do not account for other factors that contribute to
fatigue, including work schedules; environmental factors, such as
temperature and humidity; circadian rhythms; and the effects of the
type of task being performed, such as the level of monotony or stress.
FRMPs complement HOS requirements by addressing various workplace
factors that contribute to fatigue to reduce the potential for fatigue-
related safety incidents. An effective FRMP implements processes to
measure, manage, and mitigate fatigue risk in a specific operational
setting.
1. NTSB and TRACS Recommendations
As a result of its March 2014 investigation of the Chicago train
collision, NTSB issued three recommendations to FTA relating to fatigue
risk management. Safety Recommendation R-15-018 recommends FTA develop
and implement a work scheduling program for rail transit agencies that
incorporates the management of fatigue risk. Safety Recommendations R-
15-020 and R-15-021 focus on identifying training and certification
necessary for work schedulers and training personnel who are
responsible for developing rail transit employee work schedules.
TRACS made several recommendations to FTA relating to FRMP
requirements in its 2015 report.\25\ TRACS noted that shift scheduling
is an essential part of managing fatigue. TRACS recommended that FTA
require transit agencies to provide the necessary training for their
work schedulers to understand elements of fatigue science, including
circadian rhythms. In addition, TRACS recommended that agencies provide
mandatory fatigue awareness training for all safety-sensitive
personnel, including bus and train operators, conductors, tower
operators, starters, inspectors, yard persons, shift schedulers,
maintenance-of-way employees, signal and electric traction employees,
mechanical department employees, dispatchers, and supervisors, and
consider fatigue as a potential underlying factor in all safety
investigations of incidents and accidents. TRACS also recommended that
FTA require transit agencies to collect and track data on fatigue
performance measures to evaluate the success of their FRMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See TRACS Report 14-02, ``Establishing a Fatigue Management
Program for the Bus and Rail Transit Industry'' (July 30, 2015),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/TRACS_Fatigue_Report_14-02_Final_(2).pdf (last visited April 5,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consensus Standards
APTA's consensus standards for rail transit system fatigue
management programs establish formal steps to develop and implement an
organization's fatigue management program for operators, controllers,
and any other safety-critical personnel.\26\
[[Page 74111]]
APTA's standards include the establishment of a fatigue management
program steering committee and a fatigue management policy with core
program elements. APTA's standards also provide that agencies must
consider fatigue as a line of inquiry when conducting accident
investigations or developing schedules and that agencies must collect
and assess fatigue-related data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See APTA RT-OP-S-23-17 ``Fatigue Management Program
Requirements'' (April 7, 2017), available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Standards_Documents/APTA-RT-OP-S-023-17.pdf (last
visited April 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Federal Regulations
In 2022, FRA promulgated regulations that require railroads that
operate commuter and intercity passenger service to develop and
implement an FRMP.\27\ Pursuant to those regulations, a railroad must
develop, and FRA must approve, an FRMP that contains the goals of the
program; describes processes to conduct a fatigue risk assessment,
identify mitigations, and monitor identified fatigue-related hazards;
and describes how railroads plan to implement an FRMP. At a minimum,
when conducting a risk assessment, a railroad must evaluate the general
health and medical conditions that can affect the fatigue levels,
scheduling issues that can impact quality and quantity of sleep, and
characteristics of each job category of safety-related railroad
employees that can affect fatigue levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 87 FR 35660 (June 13, 2022), codified at 49 CFR part 270 et
seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Comments Sought
FTA seeks comments, information, and data from the public in
response to this ANPRM. We request that commenters address their
comments specifically to the enumerated list of issues below, and
number their comments to correspond to each issue. In the following
questions, FTA uses the term ``transit worker'' to indicate any
employee, contractor, or volunteer working on behalf of a public
transit agency. This includes vehicle operators, dispatchers,
maintenance workers, managerial staff, and all other workers whose
information could aid the development of a future Hours of Service and
Fatigue Risk Management rule. Please indicate which worker groups you
are addressing when commenting.
A. Regulatory Options
1. Generally, why should or should not FTA adopt mandatory Federal
hours of service (HOS) and fatigue risk management programs (FRMP)
requirements for transit workers?
2. What aspects of transit operations should FTA consider if it
develops Federal HOS and FRMP requirements for transit workers? Are
there unique characteristics of transit operations, as compared to
motor carrier and railroad operations, that FTA should consider when
evaluating existing FMCSA and FRA requirements? How should FTA consider
differences in urban and rural operating environments and agency size?
3. Specifically, what are the reasons you would or would not
support any of the following options? What alternatives should FTA
consider? Please explain.
a. The TRACS recommendation for a maximum of 12 on-duty hours over
a maximum duty tour of 14 hours, with a minimum of 10 consecutive hours
off-duty between shifts, and a maximum of 6 working days.
b. The Volpe recommendation to TRACS for a limit of 60 on-duty
hours over 6 consecutive working days.
c. The APTA train operator standard of a maximum time of 12
operating hours, a maximum duty day of 16 hours, a minimum off-duty
time of 10 hours, and a maximum period of l7 consecutive workdays. Is
there a likely increase in safety risk by adopting the APTA standard
for a maximum duty day of 16 rather than 14 hours? How would a 16-hour
duty day change transit agency operations as compared to a 14-hour duty
day?
d. For transit bus operators, FMCSA's passenger carrier HOS
requirements of a 15-hour on-duty limit and a 10-hour driving limit
following 8 consecutive hours off-duty, and no more than 70 hours over
8 consecutive days. Could adoption of different HOS requirements for
transit bus drivers than FMCSA's passenger carrier requirements cause
confusion for drivers?
e. A requirement for transit agencies to develop and implement an
FRMP. If transit agencies were required to develop and implement an
FRMP, what elements should the FRMP include? Should transit agencies
have primary responsibility for developing the FRMP? For agencies that
have a Safety Committee, should the Safety Committee have a role in
developing or approving the FRMP?
4. What specific qualities of workers' regular tasks should FTA
consider to make them subject to HOS requirements? Does the definition
of ``safety-sensitive function'' in 49 CFR 655.4 include all categories
of employees who FTA should consider for HOS requirements? Are there
employees who perform safety-sensitive functions who should not be
subject to HOS requirements?
5. Would you support a single HOS standard that applies across all
transit modes subject to safety regulation by FTA? Or would you support
multiple HOS standards based on the varying characteristics of
different transit modes, for example, one set of standards for bus
operators and a different set of standards for rail operators? Please
explain.
6. Should shift schedulers who create work schedules have minimum
certification and training requirements? If so, please explain what
minimum requirements for training and/or certification FTA should
consider establishing.
B. Benefits and Costs
7. How would changes in hours, as a result of new HOS requirements,
impact worker health and safety?
8. Do you have information on any HOS research FTA should consider
as part of this or future rulemakings?
9. How would changes in hours, as a result of HOS requirements,
impact transit agency operations (e.g., their ability to fully staff
service)? How would changes in hours impact customers? What costs would
agencies incur to change their operations and ensure that workers
comply with the requirements?
C. Fatigue Data Collection
10. Is the prevalence of fatigue among transit workers and its
safety implications tracked or measured? Please explain. Do you have
any data on the prevalence or impact of fatigue among transit workers?
11. As a standard process, do investigations consider whether
fatigue was a probable cause or contributing factor in a transit safety
event? If so, please explain. How are such data recorded or tracked? Do
you have any data on transit safety events in which fatigue was
determined to be a probable cause or contributing factor?
12. Would you support requirements for State Safety Oversight
Agencies in investigating the potential role of fatigue in rail safety
events and near misses? If so, what requirements would you support?
What would be the burdens to the industry? What would be the benefits?
13. Would you support routine data collection through the National
Transit Database on whether an incident was fatigue related? What
additional data would help assess national trend analyses on the safety
impacts of fatigue? For example, FTA could update National Transit
Database reporting for major safety events to include elements, such as
the number of hours the
[[Page 74112]]
operator was on duty, the end time of the operator's previous shift
before the current shift, and the number of consecutive days the
operator was on duty. Which of these would be useful? Would other data
elements be useful? What barriers might impact the collection of
additional data? Would this data be useful for both bus and rail
events?
14. What would the burdens to the industry be if FTA instituted new
requirements to record transit worker fatigue data in the National
Transit Database? What would be the benefits to the industry of having
such worker fatigue data for transit safety events?
15. FTA recently began collecting annual counts of fatal bus
collisions from transit operators that are not currently required to
file major safety event reports. These are primarily operators in rural
areas, or operators with fewer than 30 vehicles in peak service. Some
of these fatal bus collisions may be fatigue-related. Should FTA
consider gathering data on fatigue from these events?
D. Current Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk Management Policies
16. Do you have information or data on whether and how transit
agencies are currently using their documented safety risk management
processes to assess the associated safety risk and, based on the
results of the safety risk assessment, identify safety risk mitigations
or strategies as necessary to address the safety risk of transit worker
fatigue through their Agency Safety Plan?
17. Do you have information or data on existing State or local HOS
or FRMP requirements that apply to transit workers?
a. To which transit agencies do they apply?
b. To which modes do they apply?
c. To which classifications of workers do they apply (e.g.,
operators, maintenance, dispatchers)?
d. Are waivers allowed to accommodate exigent or other
circumstances? Please explain.
e. Please describe the HOS and FRMP requirements (e.g., hours
restrictions, training requirements, designated breaks, and rest
areas).
f. Has the effectiveness of the HOS or FRMP requirements been
evaluated? How were they evaluated and what were the results?
g. Are existing HOS requirements part of collective bargaining
agreements? If so, what are the details? If not, how would HOS or FRMP
requirements interact with existing collective bargaining agreements?
18. Is transit worker secondary employment tracked? If so, how? Are
secondary employment hours tracked in addition to primary employment?
Do transit agencies face any limitations on their ability to track
secondary employment?
19. Do you have information on transit worker schedules for
operators, maintenance workers, control center workers, and other
workers?
a. How long are shifts? How long are overtime shifts?
b. What are the non-operational job responsibilities of bus and
rail operators? How much time do workers spend on-task, for example,
operating a vehicle or performing maintenance work, as compared to
other work, such as office administrative work?
c. How many breaks do workers get? How long are the breaks?
d. How much off-duty time do workers get?
e. What split-shift policies are used? What is their service span
on their longest service days? Which workers work split shifts?
f. How consistent are transit workers' shift schedules? Are
assigned service hours stable week-to-week? Month-to-month? Year-to-
year?
20. What fatigue-related factors are considered when developing bus
and rail schedules? Why are these factors considered?
21. Do you have information on transit agency use of other safety
enhancing policies or technology solutions that FTA should consider?
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review''), as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review''), and the Executive order on Modernizing Regulatory
Review, directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of
regulations, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
when possible, and to consider economic, environmental, and
distributional effects. It also directs the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including
regulations with annual economic effects of $200 million or more. The
agency has considered the impact of this ANPRM under these Executive
orders and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. In this ANPRM, the agency requests comments that would help
FTA assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs, and other
impacts, of transit worker fitness for duty standards. FTA believes
that a notice relating to new requirements for hours of service and
fatigue risk management programs may generate raise legal or policy
issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the
President's priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive
order on Modernizing Regulatory Review, and therefore is significant.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This ANPRM
would not establish any new information collection requirements.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
National Environmental Policy Act
Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific
criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1)
Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded
from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This ANPRM qualifies for
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and
administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to
construction). FTA has evaluated whether the ANPRM will involve unusual
or extraordinary circumstances and has determined that it will not.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights. FTA does not believe this ANPRM affects a taking of
private property or otherwise has taking
[[Page 74113]]
implications under Executive Order 12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This ANRPM meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA
certifies that this action will not cause an environmental risk to
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FTA has analyzed this ANPRM under Executive Order 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is
not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined that this action is not a
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and DOT
Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 2012) (https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/department-transportation-order-56102a) require DOT agencies to achieve
Environmental Justice (EJ) 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 and low-income populations. All DOT agencies must address
compliance with Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order in all
rulemaking activities. On August 15, 2012, FTA's Circular 4703.1 became
effective, which contains guidance for recipients of FTA financial
assistance to incorporate EJ principles into plans, projects, and
activities (https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/environmental-justice-policy-guidance-federal-transit).
FTA has evaluated this action under the Executive order, the DOT
Order, and the FTA Circular and FTA has determined that this action
will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
Regulation Identifier Number
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this rulemaking with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 675
Mass transportation, Safety.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR 1.91)
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-23916 Filed 10-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
