fatigue management program - ntc.gov.auc5f2db68-686c-68b3-c192-82b... · prepared for queensland...

FATIGUE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DISCUSSION PAPER

Prepared for:

Queensland Transport

PO Box 673 FORTITUDE VALLEY

Prepared by:

Economic Associates Pty Ltd ACN 085 445 610

PO Box 1403 Milton QLD 4064 Telephone: (07) 3511 7111 Facsimile: (07) 3511 7222 24 August 2001

01018 Discussion Paper Rev 0

Prepared for Queensland Transport

01018 Discussion Paper Rev 0 Fatigue Management Program Regulatory Impact Statement 24 August 2001

ii

ECONOMIC ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAPER 1 1.2 INTRODUCTION TO FMP 1 1.3 NRTC REVIEW OF REGULATORY APPROACH TO HEAVY VEHICLE DRIVER FATIGUE 2

2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 4 2.1 PREVALENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF FATIGUE 4 2.2 FATIGUE CHARACTERISTICS 6 2.3 ADEQUACY OF WORKING HOURS REGULATIONS 7 2.4 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 8

3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION 10

4 THE PROPOSED REGULATION 11 4.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT 11 4.2 ELEMENTS OF FMP 13 4.2.1 ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT 13 4.2.2 FMP STANDARDS 13 4.2.3 OPERATING LIMITS 14 4.2.4 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL 15 4.3 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 16

5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION 17 5.1 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODELS FOR FMP 17 5.1.1 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 1: CURRENT MODEL WITH MORE OPERATOR

GUIDANCE 18 5.1.2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 2: CURRENT FMP MODEL WITH LESS OPERATOR

GUIDANCE 18 5.1.3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 3: CURRENT DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT AUDITING 19 5.1.4 PREFERRED DESIGN MODEL 20 5.1.5 DESIGN MODEL RECOMMENDED FOR ASSES SMENT 21 5.2 ALTERNATIVE DELI VERY MODELS FOR FMP 21 5.2.1 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DELIVERY MODELS 22 5.2.2 DELIVERY MODELS RECOMMENDED FOR ASSESSMENT 23 5.3 SUMMARY – DESIGN AND DELIVERY MODELS RECOMMENDED FOR ASSESSMENT 23 5.4 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 24

6 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION AND ALTERNATIVES 25

6.1 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT 25 6.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 25 6.3 THE BASE CASE 26 6.4 ESTIMATING THE IMPACTS OF FMP 26 6.4.1 IMPACTS ON OPERATORS 26 6.4.2 IMPACTS ON REGULATORY AGENCIES 27 6.4.3 IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY 28 6.4.4 OPERATOR TAKE UP OF FMP 28



iii


6.5 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 28

7 OTHER ISSUSES IN THE RIS 30 7.1 CONSULTATIONS 30 7.2 COMPLIANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 30 7.3 FUTURE REVIEW AND UPDATING OF THE REGULATION 30 7.4 NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY ASSESSMENT 30 7.5 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 31

8 REFERENCES 32

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A PROPOSED FMP STANDARDS (DRAFT) 34 APPENDIX B NSW FMP PHASE 2 CONDITIONS 37



iv


LIST OF ACRONYMS

ATA Australian Trucking Association

ATSB Australian Transport Safety Bureau

DSMD Driver Specific Monitoring Device

BTE Bureau of Transport Economics

DTRS Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services

FMP Fatigue Management Program

NHVAS National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme

NOHSC National Occupational Health and Safety Commission

NRTC National Road Transport Commission

OHS Occupational health and safety

QA Quality assurance

QT Queensland Transport

RIS Regulatory Impact Statement

RTA Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales



1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAPER

Queensland Transport (QT) is currently preparing a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the Fatigue Management Program (FMP) that has been in pilot operation since November 1995.

The aim of FMP is to better manage fatigue under alternative compliance arrangements instead of the regulated driving hours regime that applies in most States and Territories.

FMP is one option for the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue being considered by the National Road Transport Commission in its Review of Regulatory Approach to Fatigue. The RIS on the Fatigue Management Program is being prepared concurrently with the NRTC Review, and will feed into the NRTC Review reports.

This Discussion Paper is being provided to stakeholders to elicit comment on the issues that will be raised and assessed in the RIS. Issues include the nature and extent of the fatigue management problem, the options for FMP design and delivery, and the costs and benefits of FMP. The RIS will be issued in draft form for further comment in March 2002. Comment from stakeholders and other interested parties will assist in framing a RIS that addresses all the relevant issues.

This Discussion Paper is presented in the form of the eventual Regulatory Impact Statement document to assist stakeholders in seeing how issues will be addressed in the RIS framework.

Text in bold at the end of each section of this Discussion Paper identifies specific issues on which stakeholder comment is invited. Stakeholders are encouraged however to comment on any other issues they believe relevant to assessment of FMP.

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO FMP

Queensland Transport implemented the FMP pilot in conjunction with the Australian Trucking Association (ATA) on 1 June 1994. The FMP pilot is currently being evaluated for QT by independent consultants. Results from the evaluation will be used in the preparation of the FMP RIS.

The purpose of the Regulatory Impact Statement is to identify the costs and benefits of implementing FMP as a module of the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme



2


(NHVAS) as part of the National Driver Fatigue and Health Initiative in the 3rd Heavy Vehicle Reform Package. FMP is a key component of the NHVAS package which also includes maintenance and mass modules.

The FMP pilot project is being overseen by the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) and includes participation by New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC).

Under FMP, road transport operators who receive accreditation for their fatigue management systems are not required to comply with the current prescriptive hours and log book regulatory regime which applies to all other professional heavy vehicle drivers1 in those jurisdictions that directly regulate driving hours. FMP comprises documented assurance systems, policies, procedures and records that demonstrate management and evaluation systems are in place to ensure compliance with agreed fatigue management standards.

1.3 NRTC REVIEW OF REGULATORY APPROACH TO HEAVY VEHICLE DRIVER FATIGUE

The conclusions of the FMP RIS will feed into a similar document to be prepared by the NRTC as part of its regulatory review of heavy vehicle driver fatigue.

Issues to be considered in the NRTC review include:

• The extent of the fatigue problem;

• The results of recent research on circadian rhythms (time of day effects) and sleep/rest needs;

• The desirability of greater operator flexibility within safety constraints;

• The Western Australian approach of a code of practice applied under occupational health and safety legislation;

• The application of a broader range of sanctions to responsible parties;

• Consistency between transport and OHS requirements.

Proposals to be evaluated in the NRTC fatigue management review will involve:

1 Note that drivers operating within 100 km of their depot (200 km in Queensland) are not required to maintain log books, while in Tasmania, drivers are not required to maintain log books irrespective of the distances they travel. In both States however, drivers are required to comply with the national driving hours limits.



3


• A flexible range of options from basic prescriptive regulation through to risk management approaches to fatigue;

• All options consistent with the ‘duty of care’ requirements of OHS legislation;

• More widespread use of electronic record keeping, possibly as a pre-requisite for increased flexibility.



4


2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

2.1 PREVALENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF FATIGUE

The recent report of the Fatigue Expert Group (2001) sees fatigue as an important health and safety issue for heavy vehicle drivers because:

• ...of the amount of time they spend on the road per year, individual heavy vehicle drivers’ exposure to the risk of crash involvement (including fatigue crashes) is considerably greater than for most individuals;

• heavy vehicle driver fatigue appears to be a more common factor in single vehicle crashes than other crashes involving heavy vehicles; thus it is a relatively important factor in crashes involving driver fatalities and injuries;

• surveys indicate that the experiences of fatigue (and fatigue impairment) while driving is a regular part of the work experience of many drivers; and

• surveys also indicate that a significant minority of drivers resort to stimulant drugs as a method of coping with fatigue, and while stimulants can be effective in improving driving performance (and hence safety) in the short term, there are concerns about the longer term health and safety effects of some stimulants and the effects of the drugs wearing off.

According to evidence presented by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC 1999) to the Neville Committee Inquiry2 on Fatigue in Transport, fatigue may be part of a broader OHS problem in road transport. While a small overall contributor to OHS injuries and fatalities, road transport (in 1996/97) had one of the highest rates of new workers’ compensation cases per employee, equal to nearly twice the all-industries average, and a rate of fatal workers’ compensation cases that was six times the all- industries average. The Department of Transport and Regional Services submission to the same Inquiry (DTRS 1999) reported on the prevalence of fatigue more generally in the transport sector; however, road transport dominates injuries and fatalities because of its size and the high degree of heavy vehicle driver exposure to other commercial and non-commercial vehicle movements.

2 The Inquiry into Managing Fatigue in Transport by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Transport, Communication and the Arts is referred to as ‘the Neville Committee Inquiry’ in this Discussion Paper.



5


According to the Fatigue Expert Group:

There are significant incentives in the social and economic profile of the transport industry for scheduling, trip planning and consequent driver practices that increase fatigue related risks. Competitive pressures, payment systems, contracting arrangements and even the unintended consequences of the current driving hours regime combine to create an environment in which fatigue has become an accepted part of industry practice.

Difficulties in measurement and variations in the classification of fatigue related crashes make quantification of the fatigue problem contentious. In addition, a fatigued heavy vehicle driver is not always a contributing factor. In some crashes, fatigue in the drivers of other vehicles is a causal factor. A further complicating factor is the under-reporting of fatigue as a causal factor by police officers investigating crash scenes. Knipling and Shelton (1999) have estimated that police in the US under-report fatigue by a factor of between 1.4 and 3.1.

In Australia, State road authority estimates of the significance of fatigue as a crash factor vary widely. Across all crash types, fatigue could be a factor in between 5.8% of all crashes (Queensland) and 25% (Victoria). Of all fatal crashes, fatigue could be a factor in between 12.4% (Queensland), and 37% (Victoria). Looking specifically at heavy vehicle crashes, RTA data for New South Wales shows that 7.8% of all casualty crashes involve a fatigued heavy vehicle driver, Queensland data shows 12% of all articulated vehicle crashes as being fatigue related, and from WA data, 16.5% of all road train crashes are fatigue related. In addition, Hartley reported from Western Australian data that 25% of fatal truck crashes were due to fatigue, including 40% of fatal truck crashes in rural areas (see Neville Committee (2000) for estimates in this paragraph).

Fatal crashes data from the ATSB database provides indicators of the extent to which heavy vehicle driver fatigue is a crash factor. This data, collated from coroners’, reports shows that between 1990 and 1996, fatal crashes in which the heavy vehicle driver was fatigued represented:

• 0.4% of all fatal crashes;

• 6% of all fatal crashes in which fatigue was a causal factor (including light and heavy vehicles);

• 4.3% of all fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle; and

• 42.3% of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle in which fatigue (on the part of a heavy or a light vehicle driver) was a causal factor.

Allowing for the degree of under-reporting of fatigue identified by Knipling and Shelton, 1.2% of all fatal crashes could involve fatigue on the part of the heavy vehicle driver,



6


30.1% of all heavy vehicle fatal crashes could involve a fatigued driver (whether of a heavy or a light vehicle) and 12.9% of all heavy vehicle fatal crashes could involve a fatigued heavy vehicle driver.

Based on data in the DTRS submission to the Neville Committee Inquiry and recent total crash data in BTE (2000), crash numbers in 2000 involving a fatigued heavy vehicle driver would be:

• 37 fatal crashes;

• 175 serious crashes; and

• 3,600 minor or property damage only crashes.

The total costs of these crashes would be approximately $243 million annually. Fatal crash costs would be $92 million or 37% of the total, while the costs of serious crashes would be $107 million or 44% of the total. These estimates are based on average crash costs per crash of $2.5 million for fatal crashes, $612,000 for serious crashes, and $9,000 to $21,000 per crash for all other crash types.

2.2 FATIGUE CHARACTERISTICS

Fatigue related research over the last decade has shown that high proportions of drivers work long hours and breach driving hours regulations. Operators on the other hand either encourage excessive working hours, are indifferent to the fatigue problem or are unaware of it. Both drivers and operators appear to be motivated by the highly competitive nature of the industry which is reflected in low profit margins and constant pressure to win and keep business at low rates.

With respect to drivers, research has shown that:

• Drivers tend to report fatigue as being a problem for the industry;

• High proportions of drivers report experiencing fatigue themselves, and while the majority believe fatigue to be a major problem for the road transport industry, they do not necessarily perceive it as being a problem for themselves personally;

• A sizable minority of drivers report that they use stay awake pills, at least on occasion;

• An also sizable minority of drivers work very long hours, of 72 hours a week or more;

• Almost 50% of drivers report that they always breach working hours regulations or breach them on most trips;



7


• Of drivers who report that they break the regulations, about a quarter say that they do so in order to keep their jobs, and a third in order to make a living.

One survey of operators (Hartley et al, undated) reported findings that suggest indifference on the part of operators or at least a lack of awareness of fatigue as a health and safety problem. Among other things, this survey found that:

• Most employers do not have a formal fatigue management policy or plan;

• Half of all employers rely on drivers to regulate their own driving hours;

• Of employers who restrict daily driving hours, nearly 50% impose a maximum in excess of 14 hours per day; of those who restrict weekly driving hours, nearly 20% impose a maximum of 70 hours per week;

• Between 50% and 60% of employers use customer feedback, reports from other drivers or visual assessment to monitor driver fatigue;

• Approximately 50% of operators take actions to maintain driver fitness including withdrawing unfit drivers from duty, limiting driving hours, rostering drivers to trucks or regularly assessing drivers;

• While 88% of employers report fatigue as being never or rarely a problem for their own drivers, 42% perceive it to be a problem for the industry in general.

2.3 ADEQUACY OF WORKING HOURS REGULATIONS

The Road Transport Reform (Driving Hours) Regulations prescribe maximum working hours for heavy vehicle drivers on a daily and weekly basis including provision for short and long work breaks. They also prescribe requirements for the maintenance of log books for recording of driver working hours. The Regulations apply generally in Australia with the exception of Western Australia and the Northern Territory where operators are required to comply with fatigue management Codes of Practice.

FMP is one alternative to the current Regulations, and others will be considered in the NRTC’s current review of the regulatory approach to fatigue.

The Regulations are inadequate or at least of questionable validity in several respects:

• They focus on a symptom of poor fatigue management (namely hours actually worked) rather than the causes which could include poor management understanding, unresolved pressures from customers, poor indus trial relations, or an unsystematic approach to business management on the part of operators.



8


• Hours worked are not of themselves the cause of a fatigue problem. The time of day drivers work (night time work being riskier than day time work), the number of consecutive days they work, the number and quality of rest breaks they take during a shift, the amount of night time sleep they have and the quality of rest between shifts have all been demonstrated to be more significant causes of fatigue than hours worked. Other contributing factors that research has identified include the degree of control drivers have over their working lives, the comfort of their cabins and the availability of suitably located rest stops.

The Regulations may be perverse in their effects. The NRTC (1999) in its submission to the Neville Committee Inquiry gave the example of ‘A driver who runs out of hours close to home and has to rest in the vehicle, when higher quality rest may be obtained if a slightly longer trip were permitted’.

The Fatigue Expert Group (2001) assessed the current prescribed hours regulations in terms of its recommended fatigue management design guidelines and concluded:

• The prescribed driving hours do not account for circadian patterns/time of day factors, especially night work.

• The maximum working, including driving, period in any day (14 hours working including 12 hours driving) or any week (72 hours driving or work):

− does not allow the flexibility for one off longer working periods (even though the regulated maximum driving and working periods are within the Fatigue Expert Group’s recommended upper limits);

− does not account for circadian patterns/time of day factors;

− implies minimum rest periods that do not account for the opportunity for night sleep (night time being defined as the period between midnight and 6 am).;

− contains a short break regime (30 minutes in every period of five hours and thirty minutes) that does not allow breaks to be taken when they may be of most benefit to drivers.

2.4 ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDERS

Comment is invited from stakeholders on:

• The extent of the fatigue problem: Does the data presented above adequately reflect the fatigue problem? Are there particular aspects of the fatigue problem or segments of the road transport industry that would most benefit from FMP? Are there segments of the industry (for example, types of trip, load or vehicle) that would not benefit from FMP?



9


• Adequacy of the current Regulations: Does the preceding discussion accurately reflect the effectiveness of the current regulatory environment? Are their particular aspects of that environment that FMP would be effective or ineffective in addressing? Do stakeholders have particular experiences of the current Regulations that would suggest the need to amend or fine tune the design of FMP as presently being piloted?



10


3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION

The objective of FMP is to better manage fatigue under alternative compliance arrangements. FMP is proposed for implementation as a module of the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS).

NHVAS pursues the overarching objectives of the NRTC which are:

• Improved road safety;

• Improved efficiency of road transport including road asset preservation costs;

• Reductions in administrative costs for operators and agencies (Kinhill Economics 1997).



11


4 THE PROPOSED REGULATION

4.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT

FMP represents a systems approach to the management of driver fatigue. According to Gunningham and Johnstone (1999):

‘A systems approach involves managing OHS, product quality or any other problem in terms of systems of work rather than concentrating on individual deficiencies. That is, it involves the assessment and control of risks and the creation of an inbuilt system of maintenance and review. Its focus is on the organisational structure, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for implementing and maintaining OHS management.’

Interest in the use of systems approaches to OHS management has been stimulated by concerns about the complexity of regulatory law, the widely varying circumstances of employers who have duties under the law and the constraints on the resources of regulatory and enforcement agencies.

FMP is a privileges based systems approach. FMP operators are accorded the privilege of being able to work outside the prescribed hours regime because their management systems provide assurances to regulators and the public that safety standards will be maintained or even improved.

Following Mahon (2000), FMP could also be viewed as a ‘prudential supervision’ scheme:

‘Prudential supervision reduces direct intervention by the regulator, but compensates such a move by more effectively engaging participants in a compliance partnership. What the regulator gives away in the form of direct control, it will recover through a higher and sustainable level of compliance, increased industry productivity (less red tape) and lower implementation costs in the administration of compliance programs.’

These characteristics of FMP reflect the design of the overarching NHVAS. Each of the modules of NHVAS – maintenance, mass and fatigue – contains a set of common elements (shown in Box 1).



12


Box 1 Elements of NHVAS

Aim Alternative compliance schemes will be assessed against the objectives of improved road safety, increased transport efficiency and reductions in the costs of administration of road transport.

National uniformity or consistency Schemes should be implemented on a nationally uniform or consistent basis. National schemes must be uniform.

Audit Alternative compliance schemes should be capable of audit by external parties. Audit requirements should not be unnecessarily onerous and should be capable of integration with other forms of audit. Industry involvement The road transport industry should be involved in the development, implementation and operation of the schemes. Non-mandatory Participation in alternative compliance schemes is not mandatory.

Scheme access Access to alternative compliance schemes should be non-discriminatory and be based on criteria that are objective and relevant.

Review and appeal procedures Administrative actions under alternative compliance schemes should be subject to review.

Sanctions Sanctions imposed within alternative compliance schemes should be appropriate to the offence and consistent with sanctions outside the scheme.

Public scrutiny Alternative compliance schemes should be subject to public scrutiny. Review An alternative compliance scheme should be subject to review.

Identification Vehicles, drivers and operators subject to alternative compliance arrangements must be easily identifiable by enforcement officers.

Cost recovery Where agency costs are recouped from scheme members, this should be done in such a way that will ensure operators make their decisions on the basis of differential costs of the compliance options open to them. Source: Taylor (2000)



13


4.2 ELEMENTS OF FMP

The critical elements of FMP are the accreditation agreement between each participating jurisdiction and the accrediting agency, the FMP standards, the concept of ‘operating limits’ and the performance management model. Each is outlined below.

4.2.1 ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT

The accreditation agreement sets out:

• The purpose of FMP;

• The jurisdictions that recognise the agreement;

• The responsibilities of operators and of the accrediting agency;

• Provisions for audit, review and documentation;

• The requirement for operator compliance with the FMP standards;

• The period of accreditation; and

• Procedures for amending, suspending or cancelling the agreement.

The agreement also absolves participating operators of the obligation to comply with prescribed working hours and related record keeping requirements. This concession applies in the jurisdiction of the accrediting agency and in jurisdictions that recognise the agreement.

In the pilot FMP, Queensland is the accrediting jurisdiction. The accreditation agreement between QT and each accredited FMP pilot operator is recognised in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. RTA has placed conditions on phase 2 pilot operators in respect of travel in New South Wales. These conditions are outlined in Appendix A.

4.2.2 FMP STANDARDS

Accredited operators are required to comply with ten standards, namely:

• Scheduling and rostering

• Operating limits

• Readiness for duty

• Health

• Management practices

• Workplace conditions

• Training and education

• Responsibilities



14


• Records and documentation • Internal review.

Appendix A describes the standards in detail3. In broad terms, the first seven standards are operations related. They define the fatigue related outcomes to be achieved by accredited operators in the management of their transport inputs. For example: trips are to be scheduled and drivers rostered in ways that allow driver fatigue to be managed; drivers’ hours working time is to be controlled, drivers’ health as it relates to fatigue is to be managed; and drivers and vehicles must be appropriately licensed, registered and equipped.

The remaining three standards relate to the operation of each accredited operator’s fatigue management system. The management related standards require operators to demonstrate that responsibilities for operational tasks are assigned, procedures are documented, suitable records are maintained, non-compliances with procedures are investigated and corrected, and the management system is itself periodically reviewed.4

4.2.3 OPERATING LIMITS

The concept of operating limits is the central operational feature of FMP, embodying as it does the privilege accorded to FMP operators. This regulatory privilege has two components: firstly, operators are not required to comply with prescribed hours; secondly operators are allowed to exceed their ‘normal’ working and driving hours within bounds approved by the accrediting agency.

Each operator’s fatigue management system is approved by the accrediting agency for a ‘normal’ set of driver rest and working parameters according to the nature of the operator’s fatigue risk and the controls built into their FMP management system. The accrediting agency also approves a set of ‘outer’ working and driving limits, again according to the particular circumstances of each operator. The area between the normal and outer limits is the ‘operational range’. Within this range, operators have flexibility in driving and rest time to allow for more effective management of fatigue, or to cope with unforeseen circumstances. Operators have the flexibility to exceed outer limits (such as for hours worked in a day) in exceptional circumstances but are required to have a process in place to identify and manage those situations, and to raise a non-conformance for auditing purposes. In addition, when outer limits are exceeded on trips in New South Wales, RTA requires that a report be supplied as part of the extra conditions that it places on some pilot operators

3 The standards referred to here and described in Appendix A will be submitted to Ministers for approval and are revisions of those that have operated during the FMP pilot. Revisions have been made to combine individual standards and reduce overlap but the concepts in and intent of the standards remain unchanged. 4 According to Gunningham and Johnstone (1999) ‘QA involves two related systems. The management system is concerned with the planning, design, organisation and implementation of QA programmes, while the technical system involves: the assurance of quality and reliability in engineering design; the sciences of testing and measurement; the planning and design of manufacturing processes; and the control of incoming materials, intermediate production, and finished goods.’ OHS safety management systems such as FMP are analogous to QA.



15


(See Appendix B)5. Breaches of the outer limit form an important measure of the performance of each operator’s FMP system. 6

4.2.4 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL7

The performance management model includes audits, on-road enforcement and sanctions.

Audits

Audits of each operator’s FMP management system are conducted on entry to the program (entry or systems audit), at three and nine months after accreditation (performance or compliance audit) and sometimes in response to particular concerns about operator performance (triggered audits). In addition, enforcement officers conduct random depot compliance checks.

Should FMP be adopted nationally, it is intended that audits will be conducted using the NHVAS auditing framework which comprises an entry audit followed by a performance audit after six months, then subsequent audits every two years. This framework will reduce operator costs.

On-road enforcement

Accredited operators remain subject to on-road enforcement as an additional check on operator performance in the program. As much as possible, FMP drivers are ‘fast tracked’ through on-road interceptions.

Enforcement officers check driver compliance with FMP and that drivers are carrying the required documentation. During the pilot, drivers not in possession of necessary documentation are breached under the driving hours regulations for failure to carry and complete a log book. A report of each interception is completed by the enforcement officer and forwarded to the operator for follow up action if necessary. An enforcement officer may recommend that a triggered audit be carried out if serious non-compliance problems are detected.

Sanctions

Sanctions available for serious breaches of the accreditation agreement include (in escalating order):

5 The conditions imposed by New South Wales on phase 2 pilot operators place restrictions on operating limits, and require the use of vehicle monitoring devices. FMP is not to be applied in respect of passenger and dangerous goods transport, and FMP drivers are not allowed to use the Pacific Highway in New South Wales between Hexham and the Queensland border. The application of these conditions in a full national FMP is the subject of deliberation between agencies. 6 The operating limits concept is outlined in Mahon (1998). 7 See Mahon (1998).



16


• Corrective action;

• Temporary suspension from FMP (An operator may be suspended at any time following conduct of a triggered audit);

• Increase in the frequency of audit;

• Variation of the terms and conditions of the accreditation agreement;

• Cancellation of FMP accreditation.


Comment is invited from stakeholders on the performance standards included in FMP and particularly whether the standards are appropriate. Are some standards redundant or should others be added? Will already accredited NHVAS operators be able to readily incorporate the standards within their existing management systems? Will the standards and the systems based approach be comprehensible to operators who are not already members of NHVAS or who do not have a quality management system?



17


5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

The Regulatory Impact Statement on FMP will consider alternative ways in which FMP could be designed and delivered assuming the concept is accepted as being a desirable element of fatigue regulation. The NRTC in its broader review of regulatory approaches to heavy vehicle driver fatigue will be assessing FMP as one of several options for the management of fatigue.

Design and delivery alternatives for FMP are considered in this section.

5.1 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODELS FOR FMP

FMP as currently designed has two outstanding features, namely a focus on the precursors or causes of fatigue, and flexibility in the way operators deploy their drivers to achieve safe driver fatigue outcomes. These features could be retained in greater or lesser degree in alternative design models by making trade offs in terms of:

• The level of flexibility accorded to operators: The current design model is highly flexible but at the same time the benefits to accredited operators come at the cost of considerable effort in the design of their fatigue management systems.

• The level of agency control: The auditing processes in FMP allow the agency to exercise close control over accredited operators but that level of control is expensive for agencies and operators. In a similar vein, the specification of process standards in FMP (described in section 4.2.2 above) could impose costs unnecessarily on some operators and constrain their pursuit of innovative fatigue solutions that suit their individual circumstances.

• The impacts of the scheme: FMP design could aim at achieving modest improvements in fatigue management for many operators through a simpler, cheaper, more accessible FMP design model scheme; alternative ly, FMP design could seek significant improvements for relatively few operators via the current model which is resource intensive for operators.

These types of trade offs could be achieved to varying degrees in four design alternatives:

• The current FMP model;

• The current FMP model but with more guidance being provided to operators;



18


• The current FMP model but with less guidance being provided to operators;

• The current FMP design model but without its independent audit requirements.

5.1.1 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 1: CURRENT MODEL WITH MORE OPERATOR GUIDANCE

In this model, the agency would provide a higher level of guidance than at present about the operating limits for working and rest that would be acceptable for accreditation and about the design of systems required to meet the process standards. At present, operators applying for accreditation are not informed about the operating limits for working time and rest that the accrediting agency would consider acceptable having regard to each operator’s fatigue hazards and risks. With respect to the process standards, the accreditation kit provides only broad information about how operators might develop their fatigue management systems.

There would be a number of advantages in providing additional guidance to operators: operators would have more certainty in the formulation of their application for accreditation; the scheme would be more accessible to operators who might face tight constraints on resources and managerial expertise; and the level of agency judgement and discretion required in considering accreditation applications would be reduced. Recommendations contained in the recently released Fatigue Expert Group report would be a firm basis for providing system design guidance for operators in respect of operating limits.

In pursuing this option, agencies would tread a fine line between on the one hand assisting operators to take advantage of FMP, and on the other being seen to suggest template approaches to fatigue management system design that operators might pursue irrespective of their particular hazards and risks. In other words, there is a danger that operators could construe guidance material as constituting the system they should aim for, rather than as merely constructive input to system design.

A program of education and information in support of the delivery of FMP but external to the accreditation kit may be an effective means of providing guidance. If delivered in this way, guidance focusing on fatigue management concepts, the systems management approach and the results of the Fatigue Expert Group report, would be less likely to be seen by operators as constituting the agency’s preferred fatigue management system.

5.1.2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 2: CURRENT FMP MODEL WITH LESS OPERATOR GUIDANCE

Equally, the provision of less guidance in the accreditation kit about the meaning of the process standards, the tasks to be undertaken within each standard and examples of operating limits could stimulate operators to more innovative fatigue management



19


solutions. In an extreme example of this model, only the performance standard of the minimum practicable level of fatigue might be stated in the accreditation kit, and operators would be left to devise process standards and systems that met that objective. This extreme model has the advantage perhaps of facilitating a more comfortable fit with other management systems, such as the ISO 9000 series, that operators may have developed or be developing.

This model has important implications for the accreditation approvals process on the part of agencies, and for auditing, public credibility and the accessibility of the scheme to smaller operators. Agencies would be challenged to develop criteria for assessment of possibly widely divergent management systems while satisfying an obvious requirement for scheme credibility. In addition, the audit task would be more complex and many operators would be left without starting points to guide them into FMP.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the ‘less guidance’ model is worthy of consideration because it is consistent with the spirit of FMP, which is to allow individual operators to develop management systems that are best for them. The desirability of changes which would allow an easier fit between FMP and other quality management systems cannot be discounted, because the burdens of developing systems such as ISO 9000 are considerable in resource and financial terms. For small to medium operators, achieving any type of accreditation can be a frustrating distraction from the normal day to day running of the business irrespective of the commitment that they may have to the process at the outset.

An education program could also support this option. It would need to be more intensive and have wider coverage than in the previous option because the level of information provided in the accreditation kit itself would be so much less than in the current model or in alternative model 1.

5.1.3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN MODEL 3: CURRENT DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT AUDITING

The deletion of audit requirements from the current model would reduce costs for operators and agencies and relieve agencies of the administrative burden of implementing and managing an independent audit framework. FMP would then move closer to an OHS Code of Practice model, in which operators, if intercepted and prosecuted for a breach of the Regulations would need to prove the existence of a system for the management of risk.

It could be argued that the community would see this model as too heavily reliant on self regulation and lacking the scrutiny of independent audit. By the same token, other safety risks are managed in this way, and in many areas of corporate safety responsibility, compliance with general duties of care is not the subject of constant audit scrutiny. The counter argument is of course that in other areas of risk, infringements are more readily determined than in the case of fatigue, and more reliance can be placed on on-site (or on-road) enforcement.



20


In this model however, drivers could be required to carry materials signifying the existence of the operator’s FMP management system and the driver roster and schedule applicable to the day or week of interception. Alternatively, the audit requirement could be supplanted by an FMP accreditation requirement for DSMDs or real time electronic monitoring of drivers.

5.1.4 PREFERRED DESIGN MODEL

The alternatives presented here suggest the tensions in model design between the desirability of a closely customised, performance based approach that attacks the causes of fatigue, but which is at the same time comprehensible to operators, readily implemented and of a reasonable cost to operators.

Although the model eventually adopted might remain inaccessible for many operators, the NRTC’s fatigue regulatory review is expected to result in the availability of a wider range of regulatory choices. Operators who choose not to take up FMP will be likely therefore to have access to options which are at least more effective than the current Regulations and at the same time cheaper than FMP.

Of the design alternatives for FMP considered here, the ‘no auditing’ model is not favoured because it is inconsistent with the NHVAS approach and could weaken confidence in the alternative compliance approach in general and FMP in particular. Because fatigue risk is not readily detected on road, enforcement models that are effective in other areas of risk will not necessarily be effective for fatigue. It would also be difficult to convince the community of the merits of a system that provided flexibility to operators but without adequate, on-going scrutiny through auditing. The cost savings to be reaped from a ‘no auditing’ model would be unlikely to overshadow these disadvantages.

Of the other two design alternatives considered, the ‘less guidance’ model has some of the disadvantages of the no auditing model although to lesser degree. Having agencies assess accreditation applications without the backing of transparent and consistently applied process and performance standards would weaken the scheme’s credibility with the community and with operators. Even if the existing process and performance standards remained in the accreditation kit but the level of supporting information was reduced, it would be difficult to judge whether the reduction in the leve l of information or guidance provided would be beneficial or otherwise. The real contrast with this option is one of having or not having pre-determined process or performance standards. Not having them could be deleterious to scheme credibility and effectiveness, inconsistent with the NHVAS model and inconsistent with the systems management approach more generally.

The preferred alternative for consideration is the ‘more guidance’ model, provided the level of guidance is not perceived as constituting the accrediting agency’s preferred management system. Any tendency in this direction would weaken the effectiveness of FMP as a system able to be customised to each individual operator’s risk management needs. Additional



21


guidance about the formulation of systems to comply with each of the process standards might be best developed through a promotional or educational program with particular focus on small operators. The more important guidance about the operating limits to be tolerated in an accredited fatigue management system should be provided in the accreditation kit, perhaps summarising the recommendations of the Fatigue Expert Group.

In addition, agencies could consider undertaking preliminary assessment of an operator’s initial fatigue hazard and risk assessment, possible systems approaches and proposed operating limits prior to the operator incurring the cost of an entry audit. Agencies could then suggest to operators their likely response to an eventual full accreditation application including areas that might be further investigated, modified or reconsidered. This preliminary assessment approach could reduce costs and uncertainties for operators while not placing agencies in a position where they might perhaps be seen to be giving approval in principle prior to receipt of a formal application.

5.1.5 DESIGN MODEL RECOMMENDED FOR ASSESSMENT

Two design models are proposed for assessment in the RIS:

• The current FMP model; and

• A modified FMP model providing additional guidance to operators, and including a preliminary FMP application stage.

5.2 ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MODELS FOR FMP

The FMP project team8 has identified five alternatives for the delivery of FMP, as follows:

• A jurisdictional model: Individual agencies implement and manage FMP in their respective jurisdictions;

• A jurisdictional model with consultation: Individual agencies implement and manage FMP in their respective jurisdictions, but accreditation decisions are made after consultation with neighbouring jurisdictions;

• A centralised possibly outsourcing based model: Jurisdictions together establish a national accreditation agency to implement and manage FMP;

• A collegiate or joint decision making model: Jurisdictions implement and manage FMP collectively;

8 The FMP project team is responsible for the development of the FMP pilot and comprises representatives of: agencies (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia); industry (owner/operators, transport companies); police (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland); NTI Insurance; and other interested stakeholders.



22


• An agency model: One or several jurisdictions deliver FMP on behalf of all other jurisdictions.

5.2.1 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DELIVERY MODELS

Comparison of these models revolves around the questions of administrative efficiency and cost on the one hand and effectiveness on the other.

In terms of administrative efficiency and cost, the most favourable options in descending order would be the jurisdictional model, the jurisdictional model with consultation and the agency model. Each of these models would be readily established by agencies, easy to comprehend and access by operators, and relatively simple to administer. System management and operator accreditation decisions would be made broadly within the boundaries of each jurisdiction and the decision lines would be easily comprehended by operators. The latter two models are not as simple as the jurisdictional model because they involve higher levels of interaction between agencies, but the differences are ones of degree only.

The weaknesses of these administratively simple models lie in their potential for disjointed decision making, loss of national focus in fatigue regulation and evolution of inconsistencies between jurisdictions. These inconsistencies could arise in specification of performance standards, auditing of performance standards and accreditation of operators. Each of these weaknesses would detract from the potential of FMP to effectively address fatigue nationally. Cross-border operators would be particularly disadvantaged. For all operators, two models – the jurisdictional model and the agency model – would carry the danger that FMP accreditation gained in one jurisdiction would not be recognised in all other jurisdictions. Jurisdictional shopping would be a related danger for agencies. Uncertainties such as this would reduce operator interest in and take up of FMP and reduce the worth of alternative compliance as a regulatory tool for management of fatigue. In addition, in the medium to long term, inter-agency differences in approach would reduce mobility in the labour market for road transport drivers and supervisory personnel and reduce the potential for efficiencies in the recruitment, training and deployment of audit professionals and enforcement officers.

The remaining two models - the centralised and collegiate models – would ensure national uniformity in standards, accreditation, audit and system development decisions. They should as a consequence be more effective in the management of fatigue. These models would also eliminate the danger of jurisdictional shopping on the part of operators. These advantages come at the cost of a more intensive administrative effort for agencies, possibly slower decision making and less accessibility for operators. The centralised model has the additional disadvantage that agency agreements must be translated to the industry through the intermediate, and possibly outsourced accreditation agency.



23


5.2.2 DELIVERY MODELS RECOMMENDED FOR ASSESSMENT

Because they could be prone to un-coordinated decision making by agencies, the jurisdictional model, the jurisdictional model with consultation and the agency model would not be appropriate to a national regulatory scheme for fatigue. In addition, an agency based scheme without certainty of mutual recognition across all jurisdictions would be unattractive to operators and hence a constraint on take up. Operators would want FMP to promise the maximum potential benefit because the investment they must make to obtain accreditation is quite significant.

The collegiate and centralised models are closest in spirit to national fatigue regulation and ensure mutual recognition of decisions applied to any particular operator. Both of these models are likely to be more expensive to operate and more intensive in their demands on agency time. Any additional costs however would be small relative to the investment operators would make in taking up FMP. In other words, some additional expenditure by agencies over and above the costs of the minimum (jurisdictional) model may be necessary to fully capitalise on the investment to be made by operators in FMP.

Two delivery models are proposed for assessment in the RIS:

• A collegiate or joint decision making model; and

• A centralised possibly outsourcing based model.

5.3 SUMMARY – DESIGN AND DELIVERY MODELS RECOMMENDED FOR ASSESSMENT

The following FMP models are proposed for consideration in the RIS:

FMP design

• The current FMP model;

• A modified FMP model providing additional guidance to operators, and including a preliminary FMP application stage.

Delivery

• A collegiate or joint decision making model in which jurisdictions implement and manage FMP collectively; and

• A centralised possibly outsourcing based model in which jurisdictions jointly establish a national accreditation agency to implement and manage FMP.



24



Comment is invited from stakeholders on:

• The design of FMP: Would the FMP performance standards provide sufficient guidance to operators in designing their management systems? Do the standards provide sufficient flexibility to operators? Would supporting material – such as guidance notes or introductory workshop sessions for intending FMP operators be effective? Would the provision for operators to lodge preliminary accreditation applications reduce the time and cost they incur on accreditation? Does a preliminary applications stage have cost or other implications for agencies? Would a purely performance based system in which no process standards were pre-defined by accrediting agencies be effective? To what extent is independent auditing important to the effectiveness and credibility of FMP?

• The delivery of FMP: How important to the effectiveness of FMP are mutual recognition across State and Territory borders and consistency of standards and enforcement? Are the costs of establishing a centralised or a collegiate model in which all agencies participate in decision making justified by the likely benefits? Would a model in which FMP accreditation was only recognised within the borders of the accrediting jurisdiction be effective for operators?



25


6 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION AND ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of the Regulatory Impact Statement is to assist transport Ministers in decid ing whether FMP should be approved for inclusion in road transport regulations.

In reaching their decision, Ministers are likely to consider the impacts of FMP on the industry, agencies and the community. Road safety would be the most important community impact to be considered in the RIS.

6.1 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT

In broad terms, the RIS will establish whether FMP is better than the current regulatory situation. This is done by comparing FMP and the alternatives outlined in the previous section with the current situation or the ‘base case’. The impacts of FMP and its alternatives relative to the base case are judged in terms of the assessment criteria described below.

6.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The criteria for assessing the impacts of FMP will be broadly consistent with the NRTC’s objectives for NHVAS, namely:

• Improved road safety;

• Improved efficiency of road transport including road preservation costs;

• Reductions in administrative costs for operators and agencies.

These objectives are not entirely appropriate for consideration of voluntary schemes such as FMP because operators may choose to join the scheme – to reduce their overall business risk for example – even though the costs of doing so could be greater than the benefits or the benefits may not always be quantifiable in dollar terms. Agencies then need to consider whether the safety benefits of FMP are sufficient to justify their potential investment in the scheme. The third objective is essentially subsumed under the other two. FMP could increase administrative costs, but that increase could be offset by reductions in operating



26


costs (for operators), inspectorate costs9 (for agencies) and crash costs (for operators and the community).

Given these overarching objectives, the following assessment criteria are proposed to be adopted in the RIS:

Road safety

• FMP should deliver reductions in fatigue crashes that are at least sufficient to cover the agency costs to implement and manage the scheme.

Improved efficiency of road transport

• FMP should achieve reductions in crash costs at least equal to the FMP-related costs incurred by agencies; and

• Operators should be likely to perceive that FMP will benefit them, even if those benefits cannot always be quantified in dollar terms;

• FMP should be sufficiently attractive to operators that the take up of the scheme would justify the effort and resources to be allocated to it by agencies.

6.3 THE BASE CASE

For consistency with the NRTC review of regulatory approach to fatigue, the base case will be the system of regulated hours that pertains in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, plus the Code of Practice regime that applies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

6.4 ESTIMATING THE IMPACTS OF FMP

FMP will affect the operators who choose to take it up, the regulatory agencies that manage the scheme and the community. Improvements in safety will be the main impact on the community.

6.4.1 IMPACTS ON OPERATORS

Operators who take up FMP are expected to accrue a range of costs and benefits as described below. The RIS will estimate these costs from surveys that are now being undertaken of pilot operators as part of the FMP pilot evaluation.

9 With any savings taking the form of a redeployment of inspectors towards monitoring of non-FMP operators or other aspects of road transport safety risk.



27


• System set up costs: These include the costs of implementing and administering the FMP management system which may vary according to the FMP model eventually adopted. Operators will have to develop and obtain accreditation for systems to comply with each of the FMP performance standards and have their systems audited for compliance with the FMP performance standards. Surveys of the original three FMP pilot operators indicate that the major set up costs include administration, travel and accommodation, and training. One operator also incurred capital costs for improved staff amenities and on-board vehicle monitoring equipment.

• System administration/operating costs: Accredited operators need to ensure that tasks such as scheduling, rostering, training and monitoring are carried out and documented. Again, from the experience of the original three pilot operators, the major cost items are administration and training.

• Other costs: From the experience of the original three pilot operators, costs could also be incurred in employing additional drivers to meet schedules and in purchasing and operating additional trucks.

• Operating efficiencies and other benefits: FMP operators are expected to accrue benefits such as fewer fatigue-related incidents, less employee absenteeism, possibly lower insurance costs, reduced vehicle operating costs through better driving practices, improved customer relations, and more efficient driver and vehicle utilisation (although some operators may experience increases in driver and vehicle costs as has one of the original pilot operators). Surveys indicate that the original three pilot operators are benefitting in terms of reduced driver fatigue, better driving practices, a healthier workforce, improved driver and vehicle utilisation, and fewer workers compensation claims.

6.4.2 IMPACTS ON REGULATORY AGENCIES

Much of the cost of developing the FMP concept has already been incurred by agencies, particularly QT. Although details may vary according to the FMP model adopted, elements such as performance standards, auditing model and approaches to compliance and enforcement are already developed. Costs to be considered in the RIS include:

• Set up costs: Agencies collectively will need to develop a model for delivering FMP to operators. Even if a separate body is not set up or outsourced as in the centralised model, agencies will still need to establish processes for receiving, considering and approving accreditation applications, and managing compliance and enforcement. Costs could include staffing, office space, computer and communications equipment and the like.

• On-going administrative costs: Once delivery arrangements are established, agencies will need to manage FMP including accreditation and monitoring of operators. Salaries



28


are likely to be the largest cost, but other items could include office space rental and other occupancy costs, communications, assessments, printing and travel.

6.4.3 IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY

The principal community impact will be the improvement in road safety as operators take up FMP. Surveys of pilot operators now being undertaken by QT will assist in estimating the reduction in fatigue incidents that could be expected from broader take up of FMP.

Depending on the number of operators who take up FMP, an additional benefit could be anticipated from closer enforcement of non-FMP operators. This will be possible because enforcement officers will be able to focus their efforts more on non-FMP operators or on other aspects of road transport safety risk. Notional savings in inspectorate effort attributable to FMP will be used as a minimum estimate of this benefit because it will be difficult to establish even broadly the benefits of deploying inspectors towards non-accredited operators.

6.4.4 OPERATOR TAKE UP OF FMP

The assumed take up of FMP adopted in the RIS will strongly influence the estimated costs and benefits of the proposal. The more operators who take up FMP the greater will be the potential for safety benefits, but at the same time the higher will be the cost impact on agencies. Given the effort and cost that FMP can entail for operators, take up is likely to be low but could well increase over time as the legal system focuses more and more on the duty of care and chain of responsibility concepts. It is proposed at this stage that take up would be in the range 2% to 10% of operators, with the likely take up being at the low end of this range at least in the initial stages.


Stakeholders are invited to comment on:

• The adequacy of the assessment criteria: (See section 6.2) Are these sufficiently comprehensive or should others be considered also?

• Costs and benefits to operators: Do the costs and benefits listed in section 6.4.1 reflect the costs likely to be experienced by operators? Should other costs and benefits be considered? Do operators or industry associations have data on the costs of fatigue directly incurred by operators? (Information on FMP related costs and benefits will be sought from pilot operators during the preparation of the RIS).

• Costs for agencies: Agencies are invited to provide information on the likely costs to them of implement ing and managing FMP for the design and delivery models



29


described in section 5. Cost estimates assuming take up of 2%, 5% or 10% of the fleet in their respective jurisdictions would be appreciated.

• Community (road safety) benefits: Agencies are invited to provide information on the proportion of inspectorate effort allocated to fatigue, the current number of inspectors employed in total and the number of police personnel in their jurisdictions allocated to heavy vehicle enforcement.

• Take up of FMP: Stakeholders are invited to comment on the likely take up of FMP and particularly on the range of 2% to 10% of operators proposed for estimation purposes in the RIS.



30


7 OTHER ISSUSES IN THE RIS

7.1 CONSULTATIONS

The distribution of this Discussion Paper and the consideration of comments by stakeholders will be the major part of the consultation process.

In addition, discussions will be held with pilot operators to gain further understanding of the operator impacts, costs and benefits of FMP.

7.2 COMPLIANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

This section of the RIS will outline intended mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the requirements of FMP and the procedural steps for its implementation.

The FMP compliance (or ‘performance management’) model already included in the pilot will be proposed in the RIS. This model has been designed to be consistent with the existing mass and maintenance modules in NHVAS. Implementation issues will be addressed as the RIS proceeds.

7.3 FUTURE REVIEW AND UPDATING OF THE REGULATION

These are also procedural issues that will be addressed as the RIS proceeds. They relate to whether the regulation that mandates the inclusion of FMP in NHVAS should be reviewed in five or ten years for example, and possibly the criteria for considering amendment to the regulation to take account of changing circumstances.

7.4 NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY ASSESSMENT

Each RIS is required to be accompanied by a statement about the effect of a proposed regulatory change on competition. A regulatory change which restricts competition will be acceptable only if:

• The benefits of the restriction on competition cannot be obtained in any other way; and

• The benefits of the restriction on competition exceed the costs.

FMP could restrict competition if for example it deters operators from entering the industry, disadvantages particular classes of operators (small operators for example may find the



31


costs of FMP to be onerous) or imposes particular work practices on operators. It appears at this stage that any competitive restriction in FMP is likely to arise in respect of the first two of these examples. In both cases, the costs for operators of implementing and managing FMP would be the factor underlying any competitive restriction. It should be noted however that the emergence from the NRTC fatigue regulatory review of a wider range of regulatory choices for operators should lessen any potential competition impacts.

The third type of competitive restriction mentioned above – imposition of work methods – is unlikely to be relevant because each of the options leaves operators to decide how their FMP system should be designed.


Stakeholder comment is sought on whether FMP has any implications for competition within the road transport industry and the nature of any effects on competition, positive or negative. Comment is also sought on whether FMP could have other competition implications – for example in requiring that auditors have particular qualifications or experience or that they be members of particular professional bodies or associations.



32


8 REFERENCES

Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE 2000) Road Crash Costs in Australia, Report 102, May.

Department of Transport and Regional Services (1999) Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Arts Inquiry into Managing Fatigue in Transport.

Fatigue Expert Group (2001) Options for Regulatory Approach to Fatigue in Drivers of Heavy Vehicles in Australia and New Zealand, prepared for the National Road Transport Commission, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the New Zealand Land Transport Authority.

Gunningham, Neil and Richard Johnstone (1999) Regulating Workplace Safety-Systems and Sanctions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hartley, L; P Arnold, F Penna, D Hochstadt, D Corry and A Feyer (undated) Fatigue in the Western Australian transport industry: Part One, the company perspective, prepared for the Western Australian Department of Transport.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and the Arts (Neville Committee 2000) Beyond the Midnight Oil – An Inquiry into managing fatigue in transport , Canberra, October.

Kinhill Economics (1997) Regulatory Impact Statement: Alternative Compliance for Mass Management and Maintenance Management , prepared for the National Road Transport Commission, February.

Knipling R and T Shelton (1999) ‘Problem size assessment: large truck crashes primarily related to driver fatigue’ Paper presented at the Second International Large Truck and Bus Safety Symposium Knoxville, Transportation Centre, The University of Tennessee.

Mahon, Gary (2000) ‘A New Approach to Regulatory Governance Incentives-the Practical Realities’ paper presented at the Smart Compliance for the New Millennium Conference, Adelaide, 30-31 March.

Mahon, Gary (1998) ‘The Queensland Approach: The Fatigue Management Program’ Paper presented to the 4th International Fatigue Conference, Fremantle.



33


National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC 1999) Submission to Parliament of Australia House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts – Inquiry into Managing Fatigue, July.

National Road Transport Commission (NRTC 1999) Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts Inquiry into Managing Fatigue in Transport, June.

Taylor, Peter (2000) ‘Alternative Compliance’ paper presented at the Smart Compliance for the New Millennium Conference, Adelaide, 30-31 March.



34


APPENDIX A PROPOSED FMP STANDARDS (DRAFT)



35


Standard and description of standard Requirements of standard

Scheduling and rostering

Scheduling of individual trips and rostering of drivers must incorporate fatigue management measures.

Scheduling and rostering practices must ensure all trip schedules are planned, and driver rosters are assigned, in accordance with the operator's approved operating limits, driver's recent work history, ability, welfare and preference, where appropriate, and allow sufficient time for the transport task to be completed safely.

Operating limits

Operating limits provide drivers with the flexibility to effectively manage fatigue.

Operating limits:

• ensure sufficient time is provided to perform the transport task and take adequate rest breaks;

• provide sufficient rest breaks in any 24 hour period to recover from/prepare for the fatigue effects of work; and

• [provide] sufficient days off to recover from the cumulative effects of fatigue caused by extended periods [of] work.

Readiness for duty

Drivers [are] in a fit state to safely perform driving and non-driving duties prior to commencing, and during, work.

Operators must ensure that sufficient time off is provided for drivers to recover from/prepare for the fatigue effects of work. Drivers must ensure that they consider the impact of activities such as recreational activities and personal life on their well-being and capacity to work safely, and use time off responsibly to prepare for/recover from the fatigue effects of work.

Health

Drivers participate in a health management system to identify and manage fatigue risks.

Operators must implement a health management system that addresses, as a minimum, sleep disorders, medical history, substance abuse and diet, and provides preventative and remedial measures to assist drivers in the management of their health.

Management Practices

Management practices assist with reducing driver fatigue.

Management practices ensure all drivers are suited to the freight task and effective communication between management and drivers on matters that effect the safe operation of the business.

Workplace conditions

Workplace environments and conditions assist in the prevention of fatigue.

Operators must ensure that depot facilities, vehicles and sleep accommodation are suitable for the prevention of fatigue.



36


Standard and description of standard Requirements of standard

Training and education

All personnel are provided with training on the management of fatigue and the operator's fatigue management program.

Training and education is essential to ensure all employees, including managers, understand fatigue management issues and have the knowledge and skills to practice effective fatigue management and comply with the FMP requirements. Training must include an assessment process to ensure learning objectives are met.

Responsibilities

The authorities, responsibilities and duties of all positions involved in the management, operation, administration, participation and verification of the FMP are current, clearly defined and documented.

The successful operation of an FMP is dependent on all personnel knowing and practicing their responsibilities to ensure the requirements of all the FMP standards are complied with.

Records and documentation

The operator must implement, authorise, maintain and review documented policies and procedures that ensure the effective management, performance and verification of the FMP in accordance with the standards.

Records must be identified, collected, stored and maintained that demonstrate the effective operation of the FMP and compliance with each standard.

Policies, procedures and instructions must be authorised, current and clearly identify and describe all FMP management, operation, administration, participation and verification activities.

Internal review

An internal review system is implemented to identify all non-compliances and verify that all activities comply with the FMP standards, policies, procedures and instructions.

The internal audit process is an essential management tool that checks that procedures are being followed and indicates how the FMP is working. Fundamental to the effective management of the fatigue risk is the capacity of the FMP system to identify, report and investigate incidents of non-compliance with the standards and take the necessary corrective action.

Source: QT internal document, 1 May 2001



37


APPENDIX B NSW FMP PHASE 2 CONDITIONS



38


• Maximum daily limit of 14 hours of driving/work in 24 hours. This limit is only able to be exceeded by a maximum of one hour and only in extraordinary circumstances with the RTA to be advised on each occasion.

• Additional flexibility within the 24 hour cycle subject to case by case assessment e.g. no regulated limits within 14 hour daily cap, and no requirement for six hours continuous rest in any 24 hour period.

• The Transitional Fatigue Management Scheme (TFMS) driving and other work limit of 144 hours (plus 2 hours for cleaning, etc) and the two 24 hours periods of rest in each 14 day period would continue to apply. (Note that this means that when an FMP driver arrives in NSW he/she must be within these limits for the whole of the previous 14 days/336 hours.

• No requirement for log books, but vehicles must have monitoring devices fitted and operating and records stored for audit purposes.

• No entry to FMP pilot for passenger vehicles or vehicles carrying dangerous goods.

• No use of Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border.

fatigue management program - ntc.gov.auc5f2db68-686c-68b3-c192-82b... · prepared for queensland...

Documents