Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29297

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee to discuss air carrier

operations issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June

10, 1998, at 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

Federal Aviation Administration,

Conference Room 9c, 800 Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Dwonna Johnson, Flight Standards

Service, Air Transportation Division

(AFS–200), 800 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202) 267–8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, 5 U.S.C. App II), notice is hereby

given of a meeting of the Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee to be

held on June 10, 1998. The agenda for

this meeting will include status reports

on the All Weather Operations Working

Group, the Fatigue Countermeasures

and Alertness Management Working

Group, the initiation of the Airplane

Performance Working Group, as well as

a discussion of the task on flight crew

reserve scheduling. Attendance is open

to the interested public but may be

limited by the space available. The

Members of the public must make

arrangements in advance to present oral

statements at the meeting or may

present written statements to the

committee at any time. Arrangements

may be made by contacting the person

listed under the heading FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Sign and oral interpretation can be

made available at the meeting, as well

as an assistive listening device, if

requested 10 calendar days before the

meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26,

1998.

Quentin J. Smith,

Assistant Executive Director for Air Carrier

Operations, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–14271 Filed 5–26–98; 1:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Impose and Use the Revenue From

a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

San Diego International-Lindbergh

Field, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) proposes to rule

and invites public comment on the

application to use, and impose and use

the revenue from a PFC at San Diego

International-Lindbergh Field under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–

508 as recodified by Title 49 U.S.C.

40117 (c)(3)) and 14 CFR, Part 158.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Airports Division, 15000

Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Ms. Thella F. Bowens,

Senior Director, Aviation, San Diego

Unified Port District, P.O. Box 488, San

Diego, CA 92112–0488.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies or written comments

previously provided to the San Diego

Unified Port District under section

158.23 of FAR Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John P. Milligan, Supervisor

Standards Section, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261, Telephone: (310) 725–3621. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at San

Diego International-Lindbergh Field

under the provisions of the Aviation

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–

508 as recodified by Title 49 U.S.C.

40117(c)(3)) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On March 26, 1998, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the San Diego Unified Port

District was substantially complete

within the requirements of section

158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than June

25, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application No. 98–02–C–00–SAN:

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date:

September 1, 2000.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 1, 2002.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$26,504,000.

Brief description of the proposed

projects:

Impose and Use projects:

Replace passenger loading bridges;

upgrade East and West Terminals;

conduct airport long term study;

upgrade electronic information display

system; construct storm water/oil

separator system; establish temporary

commuter terminal; replace ARFF

vehicle; install air cargo apron lighting;

upgrade emergency alarm system;

modify pedestrian access—West

Terminal; construct East Terminal

pedestrian bridge; construct high-speed

exit taxiway B7; consolidate air cargo

operations along Taxiway B7 including

additional apron pads and lighting; pave

Taxiway D fillets; install blast deflectors

for Taxiways B2, B3, and D; establish an

emergency operations center; and

residential sound attenuation program.

Use projects:

Demolish former US Air hangar

building; and upgrade Gates 20 and 22

in the West Terminal.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: FAR Part 135

Air Taxis.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any

person may, upon request, inspect the

application, notice and other documents

germane to the application, in person at

the San Diego Unified Port District

Building.

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on May

21, 1998.

Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 98–14270 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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.
29298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

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 nonregulatory 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 §§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 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—second edition ............................................................. Any error on plates 1–6 (plates 1–4 are for demonstration—test plate 1 is actually plate 5 in book).

Dvorine—Second edition ................................................................................................... 3 or more errors on plates 1–15.
29300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

Accepted tests Failure criteria

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