57234 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices

very adequate to insure the required

level of safety. The basis for this is that

there is compelling evidence to show

the efficacy of a 3-year window. This

evidence is taken from the earlier Vision

Waiver Program where the driving

record in the most recent 3 years was

used to screen all applicants to that

program. That program existed from

July 1992 until March 1996 and, during

that period, those holding waivers had

an accident rate of 1.902 accidents per

million miles driven. In the comparable

period, the national accident rate for

large trucks was 2.348 (General

Estimates System; 1992–1995, a

database managed by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

These data verify that a 3-year screening

period ensures the required safety level

for almost 4 years after application. This

is sufficient for safety in a 2-year

exemption period where the recipient

must renew his or her exemption using

a new, most recent 3-year driving

record. The process used in the

exemption program is even more

rigorous than that used in the waiver

program. If drivers have an accident in

an exemption period for which they

receive a citation or are a contributing

factor, they will be ineligible to renew

their exemption. Under this framework,

the exemption program is even more

conservative than the Vision Waiver

Program which clearly demonstrated its

acceptable level of safety.

Notwithstanding the FMCSA’s

ongoing review of the vision standard,

as evidenced by the medical panel’s

report dated October 16, 1998, and filed

in this docket, the FMCSA must comply

with Rauenhorst v. United States

Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, 95 F.3d 715

(8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual

exemptions under standards that are

consistent with public safety. Meeting

those standards, the 56 veteran drivers

in this case have demonstrated to our

satisfaction that they can continue to

operate a CMV with their current vision

safely in interstate commerce because

they have demonstrated their ability in

intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they

qualify for an exemption under 49

U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).

Conclusion

After considering the comments to the

docket and based upon its evaluation of

the 56 exemption applications in

accordance with the Rauenhorst

decision, the FMCSA exempts John W.

Arnold, James H. Bailey, Victor F. Brast,

Jr., John P. Brooks [published as James

P. Brooks in the Notice of Intent on

April 14, 2000], Robert W. Brown,

Benny J. Burke, Derric D. Burrell,

Anthony J. Cesternino, Ronald W. Coe,

Sr., Richard A. Corey, James A. Creed,

William G. Croy, Craig E. Dorrance,

Willie P. Estep, Duane H. Eyre, James

W. Frion, Lee Gallmeyer, Shawn B.

Gaston, James F. Gereau, Rodney M.

Gingrich, Esteban Gerardo Gonzalez,

Harlan Lee Gunter, Thanh Van Ha,

James O. Hancock, Paul A. Harrison,

Joseph H. Heidkamp, Jr., Thomas J.

Holtmann, Larry D. Johnson, Gary

Killian, Marvin L. Kiser, Jr., David R.

Lambert, James R. Lanier, James Stanley

Lewis, Newton Heston Mahoney,

Ronald L. Martsching, Duane D. Mims,

James A. Mohr, William A. Moore,

Leonard James Morton, Timothy W.

Noble, Kevin J. O’Donnell, John W.

Robbins, Jr., Doyle R. Roundtree, David

L. Slack, Everett J. Smeltzer, Philip

Smiddy, James C. Smith, Terry L. Smith,

James N. Spencer, Teresa Mary Steeves,

Roger R. Strehlow, Timothy W.

Strickland, John T. Thomas, Darel E.

Thompson, Ralph A. Thompson, and

Kevin Wayne Windham from the vision

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),

subject to the following conditions: (1)

That each individual be physically

examined every year (a) by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the vision in the better eye

continues to meet the standard in 49

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical

examiner who attests that the individual

is otherwise physically qualified under

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s

or optometrist’s report to the medical

examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (3) that each

individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for

retention in its driver qualification file,

or keep a copy in his/her driver

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a

copy of the certification when driving so

it may be presented to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315

and 31136(e), each exemption will be

valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier

by the FMCSA. The exemption will be

revoked if (1) the person fails to comply

with the terms and conditions of the

exemption; (2) the exemption has

resulted in a lower level of safety than

was maintained before it was granted; or

(3) continuation of the exemption would

not be consistent with the goals and

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.

If the exemption is still effective at the

end of the 2-year period, the person may

apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under

procedures in effect at that time.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136;

49 CFR 1.73.

Issued on: September 18, 2000.

Julie Anna Cirillo,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–24396 Filed 9–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. 2000–7165]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt 60 individuals from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10).

DATES: September 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the vision

exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra

Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck

Standards and Operations, (202) 366–

2987; for information about legal issues

related to this notice, Ms. Judith

Rutledge, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202) 366–2519, FMCSA, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at

(202) 512–1661. Internet users may

reach the Federal Register’s home page

at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the

Government Printing Office’s web page

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. 

Background

Sixty-three individuals petitioned the

FMCSA for an exemption of the vision

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices 57235

which applies to drivers of commercial

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate

commerce. They are Elijah Allen, Jr.,

Charles Leon Baney, Walter F. Blair,

Jullie A. Bolster, Gary Bryan, Timothy

John Bryant,Thomas A. Burke, Monty

Glenn Calderon, Ronald Lee Carpenter,

Charles Casey Chapman, Milton

Coleman, David Earl Corwin, Adam D.

Craig, Eric L. Dawson, III, Richard L.

Derick, Joseph A. Dunlap, John C.

Edwards, Jr., Calvin J. Eldridge, Ronald

G. Ellwanger, Marcellus Albert Garland,

George J. Ghigliotty, Ronald E. Goad,

Steven F. Grass, Randolph D. Hall,

Reginald I. Hall, Sherman William

Hawk Jr., Daniel J. Hillman, Gordon

William Howell, Roger Louis Jacobson,

Robert C. Jeffres, Alfred C. Jewell, Jr.,

Anton R. Kibler, James Alonzo Kneece,

Ronnie L LeMasters, Samuel Joseph

Long, Steven G. Luther, Lewis V.

McNeice, Barry B. Morgan, Richard

O’Neal, Jr., Dewey Owens, Jr., Richard

E. Perry, Douglas McArthur Potter,

Gregory Martin Preves, James M.

Rafferty, Paul C. Reagle, Sr., Glenn E.

Robbins, Daniel Salinas, Salvador

Sarmiento, Wayne Richard Sears, Garry

R. Setters, Hoyt M. Shamblin, Lee

Russell Sidwell, Jesse M. Sikes, Harold

A. Sleesman, James E. Smith, Daniel A

Sohn, Denney Vern Traylor, Noel Stuart

Wangerin, Brian W. Whitmer, Jeffrey D.

Wilson, Joseph F. Wood, William E.

Woodhouse, and Rick A. Young. Under

49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a

renewable 2-year period if it finds ‘‘such

exemption would likely achieve a level

of safety that is equivalent to, or greater

than, the level that would be achieved

absent such exemption.’’ Accordingly,

the FMCSA evaluated the petitions on

their merits and made a preliminary

determination that the waivers should

be granted. On May 23, 2000, the agency

published notice of its preliminary

determination and requested comments

from the public (65 FR 33406). The

comment period closed on June 22,

2000. One comment was received, and

its content was carefully considered by

the FMCSA in reaching the final

decision to grant the petitions.

The FMCSA has not made a decision

on three applicants (Gary Bryan, Steven

F. Grass and Glenn E. Robbins).

Subsequent to the publication of the

preliminary determination, the agency

received additional information from its

check of these applicants’ motor vehicle

records, and we are evaluating that

information. A decision on these three

petitions will be made in the future.

Vision and Driving Experience of the

Applicants

The vision requirement provides:

A person is physically qualified to drive a

commercial motor vehicle if that person has

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen) in each eye without corrective

lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to

20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective

lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/

40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without

corrective lenses, field of vision of at least

70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye,

and the ability to recognize the colors of

traffic signals and devices showing standard

red, green, and amber. 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

Since 1992, the FHWA has

undertaken studies to determine if this

vision standard should be amended.

The final report from our medical panel

recommends changing the field of

vision standard from 70° to 120°, while

leaving the visual acuity standard

unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D.,

Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul

Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg,

M.D., ‘‘Visual Requirements and

Commercial Drivers,’’ October 16, 1998,

filed in the docket). The panel’s

conclusion supports the FMCSA’s (and

previously the FHWA’s) view that the

present standard is reasonable and

necessary as a general standard to

ensure highway safety. The FMCSA also

recognizes that some drivers do not

meet the vision standard, but have

adapted their driving to accommodate

their vision limitation and demonstrated

their ability to drive safely.

The 60 applicants fall into this

category. They are unable to meet the

vision standard in one eye for various

reasons, including amblyopia, retinal

detachment, macular and corneal

scarring, ocular histoplasmosis and loss

of an eye due to trauma. In most cases,

their eye conditions were not recently

developed. Over half of the applicants

were either born with their vision

impairments or have had them since

childhood. The other individuals who

sustained their vision conditions as

adults have had them for periods

ranging from 5 to 32 years.

Although each applicant has one eye

which does not meet the vision standard

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at

least 20/40 corrected vision in the other

eye and, in a doctor’s opinion, can

perform all the tasks necessary to

operate a CMV. The doctors’ opinions

are supported by the applicants’

possession of a valid commercial

driver’s license (CDL). Before issuing a

CDL, States subject drivers to

knowledge and performance tests

designed to evaluate their qualifications

to operate the CMV. All these applicants

satisfied the testing standards for their

State of residence. By meeting State

licensing requirements, the applicants

demonstrated their ability to operate a

commercial vehicle, with their limited

vision, to the satisfaction of the State.

The Federal interstate qualification

standards, however, require more.

While possessing a valid CDL, these

60 drivers have been authorized to drive

a CMV in intrastate commerce even

though their vision disqualifies them

from driving in interstate commerce.

They have driven CMVs with their

limited vision for careers ranging from

5 to 49 years. In the past 3 years, the 60

drivers had three convictions for traffic

violations among them. Three drivers

were involved in accidents in their

CMVs, but there were no injuries and

none of the CMV drivers received a

citation. The drivers were convicted of

two moving traffic violations, one of

them was for speeding and one was for

‘‘Traffic Control Device.’’

The qualifications, experience, and

medical condition of each applicant

were stated and discussed in detail in a

May 23, 2000, notice (65 FR 33406).

Since the docket comments did not

focus on the specific merits or

qualifications of any applicant, we have

not repeated the individual profiles

here. Our summary analysis of the

applicants as a group, however, is

supported by the information published

at 65 FR 33406.

Basis for Exemption Determination

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),

the FMCSA may grant an exemption

from the vision standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely

to achieve an equivalent or greater level

of safety than would be achieved

without the exemption. Without the

exemption, applicants will continue to

be restricted to intrastate driving. With

the exemption, applicants can drive in

interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis

focuses on whether an equal or greater

level of safety is likely to be achieved by

permitting these drivers to drive in

interstate commerce as opposed to

restricting them to driving in intrastate

commerce.

To evaluate the effect of these

exemptions on safety, the FMCSA

considered not only the medical reports

about the applicants’ vision, but also

their driving records and experience

with the vision deficiency. Recent

driving performance is especially

important in evaluating future safety

according to several research studies

designed to correlate past and future

driving performance. Results of these

studies support the principle that the

best predictor of future performance by

a driver is his/her past record of

accidents and traffic violations. Copies

of the studies have been added to the

docket.

57236 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices

We believe we can properly apply the

principle to monocular drivers because

data from the vision waiver program

clearly demonstrate the driving

performance of experienced monocular

drivers in the program is better than that

of all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61

FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). That

experienced monocular drivers with

good driving records in the waiver

program demonstrated their ability to

drive safely supports a conclusion that

other monocular drivers, meeting the

same qualifying conditions to those

required by the waiver program, are also

likely to have adapted to their vision

deficiency and will continue to operate

safely.

The first major research correlating

past and future performance was done

in England by Greenwood and Yule in

1920. Subsequent studies, building on

that model, concluded that accident

rates for the same individual exposed to

certain risks for two different time

periods vary only slightly. (See Bates

and Neyman, University of California

Publications in Statistics, April 1952.)

Other studies demonstrated theories of

predicting accident proneness from

accident history coupled with other

factors. These factors, such as age, sex,

geographic location, mileage driven and

conviction history, are used every day

by insurance companies and motor

vehicle bureaus to predict the

probability of an individual

experiencing future accidents. (See

Weber, Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate

Potential: An Application of Multiple

Regression Analysis of a Poisson

Process,’’ Journal of American Statistical

Association, June 1971). A 1964

California Driver Record Study prepared

by the California Department of Motor

Vehicles concluded that the best overall

accident predictor for both concurrent

and nonconcurrent events is the number

of single convictions. This study used 3

consecutive years of data, comparing the

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years

with their experiences in the final year.

Applying principles from these

studies to the past 3-year record of the

60 applicants, we note that

cumulatively the applicants have had

only three accidents and two traffic

violation in the last 3 years. None of the

accidents resulted in bodily injury or

issuance of a citation against the

applicant. The applicants achieved this

record of safety while driving with their

vision impairment, demonstrating the

likelihood that they have adapted their

driving skills to accommodate their

condition. As the applicants’ ample

driving histories with their vision

deficiencies are good predictors of

future performance, the FMCSA

concludes their ability to drive safely

can be projected into the future.

We believe applicants’ intrastate

driving experience provides an adequate

basis for predicting their ability to drive

safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate

driving, like interstate operations,

involves substantial driving on

highways on the interstate system and

on other roads built to interstate

standards. Moreover, driving in

congested urban areas exposes the

driver to more pedestrian and vehicular

traffic than exist on interstate highways.

Faster reaction to traffic and traffic

signals is generally required because

distances are more compact than on

highways. These conditions tax visual

capacity and driver response just as

intensely as interstate driving

conditions. The veteran drivers in this

proceeding have operated CMVs safely

under those conditions for at least 5

years, most for much longer. Their

experience and driving records lead us

to believe that each applicant is capable

of operating in interstate commerce as

safely as he or she has been performing

in intrastate commerce. Consequently,

the FMCSA finds that exempting

applicants from the vision standard in

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve

a level of safety equal to that existing

without the exemption. For this reason,

the agency will grant the exemptions for

the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.

31315 and 31136(e).

We recognize that the vision of an

applicant may change and affect his/her

ability to operate a commercial vehicle

as safely as in the past. As a condition

of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA

will impose requirements on the 60

individuals consistent with the

grandfathering provisions applied to

drivers who participated in the agency’s

vision waiver program.

Those requirements are found at 49

CFR 391.64(b) and include the

following: (1) That each individual be

physically examined every year (a) by

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the vision in the better eye

continues to meet the standard in 49

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical

examiner who attests that the individual

is otherwise physically qualified under

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s

or optometrist’s report to the medical

examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (3) that each

individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for

retention in its driver qualification file,

or keep a copy in his/her driver

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a

copy of the certification when driving so

it may be presented to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official.

Discussion of Comments

The FMCSA received one comment in

this proceeding. The comment was

considered and is discussed below.

The Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (AHAS) expresses opposition to

the FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions

from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs), including the

driver qualification standards.

Specifically, the AHAS: (1) asks the

agency to clarify the consistency of the

exemption application information, (2)

objects to the agency’s reliance on

conclusions drawn from the vision

waiver program, (3) raises procedural

objections to this proceeding, (4) claims

the agency has misinterpreted statutory

language on the granting of exemptions

(49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)), and

finally, (5) suggests that a recent

Supreme Court decision affects the legal

validity of vision exemptions.

The issues raised by the AHAS were

addressed at length in 64 FR 51568

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January

3, 2000), and a Final Determination for

56 drivers, FMCSA Docket No.2000–

7006, also published in today’s Federal

Register. We will not address these

points again herein but refer interested

parties to those earlier discussions for

reasons why the points were rejected.

Notwithstanding the FMCSA’s

ongoing review of the vision standard,

as evidenced by the medical panel’s

report dated October 16, 1998, and filed

in this docket, the FMCSA must comply

with Rauenhorst v. United States

Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, 95 F.3d 715

(8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual

exemptions under standards that are

consistent with public safety. Meeting

those standards, the 60 veteran drivers

in this case have demonstrated to our

satisfaction that they can continue to

operate a CMV with their current vision

safely in interstate commerce because

they have demonstrated their ability in

intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they

qualify for an exemption under 49

U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).

Conclusion

After considering the comments to the

docket and based upon its evaluation of

the 60 waiver applications in

accordance with the Rauenhorst

decision, the FMCSA exempts Elijah

Allen, Jr., Charles Leon Baney, Walter F.

Blair, Jullie A. Boster, Timothy John

Bryant, Thomas A. Burke, Monty Glenn

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices 57237

Calderon, Ronald Lee Carpenter, Charles

Casey Chapman, Milton Coleman, David

Earl Corwin, Adam D. Craig, Eric L.

Dawson, III, Richard L. Derick, Joseph

A. Dunlap, John C. Edwards, Jr., Calvin

J. Eldridge, Ronald G. Ellwanger,

Marcellus Albert Garland, George J.

Ghigliotty, Ronald E. Goad, Randolph D.

Hall, Reginald I. Hall, Sherman William

Hawk, Jr., Daniel J. Hillman, Gordon

William Howell, Roger Louis Jacobson,

Robert C. Jeffres, Alfred C. Jewell, Jr.,

Anton R. Kibler, James Alonzo Kneece,

Ronnie L. LeMasters, Steven G. Luther,

Samuel Joseph Long, Lewis V. McNeice,

Barry B. Morgan, Richard O’Neal, Jr.,

Dewey Owens, Jr., Richard E. Perry,

Douglas McArthur Potter, Gregory

Martin Preves, James M. Rafferty, Paul

C. Reagle, Sr., Daniel Salinas, Salvador

Sarmiento, Wayne Richard Sears, Garry

R. Setters, Hoyt M. Shamblin, Lee

Russell Sidwell, Jesse M. Sikes, Harold

A. Sleesman, James E. Smith, Daniel A.

Sohn, Denny Vern Traylor, Noel Stuart

Wangerin, Brian W. Whitmer, Jeffrey D.

Wilson, Joseph F. Wood, William E.

Woodhouse, and Rick A. Young from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10), subject to the following

conditions: (1) That each individual be

physically examined every year (a) by

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the vision in the better eye

continues to meet the standard in 49

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical

examiner who attests that the individual

is otherwise physically qualified under

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s

or optometrist’s report to the medical

examiner at the time of the annual

medical examination; and (3) that each

individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for

retention in its driver qualification file,

or keep a copy in his/her driver

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a

copy of the certification when driving so

it may be presented to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315

and 31136(e), each exemption will be

valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier

by the FMCSA. The exemption will be

revoked if (1) the person fails to comply

with the terms and conditions of the

exemption; (2) the exemption has

resulted in a lower level of safety than

was maintained before it was granted; or

(3) continuation of the exemption would

not be consistent with the goals and

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.

If the exemption is still effective at the

end of the 2-year period, the person may

apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under

procedures in effect at that time.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136;

49 CFR 1.73.

Issued on: September 18, 2000.

Julie Anna Cirillo,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–24397 Filed 9–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA 2000–7912]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance;

Union Pacific Railroad; Waiver Petition

In accordance with Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections

211.9 and 211.41, notice is hereby given

that the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) has received from

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), a

Class I railroad, a request for waiver of

compliance with certain provisions of

the Federal Roadway Worker Protection

Standards, 49 CFR 214. The specific

sections of the Rule for which waiver is

sought are 49 CFR 214.329, Train

approach warning provided by

watchmen/lookouts, and 49 CFR

214.329, On-track safety procedures for

lone workers.

UP requests relief that will permit the

use of a system described by UP as the

automatic train approach warning

system (TAWS). UP proposes that

roadway work groups be permitted to

substitute TAWS for watchmen/

lookouts as the method of train

approach warning when fouling a track

within equipped interlockings and

controlled points. UP also proposes that

lone workers be permitted to use TAWS

as a method of train approach warning

within the limits of those interlockings

and controlled points without a

requirement to establish working limits.

FRA published, on December 16,

1996, a Final Rule amending 49 CFR

214 with the addition to it of the

Roadway Worker Protection Standards,

which became effective on January 15,

1997. The regulation mandates clearly

defined methods of protection against

moving trains and railroad equipment

for railroad employees who perform

certain maintenance and inspection

duties on and near railroad tracks. On

December 16, 1996, UP filed a petition

for waiver of certain provisions of that

Rule to permit the use of TAWS in place

of watchmen/lookouts. FRA

subsequently denied that petition,

docketed as WPS–97–1, without

prejudice, due to concerns over several

aspects of TAWS as it was then

configured. UP indicates that this

petition includes several enhancements

which are intended by UP to address

those concerns.

According to UP, the TAWS has been

in place at controlled points on much of

UP’s heaviest tonnage routes since 1978.

TAWS functions by illuminating a blue

rotating light and sounding an audible

alarm to alert roadway workers at least

one minute prior to the entry of a train

to an interlocking or controlled point. It

has become part of the UP standard

package at all new controlled points

installed on UP. UP states that there

have been no recorded instances of

failure of the TAWS to perform its

intended function.

UP avers that the TAWS, properly

utilized, is more effective than a

watchman/lookout, providing a longer

warning time and not being susceptible

to distraction or fatigue. Information

provided by UP indicates that the

TAWS is an integral part of the signal

and train control system, incorporating

the same level of reliability and

principles of fail-safe design.

UP has included with the petition a

set of detailed rules and instruction for

the operation and use of both types of

devices for the purpose of providing

warning of approaching trains to

roadway workers.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–

7912 and must be submitted to the DOT

Docket Management Facility, Room PL–

401 (Plaza level) 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Communications received within 30

days of the date of this notice will be

considered by FRA before final action is

taken. Comments received after that

date will be considered as far as

practicable. All written communications

concerning this proceeding are available

for examination during regular business

hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) at the above

facility. All documents in the public

docket are also available for inspection

and copying on the Internet at the

docket facility’s Web site at http://

dms.dot.gov.