
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73122-73128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29640]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 240 and 242

[Docket No. FRA-2015-0123]


Best Practices for Designing Vision Field Tests for Locomotive 
Engineers or Conductors

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

ACTION: Interim interpretation with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this interim interpretation to clarify 
provisions in its locomotive engineer and conductor qualification and 
certification regulations with respect to vision standards and testing. 
In particular, this document addresses further evaluation of persons 
who do not meet the vision threshold criteria provided for in those 
regulations, and provides best practices guidance for designing valid, 
reliable, and comparable vision field tests for assessing whether 
persons who do not meet those thresholds can perform safely as 
locomotive engineers and conductors.

DATES: Written comments on the interpretation must be received on or 
before January 25, 2016. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense 
or delay.

ADDRESSES: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2015-0123 may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any 
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by 
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the 
privacy notice of regulations.gov or interested parties may review 
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published 
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of any written communications and comments received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT 
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT 
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information 
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy. See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. B.J. Arseneau, Medical Director, 
FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6232; 
Alan Nagler, Senior Trial Attorney, FRA, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail 
Stop 10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-
6049; or Joseph D. Riley, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA, Mail Stop 
25, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6318.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FRA is issuing this interim interpretation to clarify provisions in 
its locomotive engineer and conductor qualification and certification 
regulations related to further evaluation of persons who do not meet 
the vision threshold criteria in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 240.121(c) and 242.117(h), and to provide best-practices guidance 
for designing valid, reliable, and comparable vision field tests, in 
response to: (1) The fatal railroad accident that occurred near 
Goodwell, OK, on June 24, 2012; (2) inquiries FRA has received 
requesting clarification of the applicable regulatory provisions; and 
(3) numerous requests for FRA review, under the locomotive engineer and 
conductor certification regulations, when individuals have been denied 
recertification by a railroad based on a color vision or monocular 
vision deficiency.

A. Railroad Accident Near Goodwell, OK

    The fatal accident that occurred near Goodwell, in which two Union 
Pacific Railroad (UP) trains collided head-on, exemplifies how 
important it is to railroad safety that each railroad establish valid, 
reliable, and comparable procedures to evaluate persons who do not meet 
the vision thresholds in 49 CFR 240.121(c) or 242.117(h), and to 
strictly adhere to those procedures. The

[[Page 73123]]

locomotive engineer and conductor of the eastbound train and the 
engineer of the westbound train were killed. Three locomotives and 24 
cars of the eastbound train and 2 locomotives and 8 cars of the 
westbound train derailed. Several fuel tanks from the derailed 
locomotives were ruptured, releasing diesel fuel that ignited and 
burned. Damage was estimated at $14.8 million. The National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that one of several 
probable causes of the accident was the eastbound engineer's inability 
to visually detect and recognize the approach and stop signal aspects 
of wayside railroad signals due to color vision deficiency and distant 
visual acuity impairment the engineer had acquired as a result of a 
number of chronic, progressive eye conditions and visual 
disturbances.\1\
    During its investigation of the Goodwell accident, the NTSB found 
that: (1) The eastbound engineer last underwent vision testing required 
for recertification in 2009; (2) during that testing, the eastbound 
engineer failed an initial color vision test (i.e., the Ishihara Color 
Vision Test \2\) that UP selected from the list of color vision test 
protocols in 49 CFR part 240, Appendix F, and did not meet the distant 
visual acuity threshold (corrected) in 49 CFR 240.121(c); (3) UP relied 
on a vision field test of unknown validity, reliability, and 
comparability \3\ in further evaluating the engineer and did not adhere 
to UP's field test protocol; (4) UP relied on a telephonic report of 
distant visual acuity testing from the engineer's optometrist in 
recertifying the engineer, and did not adhere to UP's own policy which 
required UP to obtain written documentation from the engineer's 
optometrist to confirm the telephonic report; and (5) UP failed to 
reevaluate the engineer's vision within one year of his 2009 
recertification despite the UP medical examiner's written determination 
that it was necessary to reevaluate the engineer's vision within one 
year, rather than triennially, due to the engineer's chronic, 
progressive eye conditions. The NTSB concluded that had the engineer 
been reevaluated by UP the following year or when he self-reported his 
test results, the collision might have been avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Transportation Safety Board Railroad Accident 
Report NTSB/RAR-13-02 (adopted June 18, 2013). Head-On Collision of 
Two Union Pacific Railroad Freight Trains Near Goodwell, Oklahoma, 
June 24, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1302.pdf on Dec. 2, 2014.
    \2\ S. Ishihara, Tests for colour-blindness (Handaya, Tokyo, 
Hongo Harukicho, 1917).
    \3\ The NTSB did not define the terms ``validity,'' 
``reliability,'' and ``comparability'' or indicate what might 
constitute a valid, reliable, and comparable field test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Color Vision Deficiency, Monocular Vision and Other Eye Conditions 
and Visual Disturbance

    As indicated in the NTSB's report on the Goodwell accident, there 
are numerous eye conditions, including color vision deficiency and 
monocular vision, which can affect a person's ability to safely perform 
as a locomotive engineer or conductor. The American Optometric 
Association defines ``color vision deficiency'' as the inability to 
distinguish certain shades of color, or in more severe cases, see 
colors at all. The term ``color blindness'' is also used to describe 
this visual condition, but very few people are completely color-blind. 
People who have complete color-blindness, a condition called 
achromatopsia, can only see things as black and white or in shades of 
gray. The severity of color vision deficiency can range from mild to 
severe. ``Red-green'' is the most common deficiency. Another form of 
color deficiency is ``blue-yellow.'' The latter is a rare and more 
severe form of color vision deficiency since persons with blue-yellow 
deficiency frequently have red-green deficiency too. Color vision 
deficiency can be inherited. About 8 percent of Caucasian males are 
born with some degree of color deficiency. Women are typically 
asymptomatic if they are carriers of the color deficient gene (i.e., 
women are carriers of the gene without suffering with color vision 
deficiency), though approximately 0.5 percent of women have color 
vision deficiency. People can also acquire a color vision deficiency as 
a result of certain types of medical conditions, a side-effect of 
certain medications, and certain eye injuries. Examples of eye 
conditions that can cause an acquired color-vision deficiency include, 
but are not limited to, diabetes, glaucoma, macular degeneration, 
multiple sclerosis, chronic alcoholism, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, 
syphilis, or other conditions resulting in optic nerve damage or 
inflammation. Examples of medications that can sometimes cause adverse 
effects that result in color-vision deficiency include, but are not 
limited to, certain medications used to treat heart problems, high 
blood pressure, infections, and nervous disorders.
    There are many other eye conditions and visual disturbances other 
than color-vision deficiency. Examples of these problems and 
disturbances include halos, blurred vision (i.e., the loss of sharpness 
of vision and the inability to see fine details), and blind spots or 
scotomas (i.e., dark ``holes'' in the vision in which nothing can be 
seen, and loss of use of one eye, commonly called ``monocular 
vision''). The degree to which these conditions and disturbances can 
affect a person's ability to perform safely varies by individual, 
depending on the specific job duties a person performs as a certified 
locomotive engineer or conductor, the nature and severity of the 
condition, the degree to which the visual disturbance is corrected with 
treatment, and in certain cases, the degree to which a person can 
compensate for the disturbance. Persons with monocular vision can 
sometimes, on a case-by-case basis, compensate for a limited degree of 
peripheral vision field loss by head turning.

II. FRA's Interpretation

A. Requirement for Further Evaluation by the Railroad's Medical 
Examiner

    FRA's locomotive engineer and conductor qualification and 
certification rules do not require railroads to categorically 
disqualify or decertify individuals who do not meet the vision 
thresholds in 49 CFR 240.121(c) or 242.117(h) because they may have a 
color-vision, sub-threshold distance visual acuity, or field of vision 
(e.g., monocular vision) deficiency, if they are otherwise qualified. 
To the contrary, 49 CFR 240.121(e) and 242.117(e) require railroads to 
subject, upon request, persons who do not meet those thresholds to 
further medical evaluation by the railroad's medical examiner to 
determine whether the person can safely perform as a locomotive 
engineer or conductor. FRA's longstanding view is that there are some 
people who, despite not meeting the vision threshold in 49 CFR 
240.121(c) and 242.117(h), have sufficient residual visual capacity to 
safely perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor.
    The Railway Association of Canada (RAC) has published medical 
guidelines that are applicable to qualification and certification of 
locomotive engineers in Canada.\4\ FRA allows railroads to adopt the 
monocular vision criteria in the RAC's guidelines under the railroad's 
own authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Railway Association of Canada (2013), Canadian Medical Rules 
Handbook, pages 38, 43, 44, and 51. Retrieved from http://www.railcan.ca/publications/rule_handbook on March 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Vision Requirements to Safely Perform as a Locomotive Engineer or a 
Conductor

    Depending on their assigned responsibilities, a person generally 
must have sufficient distant visual acuity and

[[Page 73124]]

field of vision to see railroad signals and stationary and moving 
objects such as other locomotives, workers, and railroad equipment on 
or near the track, to perform safely as a locomotive engineer or 
conductor. Should a person perform as a locomotive engineer or 
conductor on portions of the railroad system on which colors of 
railroad signals convey information about speed, routing, or 
obstructions or other hazards, a person with that responsibility must 
additionally have sufficient color vision to safely perform.
    FRA recognizes that railroads may assign some employees the 
responsibility to recognize and distinguish color light railroad 
signals, but not other employees. For example, some passenger 
conductors may not have responsibility to recognize and distinguish 
between colors of railroad signals. FRA also recognizes that some 
locomotive engineers and conductors only perform service in unsignalled 
(i.e., dark) territory or in territories where they do not have 
responsibility to recognize and distinguish between one or more types 
of colored railroad signals (e.g., wayside color light signals, color-
position light signals, and blue flag signals). Although FRA's 
certification regulations require that both locomotive engineers and 
conductors be vision-tested, including color-vision, regardless of the 
actual operating or working conditions, a railroad's medical examiner 
should be cognizant of whether a person with a color-vision deficiency 
already works or could work safely in dark territory. Medical examiners 
should also keep in mind that even though a person may only work in 
dark territory, that person may still need to be able to identify 
colored items such as blue signals or roadway worker flags.

C. Use of Valid, Reliable, and Comparable Vision Tests

    There are many types of eye conditions and visual disturbances 
ranging in severity from very mild to severe and many types and designs 
of railroad signals and railroad operating rules. Accordingly, FRA's 
locomotive engineer and conductor qualification and certification rules 
grant railroad medical examiners discretion in determining the methods 
and procedures the medical examiner will use to further evaluate 
persons who do not meet the vision thresholds in 49 CFR 240.121(c) and 
242.117(h). In the 1991 final locomotive engineer certification rule, 
FRA stated that ``[m]edical discretion will allow railroads to respond 
appropriately when they encounter individuals who fail to meet FRA-
prescribed acuity levels, but demonstrate that they can compensate to a 
sufficient degree for their diminished acuity level.'' 56 FR 28228, 
28235; June 19, 1991. FRA granted railroad medical examiners similar 
discretion in further evaluating persons for the purposes of conductor 
qualification and certification. FRA states in its locomotive engineer 
and conductor certification rules that, should a person not meet 
specific vision thresholds, appropriate further evaluation may include 
optometric or ophthalmologic referral, or (secondary) testing with a 
field or other practical or scientific screening test. Although FRA's 
rules grant discretion to railroads in selecting a test protocol, FRA's 
longstanding interpretation of this provision is that the test offered 
by a railroad must be a valid, reliable, and comparable test for 
assessing whether a person who fails an initial vision test can safely 
perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor.
1. Field Tests
    A ``practical test,'' more commonly known as a ``field test'' 
within the railroad community, is a test performed outdoors under test 
conditions that reasonably match actual operating or working 
conditions. A railroad is permitted to conduct field testing on a 
moving train, positioned in a stationary locomotive, or standing on the 
ground at distances from a signal or other object that the person must 
see and recognize to perform safely as a locomotive engineer or 
conductor.
    Before issuing this interpretation, FRA contacted several 
organizations to collect information that would help in the development 
of recommended best practices for field tests, and FRA has captured 
that feedback in memoranda and documents it has placed in the docket. 
First, FRA wants to thank the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the 
American Optometric Association for providing expert medical 
information regarding testing and evaluating color perception during 
six conference calls held with FRA personnel. Second, FRA wants to 
thank the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and 
United Transportation Union-SMART Transportation Division for providing 
information and concerns regarding the strengths and weaknesses of 
current field testing practices, and asking that FRA find a way to 
encourage each railroad to conduct such field testing, during a 
conference call with FRA personnel. Third, FRA wants to thank the 
Association of American Railroads (AAR) for providing a written 
overview of the different practices currently used by various Class I 
railroads. AAR stated, in a July 14, 2015, Discussion on Color Vision 
Field Testing that field ``testing is, at the moment, the preferred way 
of determining whether an individual's unique set of deficits actually 
impacts performance.'' FRA provides best practices for designing valid, 
reliable, and comparable vision field tests in Section III, ``Best 
Industry Practices for Conducting Color Vision Field Testing'' of this 
interpretation.
2. Scientific Tests
    A scientific vision test is a test instrument that, based on the 
results of a rigorous scientific study published in a peer-reviewed 
scientific or medical journal or other publication, is a valid, 
reliable, and comparable test for assessing whether a person has 
sufficient distance visual acuity, field of vision, or color vision, 
which, for purposes or railroad operations, allows the person to safely 
perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor. Examples of such 
scientific screening tests include, but are not limited to, a 
simulator, the Ishihara test and other color plate tests, a perimetry 
test (i.e., a test of field of vision), and a Snellen or equivalent 
distance visual acuity test. Should a railroad offer a scientific test 
to further evaluate persons who fail an initial test, FRA expects the 
test to be a valid, reliable, and comparable test for assessing whether 
the person can safely perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor 
despite not meeting the specific vision threshold (i.e., distance 
visual acuity, field of vision, or color perception) in 240.121(c) or 
242.117(h). That means the railroad must be able to cite a rigorous 
scientific study published in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical 
publication that demonstrates the scientific test is a valid, reliable, 
and comparable test for that visual capacity. For example, Hovis and 
Oliphant, in 2000, published a validation test of a lantern test that 
they designed, the CNLAN lantern test. The authors rigorously validated 
the CNLAN lantern test in a peer-reviewed journal against a simulated 
field test with a high degree of content validity to show the CNLAN 
lantern test has a high degree of validity and reliability for 
assessing the ability to recognize and distinguish between aspects of 
color light railroad signals in Canada.\5\ Two major railroads in 
Canada use the CNLAN lantern test. Interested parties should note, 
however, that simply showing a person a lantern

[[Page 73125]]

with different colored lights displayed is certainly not the same as 
the CNLAN lantern test, which is a scientifically validated test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Hovis, J.K., and Oliphant, D., A Lantern Color Vision Test 
for the Rail Industry. American Journal of Internal Medicine, 
38:681-696 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Determining the Validity, Reliability, and Comparability of a Vision 
Test
    Validity means the degree to which a test actually measures what 
the test is intended to measure. For example, a color vision field test 
is valid to the degree that it assesses whether a person can recognize 
and distinguish between colors of the types of railroad signals in the 
yard or on all portions of railroad systems on which the person must 
perform safely, depending on the person's responsibilities. One way to 
estimate the validity of a test is to assess its degree of job-
relatedness (content validity). The degree to which a field test's 
conditions match actual operating conditions determines, to a large 
extent, its validity.
    Reliability means the degree of reproducibility of the test 
results. In this case, reproducibility means an examinee that is 
repeatedly administered the same test would demonstrate the same number 
of correct responses and missed signal responses each time the test is 
administered.
    Comparability means the testing procedures are fairly administered 
and the test results are uniformly recorded. When tests have 
comparability, it is fair to compare test results between individuals 
regardless of whether different testing officers, or different 
railroads, administered the test. Additionally, for a test to be 
comparable, the testing officer must administer the test without any 
bias or prejudice.

D. Optometric and Ophthalmologic Referral

    In addition to field and scientific tests, FRA's locomotive 
engineer qualification and certification regulations also permit 
optometric or ophthalmologic referral which can provide important 
information about the nature and severity of a person's eye condition 
or visual disturbance. The referral can also provide information about 
whether the vision condition is stable or should be monitored more 
frequently than triennially by the railroad's medical examiner because 
it is likely to worsen to a level that would make it unsafe to perform 
service prior to a certified employee's next triennial recertification 
evaluation.

E. Special Conditions of Certification (Restrictions)

    Sections 240.121(e) and 242.117(e) permit railroads to 
conditionally certify a person as a locomotive engineer or conductor if 
the railroad's medical examiner determines in writing that a special 
condition of certification is necessary on the basis of findings 
elicited on further evaluation of the person's vision. Examples of 
special conditions of certification include: (1) More frequent 
evaluation of an eye condition or visual disturbance by a railroad's 
medical examiner that will likely deteriorate prior to the person's 
next required triennial recertification examination to a level that the 
person may not be able to safely perform; (2) required use of 
corrective lenses (i.e., glasses or contact lenses) to correct distant 
visual acuity to a level that the person can safely perform as a 
locomotive engineer or conductor; (3) restriction to perform service 
only in unsignalled (dark) territory should a person be otherwise 
qualified but not have the ability to recognize and distinguish between 
colors of wayside railroad color light or color-position light signals; 
(4) restriction of service to unsignalled (dark) territory, or marking 
up for service only at night when there is greater brightness contrast 
between signals and the remainder of the operating environment, should 
a person demonstrate the ability to perform safely only under those 
operating conditions; or (5) restriction of service to performance in a 
yard or on portions of railroad systems where locomotives move at 
slower speeds, should a person be able to recognize and distinguish 
between colors of railroad signals at those slower speeds. There is 
research evidence that some individuals with color vision deficiency 
may be able to detect and recognize signal aspects at shorter sighting 
distance that exist in the yard or on portions of the railroad where 
locomotives move at slower speed to perform safely.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hovis, J.K., and Ramaswamy, S., The Effect of Test Distance 
on the CN Lantern Results. Visual Neuroscience, 23, 675-679 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Chromatic Lenses

    FRA's locomotive engineer and conductor certification rules do not 
permit examinees to use chromatic lenses when taking an initial test 
the railroad selects from the list of accepted color vision test 
protocols in the appendices to parts 240 and 242. Although examinees 
may not use chromatic lenses during an initial color vision test, FRA 
grants each railroad the discretion to determine whether it will permit 
examinees to use chromatic lenses during a secondary field or other 
practical or scientific test offered by a railroad to further evaluate 
his or her ability to perform safely. However, since the time FRA last 
amended part 240, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), issued the 
following cautionary information about the use of ChromaGen chromatic 
lenses: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Premarket Notification Device Clearance for ChromaGen lenses 
(510(k) No. 994320), Ophthalmic Devices Panel Meeting Summary for 
November 8, 2000, Food and Drug Administration, retrieved from 
http://www.fda.gov/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/medicaldevices/medicaldevicesadvisorycommittee/ophthalmicdevicespanel/ucm124831.htm on Dec. 2, 2014. See also 
Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: ChromaGen v2.0 Haploscope 
System, for Color Vision Enhancement (510(k) No. 994320), Department 
of Health & Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Oct. 20, 
2000, retrieved from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/k994320.pdf on Dec. 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. ChromaGen lenses do not help wearers to see ``new'' colors or to 
perceive or appreciate colors as people with normal color vision do, 
but merely add brightness/darkness or hue differences to colors that 
are otherwise difficult or impossible to distinguish;
    b. The ability to pass diagnostic color vision tests with ChromaGen 
lenses does not imply the ability to perform other color vision-related 
tasks. Therefore, ChromaGen lenses should not be used with diagnostic 
color vision tests to meet occupational performance requirements; and
    c. Persons using the darker shades of tint in their ChromaGen 
lenses may experience some or all of the following: Reduced 10W 
contrast acuity, reduced illumination at night, distortions in distance 
perception of moving objects or while driving, distortions of apparent 
velocity. Wearing darker lenses, especially at night, or under foggy, 
misty, or other adverse conditions, may make driving an automobile 
difficult.
    Based on FDA's findings, and the fact that railroads generally 
operate to a degree under similar environmental lighting and weather 
conditions as operating an automobile, FRA recommends that railroads 
take a conservative approach.
    Railroads should not permit locomotive engineers and conductors 
that have responsibility to recognize and distinguish between colors of 
railroad signals to safely perform as locomotive engineers and 
conductors until data from a valid, reliable, and comparable research 
study clearly establishes operating conditions when it is safe to use 
chromatic lenses for that purpose, and then restrict use to those 
operating conditions. Please note that both the FDA and FRA make a 
distinction between chromatic lenses and contact lenses manufactured to 
correct distant, intermediate, and near visual acuity that have a very 
light blue tint to aid the user

[[Page 73126]]

in locating, handling, and cleaning the contact lens. Railroads should 
not prohibit use of those blue-tinted contact lenses during testing and 
when performing as a locomotive engineer or conductor.

G. Documentation

    The railroad medical examiners are required by FRA certification 
regulations to document the basis for his or her decision that a person 
can or cannot safely perform as a locomotive engineer or conductor. 
This includes reports of testing, and should the examiner use 
optometric or ophthalmologic referral, the report of testing and 
evaluation from the optometrist or ophthalmologist.

H. Part 240 and 242 Program Descriptions

    FRA's locomotive engineer and conductor regulations require each 
railroad subject to those regulations to have a written visual testing 
program on file with FRA. Among other things, the certification program 
must include a railroad's procedure for evaluating the visual acuity of 
its locomotive engineers and conductors when those train crew members 
fail to meet the vision threshold criteria provided for in parts 240 
and 242. See 49 CFR 240.101, 240.121, 242.101, and 242.117; 49 CFR part 
240 Appendix F, and 49 CFR part 242 Appendix D. Such procedure is 
especially necessary to address situations where locomotive engineers 
and conductors have a history of safe performance that would normally 
suggest that they have the ability to safely perform their duties. A 
review of the programs on file with FRA, however, revealed that the 
railroads do not sufficiently describe their field testing procedures 
to allow FRA to determine whether those procedures are likely to 
produce valid, reliable, and comparable field tests. Thus, each 
railroad that utilizes field testing procedures should review the best 
practices provided in this interpretation and update its programs 
accordingly under part 240 and part 242.
    FRA considers this type of program modification to be a ``material 
modification'' requiring railroads to submit their revised programs to 
FRA for review and approval. See 49 CFR 240.103(e) and 242.103(i). 
Before implementing a change to its field testing procedures, a 
railroad must submit a description of how it intends to modify the 
procedures in its program. For part 240 programs, the description of 
the modification must be submitted to FRA at least 30 days prior to 
implementation. See 49 CFR 240.103(e). For part 242 programs, the 
description of the modification must be submitted to FRA at least 60 
days prior to implementation. See 49 CFR 242.103(i). The modified 
program is considered approved and may be implemented 30 days after 
being filed with FRA unless FRA notifies the railroad in writing that 
the program does not conform to the criteria set forth in parts 240 and 
242. To facilitate the submission of modified programs to FRA, 
railroads may submit both parts 240 and 242 programs electronically 
using the procedures described in Appendix B to Part 242 for 
``Submission by a Railroad.''

Attachment A. Best Industry Practices for Conducting Color Vision Field 
Testing

    The following best practices are intended to guide each railroad in 
designing, implementing, and scoring color vision field testing for 
locomotive engineer and conductor certification. They are broadly 
drafted to allow each railroad to develop field testing procedures that 
will work for its own operational environment and to consider the 
unique medical circumstances of each examinee tested. Furthermore, 
these best practices will guide railroads to establish best field 
testing practices. Of course, FRA recognizes and appreciates that some 
railroads already follow many of these best practices, and will readily 
adopt additional best practices that are viewed as making the field 
test more valid, reliable, and comparable. FRA encourages each railroad 
to consider adopting all best practices.
    (1) Standardize Test Procedures. The railroad's procedures for 
administering and scoring the test are standardized, and the railroad 
strictly adheres to the procedures established.
    (2) Qualified Supervisor Conducts the Test. The person 
administering and scoring the field test (testing officer) is qualified 
to supervise certified locomotive engineers or conductors, as 
appropriate, and has knowledge of the railroad's field testing 
procedures.
    (3) The Testing Officer's Vision Meets the Regulatory Medical 
Thresholds. For purposes of administering and scoring the field test, 
the testing officer meets the medical thresholds in 49 CFR 240.121(c) 
and 49 CFR 242.117(h).
    (4) Record the Test Results During Testing. The railroad uses a 
standard form or method to record all relevant information. For 
example, the railroad may design a field testing form that will prompt 
the testing officer to record administrative and test data information 
such as:
    a. The date and location of the test;
    b. The participants' names and contact information;
    c. The number of signals viewed;
    d. Which signals were incorrectly identified; and
    e. The aspects of each signal encountered.
    (5) Capture All Essential Data and Void Tests With Incomplete Data. 
The railroad should design any standard form or method used so the 
testing officer must record all relevant information in a manner 
ensuring that all essential standard procedures for testing have been 
followed. If a form is required, and it is missing essential data, the 
railroad must void the test.
    (6) Testing Officer Affirms Test Data Accurately Recorded. The 
railroad may gain an additional level of assurance by requiring the 
testing officer to sign an affirmation that the testing officer 
strictly adhered to the railroad's field testing procedures and that 
the data recorded was accurately documented.
    (7) Prior to Test, Inform the Examinee of the Test's Purpose and 
Procedures. Each railroad should standardize the procedures for 
informing the examinee of the purpose of the test, what the examinee is 
required to do during the test, and how test data will be documented 
and scored. For example, before the start of the test, the testing 
officer reads a set of instructions out loud and answers any questions. 
An example of an alternative or additional approach would be to provide 
a written explanation and test instructions directly to the examinee 
before the test, either as a separate document or at the top of a 
railroad's testing form. The railroad may consider it a timesaver to 
provide this information to the examinee before the test so less time 
is spent explaining the testing protocol on the day of the test.
    (8) Considerations When Examinee Wears Corrective Lenses. The 
examinee should be offered the opportunity to wear contact lenses or 
glasses prescribed by his or her optometrist or ophthalmologist to 
correct his or her distant visual acuity.
    a. Light Blue Tint May Be Acceptable. Please note that both the FDA 
and FRA make a distinction between chromatic/ChromaGen lenses and 
contact lenses manufactured to correct distant, intermediate, and near 
visual acuity that have a light blue tint added solely to aid the user 
in locating, handling, and cleaning the contact lens. Thus, use of 
contact lenses with this type of tinting should be permitted.
    b. Corrective Lenses Worn During Test Must Be Worn On-Duty, If 
Certified. The examinee should be warned that the use of any lenses or 
glasses during a passed

[[Page 73127]]

test will result in conditioning of the examinee's locomotive engineer 
or conductor certification on wearing those lenses or glasses.
    c. Notify Examinee, Preferably in Writing at Time of Test, What To 
Do If Corrective Lenses Are No Longer Needed In the Future. If an 
examinee's certification is conditioned on wearing lenses or glasses, 
the railroad should notify the examinee in writing that if the 
examinee's eyes improve, whether on their own or through corrective 
surgery, the examinee should immediately contact the relevant railroad 
official who can verify the improved vision and remove the restriction 
from the certificate and certification records. The railroad should 
consider including this information on the copy of the test form 
provided to the examinee.
    (9) Either Prohibit Examinees from Wearing Chromatic/ChromaGen 
Lenses or Understand Their Limitations and Proceed Accordingly. The FDA 
has issued cautionary information on the use of chromatic or ChromaGen 
lenses. Therefore, each railroad medical examiner should understand the 
limitations of these lenses before deciding whether to allow an 
examinee to wear them during a field test.
    (10) Consider Whether a Vision Condition Is Stable or 
Deteriorating. Both examinees with stable vision deficiency conditions 
and those with deteriorating vision may pass field tests, but that does 
not mean a railroad, or its medical examiner, should treat these 
examinees in the same manner. FRA's regulations permit a railroad's 
medical examiner to consider an examinee's known medical condition, and 
find that the person either cannot be trusted to operate safely given 
the volatility of the condition or recommend that the examinee's 
certification be conditioned on more frequent medical or field testing 
vision testing than the minimum FRA mandate of every 3 years.
    (11) Design Tests With Validity, Reliability, and Comparability.
    a. Validity to the Examinee's Expected Duties. The railroad should 
design the test so that the examinee is tested on railroad signal 
indications the examinee will be expected to recognize and comply with 
as part of the examinee's typical locomotive engineer or conductor 
duties. The railroad should require the testing officer to allow the 
examinee an attempt to recognize signal aspects or indications within 
the same timeframe, at the appropriate sight distances, as the examinee 
would be expected to recognize the signal under actual operating or 
working conditions. Because the field test conditions should reasonably 
match actual operating or working conditions, the test should be 
performed outdoors. The examinee may be either on a moving train, 
positioned in a stationary locomotive, or standing on the ground at 
distances from a signal or other object that the person must see and 
recognize to perform safely as a locomotive engineer or conductor.
    b. Assess Content Validity.
    i. Conduct Test On Actual Working Conditions. The railroad should 
generally administer the test over territories where the examinee has 
previously demonstrated knowledge of the physical characteristics and 
will continue to work, if certified. If this is not feasible or 
practical, the tests should generally be administered over territories 
where the examinee will be expected to work upon being certified or 
recertified, to the extent possible. Under all conditions, the tests 
should be administered to replicate actual operating conditions that 
the examinee will encounter as a certified locomotive engineer or 
conductor.
    ii. FRA Does Not Require System-Wide Certification, Restrictions 
Permitted. A railroad should not test the examinee on every possible 
railroad signal indication on the system if the examinee has previously 
been limited to yards, divisions, or other territories where the 
examinee would only encounter a subset of the types of signal 
indications found system-wide and the examinee has demonstrated a 
positive safety record. Moreover, the examinee's certification should 
be restricted to that limited work arrangement.
    iii. Consider Whether a Person Works in Dark Territory or is Not 
Required to Recognize Signals. Not all railroad employees are assigned 
responsibility by a railroad to recognize and distinguish colored 
railroad signals. For those employees, providing a field test that 
requires recognition of colored railroad signals would not be a valid 
test. Rather, the field test in that instance should focus on whether 
the employee can safely perform his or her duties. For example, the 
field test may require the employee to identify blue signals or roadway 
worker flags.
    iv. If Expanding Examinee's Actual Working Conditions, Provide 
Rationale. If a railroad intends to implement a system-wide type test 
for an examinee who has not previously worked system-wide, the railroad 
should provide its rationale for doing so. It is not acceptable for a 
railroad, or its medical examiner, to inform an examinee that the 
railroad must ignore a demonstrated positive safety record with a 
limited work arrangement because FRA's regulations apply a stricter 
standard, as that is not a true statement.
    c. Reliability.
    i. Signal Sequence Should Not Be Predictable. The railroad should 
consider the sequencing of railroad signal indications to remove the 
likelihood that an examinee could pass the test by predicting each 
signal with an educated guess. For instance, signals that predictably 
follow a particular sequence familiar to the examinee should be 
avoided. A qualified supervisor should know where these sequenced 
signal indications may occur and either avoid them for testing purposes 
or arrange for them to display an uncharacteristically different 
sequence of signal indications.
    ii. Remove Chance Guesses By Testing Each Signal Multiple Times. 
The railroad should consider the number of signal indications viewed to 
remove the likelihood that an examinee could pass the test by chance 
guess. Statistics suggest that a minimum of 3 to 6 repetitions of the 
same signal indication may be necessary to avoid the chance that an 
examinee can pass with guesses. A railroad may certainly consider 
additional repetitions of a signal indication if it is designed to 
probe an examinee's ability to correctly identify signal aspects that a 
person with the examinee's known color vision deficiency is likely to 
confuse with another aspect.
    iii. Signal Aspects Must Be Actual Signals or Similar, And In Good 
Working Condition. The blue flag, sign, or signal light used in testing 
must be of similar size and chromaticity \8\ to the actual signal the 
person must recognize to safely perform locomotive engineer or 
conductor duties. For example, an unacceptable field testing practice 
is use of colored light bulbs that do not have similar size, 
chromaticity, and transmittance as colored lenses of railroad signals 
on the railroad systems on which the examinee is expected to perform as 
a locomotive engineer or conductor. Another unacceptable field testing 
practice is use of a railroad signal that has an incandescent light 
source to test an examinee on a safety-critical signal aspect that 
would typically be displayed by a signal with an LED light source. 
Similarly, it would

[[Page 73128]]

be unacceptable to conduct a test with a well-worn, faded blue flag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Chromaticity means the colors (single or multiple) of light 
emitted by a railroad color-light signal or color-position light 
signal, specified as x-y or x and y chromaticity coordinates on the 
chromaticity diagram according to the 1931 Commission International 
d'[Eacute]clairage (CIE) Standard Observer and Coordinate System 
Railroad Signal Colors. The CIE is a professional organization 
recognized by the International Standards Organization as an 
international standardization body regarding illumination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iv. Consider Daylight, Darkness, and Weather Conditions to the 
Extent Those Factors Might Skew the Test Results. The railroad's 
procedures should allow a medical examiner to inform the testing 
officer that a particular examinee must be tested at night (i.e., under 
darkness) or during the day with bright sunshine, or under some other 
condition, so that the test can appropriately focus on the examinee's 
known color vision deficiency found during the initial medical testing 
and will be an accurate indicator of whether the examinee can safely 
perform anticipated locomotive engineer or conductor duties. For most 
people, signal visibility will be the greatest at night and more 
challenging during the daytime in bright sun when the sky is clear. 
Field testing conducted at sunrise or sunset may pose a greater 
likelihood that severe glare could skew test results such that it would 
be difficult for individuals with normal color vision to identify a 
signal indication or aspect. FRA's regulations do not prohibit a 
railroad from requiring multiple field tests under different operating 
or working conditions, and certainly some examinees will warrant such 
testing based on their known vision deficiency. Likewise, if a test is 
conducted during a snowstorm, rainstorm, fog, or other weather 
conditions that would inhibit a person's vision, acceptable sight 
distances should be adjusted accordingly, and in some instances, may 
suggest that a test cannot be verified as reliable and should be 
voided.
    d. Comparability.
    i. Implement Procedures To Address Bias Accusations. To effectively 
address accusations that a particular test was unfairly designed, 
implemented, or scored, a railroad should allow the examinee to bring 
along a volunteer witness of the examinee's choosing, and all 
participants, including witnesses, should be afforded an opportunity to 
record their observations regarding whether testing procedures were 
followed and the conditions under which the test was conducted. The 
testing officer should have a standard method that will capture the 
names and contact information of any witnesses who observe the test, 
and the railroad should permit the examinee and any witnesses an 
opportunity to submit their observations in writing for direct review 
by the railroad's medical examiner. The railroad should provide the 
medical examiner with the authority to void any test in which the 
examinee or another witness makes a substantial showing that bias or 
prejudice may have led to a test failure and, in such a situation, 
request that a new test be conducted with a different testing officer.
    ii. Create Adequate Records and Provide to Examinee. Because an 
examinee who fails a field test and is subsequently denied 
certification or recertification may request FRA to review that 
decision, each railroad should be prepared to provide the examinee with 
the results of any field tests. A railroad should consider developing a 
method or protocol by which the testing officer offers a copy of the 
completed test form to the examinee upon completion of the test. The 
railroad may want the testing officer to record on the form whether the 
examinee was offered a copy of the form, and whether the examinee 
accepted receipt. The form may also include a signature line for the 
examinee to acknowledge receipt of the completed test form.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2015.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-29640 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


