[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29297-29300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14010]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Notice of Safety Advisory: Determination of Vision Impairment 
Among Locomotive Engineers

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of safety advisory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 98-1 addressing the vision 
standards of certified locomotive engineers in order to reduce the risk 
of accidents arising from vision impaired engineers.


[[Page 29298]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conklin, Operating Practices 
Specialist, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 400 Seventh 
Street S.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-632-
3372); Alan H. Nagler, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., RCC-11, Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590 
(telephone: 202-632-3187); or Mark H. McKeon, Regional Administrator, 
55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142 (telephone: 617-494-2243).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After a tragic 1987 accident and in response 
to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, FRA adopted rules 
establishing a program for qualifying locomotive engineers to assure 
the uniformity and adequacy of the qualifications standards. FRA's 
rule, which became effective in 1991, establishes requirements for 
testing the visual acuity of individuals who want to be certified as 
locomotive engineers. In the ongoing effort to monitor compliance with 
and the effectiveness of its existing regulatory program, FRA has been 
examining available data concerning administration of this aspect of 
the certification program. The data suggest that there is room for 
improving the rule's existing provisions concerning the testing and 
evaluation of visual acuity.
    FRA also has received a number of recommendations for change to the 
rules concerning the qualification and certification of locomotive 
engineers. The most recent recommendation was received on May 14, 1998, 
when FRA was presented with a recommendation from the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC) that FRA consider changes to the current 
provisions concerning the testing and evaluation of visual acuity.
    RSAC was established to provide recommendations and advice to the 
Administrator on development of FRA's railroad safety regulatory 
program, including issuance of new regulations, review and revision of 
existing regulations, and identification of non-regulatory alternatives 
for improvement of railroad safety. RSAC recommendations carry 
considerable weight since RSAC is comprised of 48 representatives from 
27 member organizations, including railroads, labor groups, equipment 
manufacturers, state government groups, public associations, and two 
associate non-voting representatives from Canada and Mexico.
    The May 14 RSAC recommendation echoes an earlier recommendation 
from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) based on the 
NTSB's March 25, 1997 report of its investigation into a fatal 
collision between two New Jersey transit commuter trains near Secaucus, 
New Jersey. See NTSB's Railroad Accident Report--Near Head-On Collision 
and Derailment of Two New Jersey Transit Commuter Trains near Secaucus, 
New Jersey, February 9, 1996 (NTSB/RAR-97/01).

Explanation of Current Requirements on Testing and Evaluation of 
Visual Acuity

    FRA rules require each railroad to test the vision of every 
locomotive engineer when initially certified and at periodic intervals 
of no more than every three years. Each railroad's program must include 
criteria and procedures implementing how the railroad will ensure that 
each locomotive engineer will have adequate distant visual acuity and 
the ability to recognize and distinguish between the colors of signals. 
The rule requires that a railroad have written confirmation from a 
licensed medical doctor that the person being certified meets the FRA 
visual acuity standards. See 49 CFR part 240 at Secs. 240.121, 240.207.
    The rule gives railroad's and railroad medical examiners 
considerable latitude when conducting visual acuity testing and 
evaluation. During the period the rule has been in effect, the latitude 
permitted has generated questions about a number of matters. These 
include questions about the use of chromatic lenses; accounting for the 
variations in railroad signals when a signal is displaying the color 
yellow; the duty of engineers who rely on contact lenses to have a pair 
of corrective eyeglasses available when on duty; the obligation of 
certified locomotive engineers to alert the railroad when the engineer 
has reason to believe that his or her vision has deteriorated to the 
extent that the person may no longer meet the acuity requirements; the 
duty of each medical examiner to have a clearly articulated basis for 
his or her decision that a person who lacks the specified level of 
acuity can nonetheless safely operate a locomotive; and the ability to 
use a variety of testing methods, including whether it is proper to 
conduct color vision tests by displaying yarn or other fabrics.
    Of these questions, the most vexing involves the issue of employing 
appropriate testing of persons to detect color vision impairment. FRA's 
expectation was that the physicians who would be designated as railroad 
medical examiners would be trained to competently administer color 
vision examinations. Thus, FRA did not anticipate that it would be 
necessary to specify for the medical examiners the test procedures to 
be employed when testing for whether a person meets the standards 
specified in this rule.
    That assumption has been called into question under tragic 
circumstances. It appears that if the current rule had been implemented 
as FRA expected, the rule would have been adequate to prevent the NJT 
accident. For example, the NTSB report found that the medical history 
of the suspect engineer showed that he had been administered an 
acceptable test annually by the same NJT contract physician since at 
least 1985. For nine straight years, the engineer scored a perfect 
score on his color vision test. However, the NTSB report also found 
that beginning in 1994, the test results showed a deterioration of the 
engineer's ability to distinguish among some colors and, in February 
1995, one year prior to the accident, the engineer's test scores caused 
him to be classified as having a moderate color vision handicap. As a 
consequence of this low test score, the physician said that he gave the 
engineer the Dvorine Nomenclature Test to further evaluate the 
engineer's color vision. NTSB reported that the testing protocol states 
that the nomenclature test is not a test of color discrimination 
ability, since many color blind individuals learn to name the colors 
correctly by their brightness instead of their hue. Reliance on this 
testing methodology suggests the physician failed to understand that 
the purpose of the Dvorine Nomenclature Test is to see whether the 
patient can identify the names of the colors--not to test color vision. 
In fact, the Dvorine Nomenclature Test is merely a preliminary step in 
conducting the Dvorine--Second edition color vision test and is often 
skipped because most patients are presumed to be able to identify the 
names of the colors. Thus, it is likely that this accident was 
preventable if the physician had responded differently to the pattern 
of deterioration and had used a sound approach to measuring the 
person's ability to distinguish colors.

RSAC'S Recommended Changes to FRA'S Rules on Testing and Evaluation 
of Visual Acuity

    FRA's goal is to prevent train collisions such as the one that 
occurred at Secaucus. Amending the existing regulation, so that 
railroad medical examiners are limited to the application of prescribed 
acceptable tests, will help achieve this goal. While the RSAC has 
recommended modification of the

[[Page 29299]]

regulation, issuance of a final rule could take a substantial period of 
time during which it is possible that the circumstances surrounding the 
medical evaluation process of the Secaucus accident could be 
replicated. FRA has decided that the RSAC recommendations for change on 
this issue should be widely disseminated since these recommendations 
reflect the current best thinking of the regulated community. Broad 
sharing of information concerning the views of the advisory committee 
can be of assistance to medical examiners who are responsible for 
administering the existing regulation.
    Based on past practice, FRA anticipates that the agency will accept 
the RSAC recommendation that FRA issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to revise the locomotive engineer certification regulation. The 
publication of this safety advisory should not be viewed as FRA 
endorsement of any particular aspect of the RSAC recommendations nor 
prejudging the eventual course of action which FRA may follow after 
carefully reviewing the RSAC recommendation. This safety advisory is 
intended to encourage all parties to carefully examine their current 
practices and, where appropriate, modify those practices to further 
reduce the risk of an accident or injury.
    FRA anticipates that, when an NPRM may be issued, these and other 
RSAC recommendations addressing locomotive engineer certification will 
be the subject of public comment. These comments will be considered in 
the development of the final rule. As an example, even among members of 
the advisory committee who helped shape the consensus recommendations, 
FRA understands that some members would prefer to see that locomotive 
engineers be banned from wearing chromatic lenses during any color 
vision testing and any operation of a train or locomotive. This issue 
will be the subject of further discussion following completion of the 
public comment period.

Recommendation Details

RSAC Recommended That

    a. FRA create an obligation for each certified locomotive engineer 
to notify his or her employing railroad's medical department or, if no 
such department exists, an appropriate railroad official, if the 
person's best correctable vision or hearing has deteriorated to the 
extent that the person no longer meets one or more of the prescribed 
vision or hearing standards or requirements of 49 CFR part 240;
    b. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
have a current copy of 49 CFR part 240, including all appendices, and 
request that their medical examiners review the medical requirements;
    c. Each railroad should remind all of their medical examiners who 
perform testing pursuant to 49 CFR 240.121 that the visual acuity tests 
should be conducted in accordance with the directions supplied by the 
manufacturer of the chosen test instruments and any American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards that are applicable;
    d. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
know that no person shall be allowed to wear chromatic lenses during an 
initial test of the person's color vision; the initial test is one 
conducted in accordance with one of the accepted tests. Chromatic 
lenses may be worn in accordance with any subsequent testing if 
permitted by the medical examiner and the railroad;
    e. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
know that railroad signals do not always occur in the same sequence and 
that testing procedures must take that fact into account;
    f. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
know that ``yellow signals'' do not always appear to be the same;
    g. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
know that it is not acceptable to use ``yarn'' or other materials to 
conduct a simple test to determine whether the certification candidate 
has the requisite vision;
    h. Each railroad should require that its medical examiners retest 
and further evaluate any locomotive engineer who reports a 
deteriorating vision condition or, upon request, an examinee who fails 
to meet the rule's articulated vision standards. The railroad's medical 
examiner will be expected to review all pertinent information and, 
under some circumstances, must condition certification on any special 
restrictions the medical examiner determines in writing to be 
necessary, e.g., restrict an examinee who does not meet the criteria 
from operating a locomotive or train at night, during adverse weather 
conditions, or outside of a yard. This decision should not be made 
until after consultation with one of the railroad's designated 
supervisors of locomotive engineers;
    i. Each railroad should ensure that all of their medical examiners 
know that engineers who wear contact lenses should have good tolerance 
to the lenses and should be instructed to have a pair of corrective 
glasses available when on duty; and
    j. Each railroad should ensure that when a person is tested 
pursuant to 49 CFR 240.121, the person has the ability to recognize and 
distinguish between the colors of railroad signals as demonstrated by 
successfully completing one of the tests specified in the table below. 
Each railroad should clearly explain to the medical examiners 
conducting such tests that the key is being able to distinguish among 
railroad signals; without such a clarification, medical examiners 
unfamiliar with the railroad environment might focus their attention on 
colors that do not appear as railroad signals.
    k. Each railroad should ensure that medical examiners conducting 
tests to determine visual acuity adhere to the following guidance when 
administering the vision acuity requirements of 49 CFR 240.121 and 
240.207. Select a testing methodology only from the following testing 
protocols which are deemed acceptable testing methods for determining 
whether a person has the ability to recognize and distinguish among the 
colors used as signals in the railroad industry. The acceptable test 
methods are shown in the left hand column and the criteria that should 
be employed to determine whether a person has failed the particular 
testing protocol are shown in the right hand column. Successful 
completion of one of these tests should be required, but requiring 
successful completion of multiple tests is discouraged since it would 
most likely be redundant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Accepted tests                                          Failure criteria                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Pseudoisochromatic Plate Tests                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Optical Company 1965.......  5 or more errors on plates 1-15.                                          
AOC--Hardy-Rand-Ritter plates--       Any error on plates 1-6 (plates 1-4 are for demonstration--test plate 1 is
 second edition.                       actually plate 5 in book).                                               
Dvorine--Second edition.............  3 or more errors on plates 1-15.                                          

[[Page 29300]]

                                                                                                                
Ishihara (14 plate).................  2 or more errors on plates 1-11.                                          
Ishihara (16 plate).................  2 or more errors on plates 1-8.                                           
Ishihara (24 plate).................  3 or more errors on plates 1-15.                                          
Ishihara (38 plate).................  4 or more errors on plates 1-21.                                          
Richmond Plates 1983................  5 or more errors on plates 1-15.                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Multifunction Vision Tester                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone Orthoscope.................  Any error.                                                                
OPTEC 2000..........................  Any error.                                                                
Titmus Vision Tester................  Any error.                                                                
Titmus II Vision Tester.............  Any error.                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald M. Itzkoff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-14010 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P