Cisp0602

SUPPORTING JUSTIFICATION

Critical Incident Stress Plans

OMB No. 2130-0602

Summary of Submission

• This submission is a request for an extension with change of the last approval granted by OMB on July 31, 2014, which expires July 31, 2017.

• FRA published the required 60-day Federal Register Notice on March 14, 2017. See 82 FR 13714. FRA received no comments in response to this Notice.

• The total number of burden hours requested for this submission is 314 hours.

• The total burden previously approved for this information collection amounted to 14,908 hours.

• The decrease in burden from the last approved submission amounts to 14,594 hours.

• Adjustments decreased the burden by 14,594 hours.

• There are no program changes

• Total number of responses requested for this submission is 663.

• Total number of responses previously approved for this submission is 170,004.

• Adjustments decreased responses by 169,341.

• **The answer to question number 12 itemizes the hourly burden associated with each requirement of this rule (See pp. 11-18.

**The answer to question number 15 itemizes all adjustments (See pp. 27-28).

1. Circumstances that make collection of the information necessary.

Background

Highway-rail grade crossing accidents and trespasser incidents along the railroad right of way are an unfortunate reality for employees in the railroad industry. Railroad work carries the risk that certain employees will be directly involved in a critical incident, often outside the control of the railroad employees, which can lead to severe emotional and psychological distress, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the more immediate Acute Distress Disorder (ASD).¹ There are concerns about the impact of exposure to traumatic incidents on employees in safety-sensitive jobs, most notably locomotive engineers and conductors.

Until this rulemaking, a national, uniform approach to critical incident response in the railroad industry did not exist, with only a handful of States taking action through statutes or regulations to aid critical incident response in the railroad industry. With this final rule, FRA seeks to define the term “critical incident” in the railroad setting, which if met, would trigger the requirement that appropriate support services be offered to railroad employees affected by such incidents.

PTSD and ASD can develop following any traumatic event that threatens personal safety or the safety of others, or causes serious physical, cognitive, or emotional harm. While such disorders are most often initiated by a threat to one’s life or the witnessing of brutal injury or traumatic death – in combat situations, for example, or during violent accidents or disasters – any overwhelming life experience can trigger the disorders, especially if the event is perceived as unpredictable and uncontrollable. Individuals exposed to traumatic events experience alterations in their neurologic, endocrine, and immune systems, which have been linked to adverse changes in overall health.² These changes and symptoms can be ameliorated if treated appropriately, usually with psychotherapy and/or medications. However, PTSD and ASD often go undiagnosed, as few primary care providers routinely assess for it and, more often than not, attribute the symptoms to less serious forms of depression, anxiety, and general emotional distress.³

In 2011, there were approximately 2,000 highway-rail crossing accidents and almost 800 casualties to persons trespassing on railroad property (trespassers). These incidents resulted in approximately 660 fatalities and over 1,400 non-fatal injuries. Each one of these incidents, as well as other traumatic events, such as railroad accidents or incidents resulting in serious injury or death to railroad employees, hold potential for causing ASD, PTSD, or other health and safety-related problems in any railroad employee who is present. Some locomotive engineers and conductors have had the misfortune of experiencing multiple potential PTSD/ASD-invoking events over the course of their careers.⁴

Exposure of railroad employees, particularly locomotive engineers and conductors, to prototypical potentially traumatic exposures is well established. Incursion events, such as vehicular accidents at highway-rail grade crossings and pedestrian incursions onto the railroad right of way (frequently as a method of suicide) often involve fatalities and the injuries sustained may be gruesome. Locomotive engineers and conductors, because of their proximity to the accident scene, must often tend to the injured and secure the scene, compounding the extent and the duration of exposure. In particular, locomotive engineers may be alone in the cab when an on-the-track accident occurs. Further, train crews are required to report the incident, secure the train, leave the train and examine the victims. Crew members may even provide first aid if victims are alive, and wait, sometimes for long periods, for assistance or instructions.

Systematic empirical studies of the health impact on railroad personnel of this kind of experience are limited. The best designed studies have been European and show clinically diagnosed PTSD in 7 to 14 percent of those exposed. FRA has found no empirical studies of treatment efficacy and impact within the U.S. railroad population, presumably due to the relatively small population annually treated and the different locations and systems involved in railroad employees’ identification and care.

If left untreated, mental health conditions carry significant costs for employers in the form of “presenteeism,” when employees come to work, but have lowered productivity.⁵ Presenteeism can have catastrophic safety consequences for railroads. Symptoms such as sleep difficulties, trouble concentrating, hyper-vigilance and exaggerated sensory reactions – often leading sufferers to misuse alcohol to reduce the stress – compromise workers’ safety at work and the safety of others, and lower employees’ productivity on the job. One study revealed that employees are more likely to engage in workplace presenteeism than calling in sick (absenteeism).⁶

All major railroads have plans to provide their employees with assistance and intervention following traumatic events. Most of these programs have been in existence for a number of years, usually as part of a railroad’s “Employee Assistance Program” (EAP). The descriptions of interventions, timing, and delivery in these programs are often “transplanted” from programs created for fire, rescue, and emergency services personnel in the 1980s and 1990s. These approaches, particularly those built around “critical incident stress debriefing” and related interventions, have come under increasing scrutiny as independent research has reported such interventions to not be helpful in certain situations and even to paradoxically inhibit the natural recovery of certain vulnerable participants. Accordingly, most authoritative guidelines now caution against the routine application of these approaches, particularly those built around “critical incident stress debriefing,” and some now list them as directly contraindicated.

While there are variations among railroads’ existing programs, there are also substantial similarities reflected with respect to critical elements mandated by statute.⁷ For example, many railroads provide assistance and intervention following critical incidents, often through the use of the railroad’s EAP. The majority of existing plans allow for immediate relief from duty upon request for the remainder of the tour of duty, as well as transportation to the home terminal for affected employees. Finally, many plans allow for additional leave following the tour of duty upon request, often involving contact with occupational medicine or EAP representatives.⁸ Therefore, several of these common elements are incorporated into this final rule.

On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division A) (RSIA) was enacted. Section 410 of the RSIA (Section 410) mandates that the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) require “each Class I railroad carrier, each intercity passenger railroad carrier, and each commuter railroad carrier to develop and submit for approval to the Secretary a critical incident stress plan that provides for debriefing, counseling, guidance, and other appropriate support services to be offered to an employee affected by a critical incident.” See Section 410(a). Section 410 mandates that the plans include provisions for relieving employees who are involved in, or who witness, critical incidents from their tours of duty, and for providing leave for such employees from their normal duties as may be necessary and reasonable to receive preventive services and treatment related to the critical incident. See Section 410(b). The Secretary is specifically required to define the term “critical incident” for purposes of this rulemaking. See Section 410(c). The Secretary has delegated his responsibilities under the RSIA to the Administrator of FRA. See 49 CFR 1.89(b). In addition to the statutory mandate in Section 410, this final rule is also issued pursuant to FRA’s general rulemaking authority at 49 U.S.C. 20103.

As required by Section 410(a), FRA consulted with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) in preparing this final rule. Specifically, in addition to consulting with representatives of HHS and DOL, FRA provided those departments with an advance copy of this proposed regulation and requested input on FRA’s approach. FRA has incorporated the suggestions provided by both HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.

FRA issues this final rule in accordance with a statutory mandate that the Secretary of Transportation require certain major railroads to develop, and submit to the Secretary for approval, critical incident stress plans that provide for appropriate support services to be offered to their employees who are affected by a “critical incident” as defined by the Secretary. The final rule contains a definition of the term “critical incident,” the elements appropriate for the rail environment to be included in a railroad’s critical incident stress plan, the type of employees to be covered by the plan, a requirement that a covered railroad submit its plan to FRA for approval, and a requirement that a railroad adopt and comply with its FRA-approved plan.

2. How, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.

The information collected is used by FRA to ensure that Class I, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads that already have critical incident stress plans meet the minimum standards proposed in this final rule. Specifically, FRA reviews written critical incident stress plans/material modifications to critical incident stress plans to ensure that they have provisions for the following: (a) Informing each directly-involved employee as soon as practicable of the stress relief options that he or she may request; (b) Offering timely relief from the balance of the duty tour for each directly-involved employee, after the employee has performed any actions necessary for the safety of persons and contemporaneous documentation of the incident; (c) Offering timely transportation to each directly-involved employee’s home terminal, if necessary; (d) Offering counseling, guidance, and other appropriate support services to each directly-involved employee; (e) Permitting relief from the duty tour(s) subsequent to the critical incident, for an amount of time to be determined by each railroad, if requested by a directly-involved employee as may be necessary and reasonable; (f) Permitting each directly-involved employee such additional leave from normal duty as may be necessary and reasonable to receive preventive services or treatment related to the incident or both; and (g) Addressing how the railroad’s employees operating or otherwise working on track owned by or operated over by a different railroad will be afforded the protections of the plan.

Under section 272.103(b), covered railroads are required to serve – either by hard copy or electronically – a copy of the railroad’s critical incident stress plan on the national/international president of any non-profit employee labor organization representing a class or craft of the railroad’s employees subject to this Part. Labor organizations review this information to verify that each covered railroad does indeed have a critical incident stress plan and, more importantly, that employees are afforded necessary and timely relief after they experience a critical incident. Under this section, covered railroads are also required to submit an affirming statement with their critical incident stress plan submissions to FRA that includes a list of the names and addresses of the persons served. FRA reviews these affirming statements to confirm that relevant railroad labor unions receive copies of each covered railroad’s critical incident stress plan and to ensure that railroad are complying with all aspects of the final regulation once the rule goes into effect.

Under section 272.103(c), not later than 90 days after the date of a critical incident stress plan filing with FRA, labor organizations representing a class or craft of the railroad’s employees may file comment with FRA on the railroad’s critical incident stress plan or a material modification to the railroad’s critical incident stress plan. FRA reviews these comments to determine their merit and to ensure that no aspects of a railroad’ s critical incident stress plan or material modification to the critical incident stress plan will adversely affect or harm railroad employees.

Under section 272.103(d), a critical incident stress plan is considered approved by the agency after the agency notifies the railroad in writing that the critical incident stress plan is approved, or 120 days after FRA has received the railroad’s critical incident stress plan, whichever occurs first. Under section 272.103(e), railroads must submit modification of their initially FRA approved critical incident stress plans to the agency within 30 days of making the material modification. FRA reviews these modified plants to ensure that they comply with all the requirements of the regulation, particularly that railroads offer timely relief -- and counseling, guidance, and other appropriate support services – to rail employees after they are involved in a critical incident.

Finally, under section 272.105, railroads are mandated to file their critical incident stress plans and any modifications to these plans electronically with FRA. FRA reviews such electronic submissions to ensure that all necessary information is provided. In particular, FRA staff review submitted plans to see that they contain the following information: (1) The name of the railroad; (2) The names of two individuals, including job titles, who will be the railroad’s points of contact; (3) The mailing addresses for the railroad’s points of contact; (4) The railroad’s system or main headquarters address located in the United States; (5) The email addresses for the railroad’s points of contact; and (6) The daytime telephone numbers for the railroad’s points of contact. FRA believes electronic submissions enable the agency to review documents more efficiently and provide approvals/disapprovals in a more timely manner. FRA approves or disapproves all or part of a critical incident stress plan and generate automated notifications by email to a railroad’s points of contact.

3. Extent of automated information collection.

Over many years, FRA has strongly endorsed and highly encouraged the use of the latest information technology, particularly electronic recordkeeping, to reduce burden on the railroad industry, wherever feasible. In this final rule, § 272.105 mandates each covered railroad to which this Part applies file required critical incident stress plans by electronic means. FRA has created a secure document submission site to effect this requirement. Under § 272.105(a), FRA stipulates that all critical incident stress plan submissions be sent to the following Web link: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/CISP.

One hundred percent (100%) of responses are electronically transmitted.

4. Efforts to identify duplication.

To our knowledge, the information collection requirements are unique and are not duplicated anywhere because they are associated with this specific and new agency rulemaking.

Similar data are unavailable from any other source.

5. Efforts to minimize the burden on small businesses.

Background

“Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Section 601(3) defines a “small entity” as having the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4) likewise includes within the definition of “small entities” not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their field of operation.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its size standards that the largest a railroad business firm that is “for profit” may be and still be classified as a “small entity” is 1,500 employees for “line haul operating railroads” and 500 employees for “switching and terminal establishments.” Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines as “small entities” governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000.

Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small entities in consultation with the SBA and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a final statement of agency policy that formally establishes “small entities” or “small businesses” as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues; and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 2003, codified at 49 CFR Part 209, Appendix C. The $20 million-limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board’s revenue threshold for a Class III railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted for inflation by applying a revenue deflator formula in accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1. FRA is using this definition of “small entity” for this rulemaking.

Based on the railroad reporting data from 2011, there are 719 Class III railroads. Due to the applicability of the rule, however, none of these railroads would be impacted. The railroad reporting data also show that there are 30 intercity passenger and commuter railroads.⁹ Although two of these railroads are considered small entities, they do not fall within the rule’s definition of a “commuter railroad,” which means a railroad, as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(2), including public authorities operating passenger train service, that provides regularly-scheduled passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979. FRA finds that there are seven (7) Class I and 28 intercity passenger and commuter railroads, including Amtrak and the Alaska Railroad, affected by this rule. Amtrak, the Alaska Railroad, and the 7 Class I railroads are not considered to be small entities. All of the affected commuter railroads are part of larger public transportation agencies that receive Federal funds and serve major jurisdictions with populations greater than 50,000. Therefore, they are not considered small entities.

As FRA believes that no small entities will be affected by this final rule, there would also be no cost impacts on small businesses. Railroads operated entirely by contract operators, such that the contractor organization itself meets the definition of a commuter railroad, Class I, or intercity passenger railroad, would be subject to this rule.  In these circumstances, FRA assumes that the contract operator would utilize the critical incident stress plan developed by the reporting railroad. FRA will hold the reporting railroads responsible for defects or deficiencies, not the contracted operators. Therefore, FRA does not expect that this final rule will directly impact any contractors that are considered to be small entities. FRA certifies that the final rule will not have any significant economic impact on the competitive position of small entities, or on the small entity segment of the railroad industry as a whole.

Finally, it should be noted that this final rule’s regulatory text would allow a railroad to utilize its existing critical incident stress plan as a base, making modifications as necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum standards contained in this final rule. The final rule would provide each railroad with the opportunity to conform its critical incident stress plan’s screening and intervention components to current best practices and standards for evidence-based care. This flexible, standards-based approach allows for innovation and plan modification in response to new scientific developments in this field, and also reduces the time and cost burdens for railroads in developing their critical incident stress plans.

6. Impact of less frequent collection of information.

If the information were not collected or collected less frequently, railroad safety throughout the United States would be significantly jeopardized. Specifically, if railroads did not have critical incident stress plans, there might be more rail accidents/incidents with increased fatalities, injuries, and property damage because railroad employees who were involved in a critical incident and who are possibly suffering from acute stress disorder (ASD) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were not relieved of their duties in a timely fashion or did not receive the counseling, guidance, and other support services they need to perform their jobs in a safe and effective manner.

Railroad employee exposure, particularly locomotive engineers and train conductors, to traumatic rail events -- and potentially traumatic events -- is well documented. Incursion events such as vehicular accidents at highway-rail grade crossings and pedestrian incursions onto the railroad right-of- way (frequently suicides) often involve fatalities, and the injuries sustained may be gruesome. Locomotive engineers and conductors, because of their proximity to the accident scene, must often tend to the injured and secure the scene, compounding the extent and the duration of exposure. In particular, locomotive engineers may be alone in the cab when an on-the-track accident occurs. Crews are required to report the incident, secure the train, leave the train and examine the victims; they may provide first aid if victims are alive, and wait, sometimes for long periods, for assistance or instructions.

Without this collection of information, FRA would have no way of knowing whether railroads had essential and comprehensive critical incident stress plans that meet minimum standards for leave, counseling, and support services to provide timely critical relief to rail employees who experienced a critical incident. Without the rule’s requirement that critical incident stress plans be disseminated to rail labor organizations, train crew members, signal workers, and roadway workers (including maintenance of way and maintenance of structure employees) who experienced a critical incident would not know what counseling, guidance, and other support services are available to them from their employers to effectively counteract the Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that they might be potentially suffering from or are suffering from. This could cause them to stay on the job (“presenteeism”) while suffering severe symptoms and possibly lead to increased numbers of rail collisions, derailments, and other accidents/incidents with injuries to themselves and the traveling public caused by their inability to perform their duties safely and effectively.

Without this collection of information, railroad employees’ would not have the necessary awareness and knowledge of their employer’s critical incident stress plan. Such knowledge and awareness will help them to recognize and cope with symptoms of normal stress reactions that commonly occur as a result of a critical incident, reduce their chance of developing a disorder such as depression, PTSD, or ASD as a result of a critical incident, and recognize symptoms of psychological disorders that sometimes occur as a result of a critical incident and know how to obtain prompt evaluation and treatment of any such disorder, if necessary.

Without this collection of information, railroads would not experience certain benefits that FRA anticipates with the implementation of this final rule. FRA expects that implementation of this rule’s requirements will yield important economic benefits by reducing long-term healthcare costs associated with treating PTSD, ASD, and other stress reactions as well as costs that accrue either when an employee is unable to return to work for a significant period of time or costs that accrue when workers leave railroad employment due to being affected by PTSD, ASD, or other stress reactions. Additionally, safety risk posed by having a person who has just been involved in a critical incident performing safety critical functions will be reduced.

It should be noted that the majority of the quantifiable benefits identified by FRA’s economic analysis for this regulations are associated with railroad employee retention and a reduction of long-term healthcare costs associated with PTSD cases that were not treated appropriately after a critical incident. FRA expects that this final rule would decrease the number of employees who leave the railroad industry due to PTSD, ASD, or other stress reactions, as early treatment for such conditions following exposure to a critical incident would reduce the likelihood of developing the conditions. In addition, if a railroad employee involved in a critical incident did develop PTSD, ASD, or other stress reaction despite the initial relief afforded by a railroad’s critical incident stress plan, FRA believes that this final rule would decrease the duration of the condition as the chances for early identification of the condition would be increased and more immediate healthcare would be provided to the affected individuals.

In short, this collection of information promotes and enhances national rail safety by promoting a better and healthier working environment for critical railroad employees in safety-sensitive positions, and thus serves as a vital component of FRA’s multi-faceted rail safety program. It is essential in assisting FRA to fulfill its primary agency mission and objective as well as DOT’s primary mission of transportation safety.

7. Special circumstances.

All information collection requirements contained in this rule are in compliance with this section.

8. Compliance with 5 CFR 1320.8.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR 1320, FRA published a notice in the Federal Register on March 14, 2017, soliciting comment on these information collection activities from the public, railroads, and other interested parties. See 82 FR 13714. FRA received no comments in response to this notice.

9. Payments or gifts to respondents.

There are no monetary payments provided or gifts made to respondents associated with the information collection requirements contained in this regulation.

10. Assurance of confidentiality.

There is no information of a private or confidential nature requested to be submitted in this proposed rule. Thus, FRA offers no assurances of confidentiality.

11. Justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions or information of a sensitive nature, or data that would normally be considered private matters contained in this rule.

12.        Estimate of burden hours for information collected.

Note: Respondent universe consists of approximately 7 Class I railroads and 33 commuter and intercity railroads. One of the commuter railroads is operated and reported by Amtrak. Two of the railroads would not be included as FRA defines a commuter railroad to mean a railroad, as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(2), including public authorities operating passenger train service, that provides regularly-scheduled passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979. Therefore, there are approximately 30 commuter and intercity passenger railroads that will be impacted by requirements of this rule. Including the Class I railroads, a total of 37 railroads will be affected by this rule.

Employees covered by this rule include railroad employees subject to the Hours of Service Laws at 49 U.S.C. 21103 (i.e., train employees not subject to Subpart F of 49 CFR Part 228 regarding the hours of service of train employees engaged in commuter or intercity rail transportation); railroad employees subject to the Hours of Service Laws at 49 U.S.C. 21104 (signal employees); railroad employees subject to the Hours of Service Laws at 49 U.S.C. 21105(dispatching service employees); railroad employees who are subject to the Hours of Service regulations at Subpart F 49 CFR Part 228 (regarding the hours of service of train employees engaged in commuter or intercity rail transportation); railroad employees who inspect, install, repair, or maintain right-of-way or structures, and railroad employees who inspect, install, repair, or maintain locomotives, passenger cars, or freight cars. Thus, a total of approximately 170,000 employees will be affected by this rule.

§ 272.5 General duty.

A railroad subject to this Part shall adopt a written critical incident stress plan approved by the Federal Railroad Administration under § 272.103 and shall comply with that plan. Should a railroad subject to this Part make a material modification to the approved plan, the railroad shall adopt the modified plan approved by the Federal Railroad Administration under § 272.103 and shall comply with that plan, as revised.

The burden for this requirement is included under that of § 272.103 below. Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement.

§ 272.7 Coverage of a critical incident stress plan.

The critical incident stress plan of a railroad subject to this Part shall state that it covers, and shall cover, the following individuals employed by the railroad if they are directly involved (as defined in § 272.9) in a critical incident:

(a) Railroad employees who are subject to the hours of service laws at—

(1) 49 U.S.C. 21103 (that is, train employees not subject to Subpart F of Part 228 of this Chapter regarding the hours of service of train employees engaged in commuter or intercity rail passenger transportation);

(2) 49 U.S.C. 21104 (signal employees); or

(3) 49 U.S.C. 21105 (dispatching service employees);

(b) Railroad employees who are subject to the hours of service regulations at Subpart F of Part 228 of this chapter (regarding the hours of service of train employees engaged in commuter or intercity rail passenger transportation);

(c) Railroad employees who inspect, install, repair, or maintain railroad right-of-way or structures; and

(d) Railroad employees who inspect, repair, or maintain locomotives, passenger cars, or freight cars.

The burden for this requirement is included under that of § 272.103 below. Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement.

§ 272.101 Content of a critical incident stress plan.

Each critical incident stress plan under this Part shall include, at a minimum, provisions for --

(a) Informing each directly-involved employee as soon as practicable of the relief options available in accordance with the railroad’s critical incident stress plan;

(b) Offering timely relief from the balance of the duty tour for each directly-involved employee, after the employee has performed any actions necessary for the safety of persons and contemporaneous documentation of the incident;

(c) Offering timely transportation to each directly-involved employee’s home terminal, if necessary;

(d) Offering counseling, guidance, and other appropriate support services to each directly-involved employee;

(e) Permitting relief from the duty tour(s) subsequent to the critical incident, for an amount of time to be determined by each railroad, if requested by a directly-involved employee as may be necessary and reasonable;

(f) Permitting each directly-involved employee such additional leave from normal duty as may be necessary and reasonable to receive preventive services or treatment related to the incident or both, provided the employee’s clinical diagnosis supports the need for additional time off or the employee is in consultation with a health care professional related to the incident and such health care professional supports the need for additional time off in order for the employee to receive preventive services or treatment related to the incident, or both; and

(g) Addressing how the railroad’s employees operating or otherwise working on track owned by or operated over by a different railroad will be afforded the protections of the plan.

The burden for this requirement is included under that of § 272.103 below. Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement.

§ 272.103PSubmission of critical incident stress plan for approval by the Federal Railroad Administration.

(a) Each railroad subject to this Part shall submit to the Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, for approval, the railroad’s critical incident stress plan no later than 12 months after the effective date of the final rule.

Besides the burden for the 34 railroad critical incident stress plans previously accounted for in the approved submission for the final rule, FRA believes that an additional three (3) railroads will need to update/modify their critical incident stress plans to meet this rule’s requirements. It is estimated that it will take approximately 16 hours to update/modify each critical incident stress plan. Total annual burden for this requirement is 48 hours.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 16 hours

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 3 updated/modified critical incident stress plans

Annual Burden: 48 hours

Calculation: 3 updated/modified critical incident stress plans x 16 hrs. = 48 hours

(b) Each railroad subject to this Part shall --

(1) Simultaneously with its filing with FRA, serve, either by hard copy or electronically, a copy of the submission filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or a material modification filed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section on the international/national president of any non-profit employee labor organization representing a class or craft of the railroad’s employees subject to this Part; and

There are approximately five (5) labor organizations and 37 affected railroads. Since the burden for 34 of these railroads was already accounted for in the submission for the final rule, FRA estimates that approximately 15 critical incident stress plan copies will be served on the president of international/national labor organizations by the three additional covered railroads under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately 45 minutes to send/serve each critical incident stress plan copy on each international/national labor organization president. Total annual burden for this requirement is 11 hours.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 45 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 15 critical incident stress plan copies

Annual Burden: 11 hours

Calculation: 15 critical incident stress plans copies x 45 min. = 11 hours

(2) Include in its submission filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or a material modification filed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section a statement affirming that the railroad has complied with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, together with a list of the names and addresses of the persons served.

The burden for the above requirement is already included in the burden for paragraph (a) above. Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement.

(c) Not later than 90 days after the date of filing a submission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or a material modification pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, a labor organization representing a class or craft of the railroad’s employees subject to this Part may file a comment on the submission or material modification.

(1) Each comment shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; and

FRA estimates that approximately 65 comments will be filed by labor organizations regarding railroad critical incident stress plans or material modifications to critical incident stress plans under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately three (3) hours to complete each comment and file it with FRA. Total annual burden for this requirement is 195 hours.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 3 hours

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 65 comments

Annual Burden: 195 hours

Calculation: 65 comments x 3 hrs. = 195 hours

(2) The commenter shall certify that a copy of the comment was served on the railroad.

FRA estimates that approximately 65 certifications will be completed by commenters under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately 15 minutes to complete each certification. Total annual burden for this requirement is 16 hours.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 15 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 65 certifications

Annual Burden: 16 hours

Calculation: 65 certifications x 15 min. = 16 hours

(d) A critical incident stress plan is considered approved for purposes of this Part if and when FRA notifies the railroad in writing that the critical incident stress plan is approved, or 120 days after FRA has received the railroad’s critical incident stress plan, whichever occurs first.

(e) After FRA’s initial approval of a railroad’s critical incident stress plan, if the railroad makes a material modification of the critical incident stress plan, the railroad shall submit to FRA for approval a copy of the critical incident stress plan as it has been revised to reflect the material modification within 30 days of making the material modification.

The burden for the above requirement is already included in the burden for paragraph (a) above. Consequently, there is no additional burden associated with this requirement.

(f) Upon FRA approval of a railroad’s critical incident stress plan and any material modification of the critical incident stress plan, the railroad must make a copy of the railroad’s plan and the material modification available to the railroad’s employees identified in § 272.7.

Besides the approximately 169,500 approved critical incident stress plan copies/materially modified critical incident stress plan copies accounted for earlier in the submission for the final rule, FRA estimates that an additional 500 approved critical incident stress plan copies/materially modified critical incident stress plan copies will be made available to railroad employees under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately five (5) minutes to provide railroad employees with a copy of the approved critical incident stress plan or materially modified critical incident stress plan. Total annual burden for this requirement is 42 hours.

Respondent Universe: 170,000 railroad employees

Burden time per response: 5 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 500 critical incident stress plan/modified plan copies

Annual Burden: 42 hours

Calculation: 500 critical incident stress plans/modified plan copies x 5 min. = 42 hours

(g) Each railroad subject to this Part must make a copy of the railroad’s plan available for inspection and reproduction by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

Besides the burden already accounted for in the earlier submission for the final rule for the 34 railroads affected by this requirement, FRA estimated that an additional three (3) railroads will need to provide a copy of their critical incident stress plans approximately four times per year. Thus, a total of 12 copies of the railroad’s plan will be made for FRA inspectors under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately five (5) minutes to make the necessary copy. Total annual burden for this requirement is one (1) hour.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 5 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 12 critical incident stress plan/modified plan copies

Annual Burden: 1 hour

Calculation: 12 critical incident stress plans/modified plan copies x 5 min. = 1 hour

Total annual burden for this requirement is 313 hours (48 + 11 + 195 + 16 + 42 + 1).

§ 272.105 Requirement to file critical incident stress plan electronically.

(a) Each railroad subject to this part must submit its critical incident stress plan and any material modifications to that plan electronically through FRA’s Web site at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/CISP.

(b) The railroad’s electronic submission shall provide the Associate Administrator with the following:

(1) The name of the railroad;

(2) The names of two individuals, including job titles, who will be the railroad’s points of contact;

(3) The mailing addresses for the railroad’s points of contact;

(4) The railroad’s system or main headquarters address located in the United States;

(5) The email addresses for the railroad’s points of contact; and

(6) The daytime telephone numbers for the railroad’s points of contact; and

(7) An electronic copy of the railroad’s critical incident stress plan or any material modification to that plan being submitted for FRA approval.

(c) FRA may electronically store any materials required by this Part.

Besides the burden already accounted for vis-a-vis the previously estimated 34 railroads, there is an additional burden. FRA estimates that three (3) additional railroads will transmit their critical incident stress plans (CISP) electronically under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately 15 minutes to electronically send each CISP to the agency. Total annual burden for this requirement is one (1) hour.

Respondent Universe: 37 railroads

Burden time per response: 15 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 3 CISP electronic submissions

Annual Burden: 1 hour

Calculation: 3 CISP electronic submissions x 15 min. = 1 hour

Total annual burden for this entire requirement is one (1) hour.

Total annual burden under this entire information collection is 314 hours.

13. Estimate of total annual costs to respondents.

Besides the burden hours listed in the answer to question number 12 above, there would be some additional costs to respondents (as noted in the regulatory impact analysis that accompanied this rule). FRA believes that additional training would be provided by railroads encouraging supervisors that respond to critical incidents to inform their employees of all their options. Such training would also help supervisors to understand some of psychological attention the employees may require.

SUBSEQUENT YEARS

TRAINING COSTS

$42,236 -- 42 New Supervisors trained per year (replacement supervisors; assumes 3.7% retirement rate per year). In determining the number of training classes, FRA believes that each Class I railroad would have a training session each year. FRA also believes that five (5) other training sessions would take place each year amongst the commuter and intercity passenger railroads. Overall, each year FRA believes that 12 training classes would take place. FRA expects the number of participants in each class would be significantly smaller than the initial year (as the majority of supervisors have already been trained). Thus, 42 supervisors trained x $285.05 = $11,972 + [$2,522 (presentation costs) x 12 = $42,236.

$3,092 – 2 New Supervisors for Start-up Railroad (2 trained supervisors x $285.05 = $570 + $2,522 (presentation costs) = $3,092

$100,804 – Follow-up or Periodic Training (once every 3 years) for 1,130 supervisors x $61.68 (wage rate) x 15 minutes = $17,425 + [$2,522 (presentation costs) x 113] = $17,425 + $284,986 = $302,411 divided by 3 = $100,804

SUSEQUENT YEARS TOTAL COST = $146,132

14. Estimate of Cost to Federal Government.

Listed below are the costs associated with the information collection requirements:

$2,819 Initial Review of plans (1 GS-14/10 staff member review of 2 railroad plans @ 12 hours each = 24 hours x $117.44 per hour salary and benefits).

$1,762 Additional review and respond to railroads (1 GS-14 staff member; total of 15 hours x $117.44 = $18,790.40

$1,727 Review of 1 New Start-up Railroad Plan (1 GS-14/10 staff member x 13 hours review time x $117.44 = $1,526.72 + $200 (incidentals) = $1,726.72

$2,000 Miscellaneous Costs

$8,308 TOTAL COST

15. Explanation of program changes and adjustments.

The total burden requested for this information collection submission decreased by 14,594 hours. The decrease in burden is due solely to adjustments, which are itemized in the table below.

TABLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS

Part 272 Section	Responses & Avg. Time (Previous Submission)	Responses & Avg. Time (This Submission)	Burden Hours (Previous Submission)	FRA Burden Hours (This Submission)	Difference (plus/minus)
272.103(a) -- Submission of Updated Critical Incident Stress Plans (CISP) to FRA	34 CISPs 16 hours	3 CISPs 16 hours	544 hours	48 hours	-- 496 hours -- 31 responses
272.103(b) -- Copies of Updated Critical Incident Stress Plans (CISP) to labor organizations	170 CISP copies 5 minutes	15 CISP copies 45 minutes	14 hours	11 hours	-- 3 hours -- 155 resp.
272.103(f) -- Copies of FRA Approved Updated Critical Incident Stress Plans (CISP) to railroad employees	169,500 CISP copies 5 minutes	500 CISP copies 5 minutes	14,125 hours	42 hours	-- 14,083 hours --169,000 resp.
272.103(g) -- Copy of F Updated Critical Incident Stress Plans (CISP) provided to FRA upon request	136 CISP copies 5 minutes	12 CISP copies 5 minutes	11 hours	1 hour	-- 10 hours -- 124 resp.
272.105(a) -- Electronic Submission of Updated Critical Incident Stress Plans (CISP) to FRA	34 CISPs 5 minutes	3 CISPs 15 minutes	3 hours	1 hours	-- 2 hours -- 31 responses

Adjustments above decreased the burden by 14,594 hours and decreased the number of responses by 169,341.

The current OMB inventory shows a total burden of 14,908 hours and 170,004 responses, while the present submission exhibits a total burden of 314 hours and 663 responses. Hence, there is a total decrease of 14,594 hours and 170,004 responses.

The previously approved cost to respondents amounted to $299,786. The present cost to respondents as itemized in the answer to question number 13 amounts to $146,132. Hence, the cost to respondents has decreased by $153,654. The change in cost is due to an adjustment in the estimate for the number of critical incident stress plans submitted to FRA. Specifically, FRA calculated the average cost for the first year and two subsequent years at $299,786 while it calculates the cost for subsequent years at $146,132. Hence, there is the difference of $153,654 in the fourth year of this rule.

16. Publication of results of data collection.

There are no plans for publication of this submission.

The information to be collected will be used by specialists of the Office of Safety, as well as field personnel, to enforce the regulation. The information collected may be incorporated into the FRA database, where relevant and appropriate.

17. Approval for not displaying the expiration date for OMB approval.

Once OMB approval is received, FRA will publish the approval number for these information collection requirements in a Notice in the Federal Register.

18. Exception to certification statement.

No exceptions are taken at this time.

Meeting Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Goals

This information collection supports DOT’s main strategic goal, transportation safety. If railroads did not have critical incident stress plans, there might be more rail accidents/incidents with increased fatalities, injuries, and property damage because railroad employees who were involved in a critical incident and who are possibly suffering from acute stress disorder (ASD) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were not relieved of their duties in a timely fashion or did not receive the counseling, guidance, and other support services they need to perform their jobs in a safe and effective manner.

Railroad employee exposure, particularly locomotive engineers and conductors, to traumatic rail events -- and potentially traumatic events -- is well documented. Incursion events such as vehicular accidents at highway-rail grade crossings and pedestrian incursions onto the railroad right-of-way (frequently suicides) often involve fatalities and the injuries sustained may be gruesome. Locomotive engineers and conductors, because of their proximity to the accident scene, must often tend to the injured and secure the scene, compounding the extent and the duration of exposure. In particular, locomotive engineers may be alone in the cab when an on-the-track accident occurs. Crews are required to report the incident, secure the train, leave the train and examine the victims; they may provide first aid if victims are alive, and wait, sometimes for long periods, for assistance or instructions.

This collection of information allows FRA to ascertain whether railroads have essential and comprehensive critical incident stress plans to provide timely critical relief services to rail employees who experienced a critical incident or traumatic accident. The final rule’s requirement that critical incident stress plans be disseminated to rail labor organizations ensures that train crew members, signal workers, roadway workers (including maintenance of way and maintenance of structure employees) who experienced a critical incident are aware of the counseling, guidance, and other support services available to them from their employers to effectively counteract the ASD or PTSD that might be potentially suffering from or are suffering from. This reduces the likelihood of their staying on the job while suffering severe ASD or PTSD symptoms and thus reduce the likelihood of increased numbers of rail collisions, derailments, and other accidents/incidents (with more injuries to themselves and the public) caused by the inability to perform their duties safely and effectively.

In short, this collection of information promotes and enhances national rail safety by promoting a better and healthier working environment for critical railroad employees, and thus serves as a vital component in FRA’s multi-faceted rail safety program. It is essential in further assisting FRA to fulfill its primary agency mission and objective as well as Department’s primary mission of transportation safety.

In this information collection and indeed all its information collection activities, it is worth noting that FRA seeks to do its very best to fulfill DOT Strategic Goals and to be an integral part of One DOT.

1 According to the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs National Center for PTSD, Acute Stress Disorder is “mental disorder that can occur in the first month following a trauma. The symptoms that define ASD overlap with those for PTSD.” ASD can lead to PTSD, but does not always. A “PTSD diagnosis cannot be given until symptoms have lasted for one month.”

2 In a study of 830 train drivers in Norway, the 48 percent of participants who had experienced at least one on-the-track accident reported considerably more health problems than those who reported no such exposure. Their symptoms included musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and sleep pattern issues and continued from the incident to the time of the study (for some participants up to ten years). This study also revealed that the more pronounced initial reactions to on-the-track accidents, the more severe and persistent were the health complaints post-exposure. Vatshelle, A. & Moen, B. E. (1996). Serious on-the-track accidents experienced by train drivers: Psychological reactions and long-term health effects. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42(1), 43-52. See also Wignall, E. L., Dickson, J. M., Vaughan, P., Farrow, T. F. D., Wilkinson, I. D., Hunter, M. D., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2004). Smaller hippocampal volume in patients with recent-onset posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 56(11), 832–836.

3 Gerrity M. S., Corson, K., & Dobscha S. K. (2007). Screening for posttraumatic stress disorder in Veterans’ Affairs primary care patients with depression symptoms. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(9), 1321–1324.

4 The Associated Press, Fatal Collisions Traumatize Nation’s Train Engineers, August 14, 2009. Saed Hindash, The Star-Ledger. Death by Train. June 18, 2009. http://www.nj.com/insidejersey/index.ssf/2009/06/death_by_train.html (“Over a 40-year career, the average engineer will be involved in five to seven incidents, says Darcy, who has had seven fatalities.”).

5 Kessler, R.C. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder: The burden to the individual and society. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(suppl. 5), 4-12. Kessler, R.C., & Greenberg, P.E. (2002). The economic burden of anxiety and stress disorders. In K.L. Davis, D. Charney, J.T. Coyle, & C. Nemeroff (Eds.), Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Pilette, P. C. (2005). Presenteeism and productivity: Two reasons employee assistance programs make good business cents. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 8(1), 12-14.

6 Caverley, N., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. M. (2007). Sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 304-319.

7 The Association of American Railroads (AAR) provided a matrix to the Critical Incident Working Group (CIWG) that summarized key characteristics of programs as submitted by nine member railroads. Several railroads also submitted their current policies regarding critical incidents in the workplace.

8 Unpaid, job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) may be available to an employee involved in a critical incident. FMLA leave may be considered where an eligible employee of a covered employer suffers a serious health condition as a result of the incident. For additional guidance on the FMLA, please contact the United States Department of Labor or visit www.dol.gov.

9 This total includes the Alaska Railroad, which is categorized as a Class II railroad.

23