[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74419-74439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27355]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 650
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-8954]
RIN 2125-AE86
National Bridge Inspection Standards
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is revising its regulation on the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS). This action is necessary to address
perceived ambiguities in the NBIS that have been identified since the
last update to the regulation in 1988. The changes clarify the NBIS
language that is vague or ambiguous; reorganizes the NBIS into a more
logical sequence; and makes the regulation easier to read and
understand, not only by the inspector in the field, but also by those
administering the highway bridge inspection programs at the State or
Federal agency level.
DATES: This rule is effective January 13, 2005. The incorporation by
reference of the publications listed in this rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of January 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wade F. Casey, P.E., Federal Lands
Highway, HFPD-9, (202) 366-9486, or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the
Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1359, Federal Highway Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 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
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using
a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal
Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government
Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The FHWA bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a
result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat.
815) that required the Secretary of Transportation to establish NBIS to
ensure the safety of the traveling public.
The 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act directed the States to maintain an
inventory of Federal-aid highway system bridges. The Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713) limited the NBIS to
bridges on the Federal-aid highway system. The Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689) extended NBIS
requirements to bridges greater than 20 feet on all public roads. The
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
(Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132) expanded the scope of bridge inspection
programs to include special inspection procedures for fracture critical
members and underwater inspection.
The FHWA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
on September 26, 2001, (66 FR 49154) to solicit comments on whether to
revise its regulation on the NBIS. The majority of commenters to the
ANPRM recommended that the FHWA revise the NBIS regulation.
Discussion of Comments Received to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)
The FHWA published an NPRM on September 9, 2003, at 68 FR 53063, to
solicit public comments on proposed changes to the NBIS. All comments
received to the NPRM were carefully considered in the decision to
publish a final rule. Commenters included: representatives from 1
Federal agency, 25 States, 44 counties, 9 cities, 1 Indian tribal
government, 4 consulting firms, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Association of
Diving Contractors International (ADCI), the Illinois Association of
County Engineers (IACE), the National Association of County Engineers
(NACE) and 3 private citizens.
Discussion of Rulemaking Text
The following summarizes the comments submitted to the docket by
[[Page 74420]]
the commenters on the NPRM, notes where and why changes have been made
to the rule, and why particular recommendations or suggestions have not
been incorporated into the following regulations. Paragraph references
are as designated in the NPRM, unless otherwise stated.
Summary of Comments
In general, comments received to the NPRM provided both support for
and opposition to the proposed changes. A number of commenters were
concerned about the cost of the proposed changes versus the benefit and
impact on bridge safety. Other commenters believed that the proposed
regulation would help strengthen and improve the nation's bridge
inspection program. Some commenters argued that there were still areas
of ambiguity. Other commenters noted we had achieved our objective of
addressing ambiguities in the current NBIS regulation. Commenters
provided a lot of very good suggestions that have been considered in
the final rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 650.301 Purpose
The FHWA did not receive any comments that specifically addressed
this section.
Section 650.303 Applicability
The Missouri and Massachusetts DOTs agreed that the NBIS apply only
to highway bridges.
The Illinois and Oklahoma DOTs as well as the AASHTO asked that
definitions of ``public road'' and ``highway bridge'' be included to
further clarify applicability. The Oregon DOT and the U.S. Navy also
wanted to include a definition for ``highway bridge.''
FHWA response: The terms ``public road'' and ``highway'' are
already defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. We added to the list of definitions
in Sec. 650.305 a reference to the existing definitions for ``public
road'' and ``highway.''
The Iowa DOT pointed out that the AASHTO Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges \1\ (hereinafter referred to as the AASHTO
Manual) includes bridges that carry pedestrians and other non-highway
passageways and that the NBIS needs to be very clear that it does not
apply to these structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 2000,
Second Edition may be obtained upon payment in advance by writing to
AASHTO, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001;
or it may be ordered on line at the following URL: http://www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/frontpage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA response: As clearly stated in Sec. 650.303, the NBIS apply
only to ``highway bridges'' located on ``public roads.'' The AASHTO
Manual may discuss other non-highway passageways; however, these
bridges are not covered under the NBIS.
Collins Engineers and the U.S. Navy were concerned regarding the
inspection of pedestrian and railroad bridges and potential threat to
travelers on public highways. Likewise, Collins Engineers was concerned
about privately owned bridges used by the motoring public.
FHWA response: Some confusion has existed about the applicability
of the NBIS to privately owned highway bridges. While 23 U.S.C. 151
states that the NBIS are for all highway bridges, the FHWA has no legal
authority to require private bridge owners to inspect and maintain
their bridges. While the FHWA does not have the authority to compel the
States to inspect privately owned highway bridges, the FHWA strongly
encourages that private bridge owners follow the NBIS as the standard
for inspecting privately owned highway bridges. Because of the seamless
nature of the transportation infrastructure within many States, the
motoring public does not know the difference between a privately owned
and publicly owned highway bridge. Therefore, States should encourage
private bridge owners to inspect their highway bridges in accordance
with the NBIS or reroute any public highways away from such bridges if
NBIS inspections are not conducted.
The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) lists roughly 2,200 privately
owned highway bridges in some 41 States and Puerto Rico. However, the
total number of privately owned highway bridges is unknown because the
States are not required to report them to the FHWA. Many privately
owned highway bridges can be assumed to carry public roads, some of
which could be significant highways. The FHWA does not know if
privately owned highway bridges are inspected using the NBIS or other
standard and the FHWA does not know the level to which privately owned
highway bridges are maintained.
Public authorities must follow the NBIS for all highway bridges
located on all public roads. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(27) as ``any road or street under the jurisdiction of and
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.'' The NBIS
applies to seasonally or periodically opened public roads and to
limited access public access roads.
Highway bridges owned by Indian tribes are in a separate category.
Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, have a unique government-to-
government relationship with the Federal government. There is no
explicit requirement in 23 U.S.C. 144 that requires inventory of
tribally owned bridges. Likewise, there is no explicit requirement in
23 U.S.C. 151 that requires inspection of tribally owned bridges.
Absent such clear language, the FHWA has no legal authority to require
federally recognized Indian tribes to inventory tribally owned bridges
or to comply with the NBIS. On the other hand, in order for tribally
owned bridges to participate in the Indian Reservation Road Bridge
Program (IRRBP) \2\ and be eligible for Federal funding, a tribally
owned bridge has to be inspected and placed in the NBI. Hence, for
purposes of this rule, tribally owned bridges mean those bridges
designed and constructed to FHWA standards, meeting the NBIS definition
of a bridge, and open to the public. Finally, the FHWA strongly
encourages that Indian tribes follow the NBIS, as the standard for
inspecting tribally owned bridges, particularly those open to public
travel (see 23 U.S.C. 151 for the statutory requirement for the
National bridge inspection program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The IRRBP was established under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (see 23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A) and the
regulation can be found at 23 CFR 661) for improving deficient
Indian reservation road highway bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA recognizes that the NBIS does not apply to federally owned
bridges on roads that are used only by employees and not open to the
general public. These bridges and administratively used roads support
behind-the-scenes operations and are intended for use by employees
engaged in official business.
The NBIS does not apply to tunnels, bridges that carry only
pedestrians, railroad tracks, pipelines, or other types of non-highway
passageways. Public authorities or bridge owners are strongly
encouraged to inspect these non-highway carrying bridges and other
significant structures. Similarly, the NBIS does not apply to the
inspection of sign support structures, high mast lighting, retaining
walls, noise barriers structures, and overhead traffic signs. Public
authorities have an obligation to the motoring public to periodically
inspect and maintain these facilities. Non-public authorities including
utility companies, railroads, and private owners who may own these
facilities, are strongly encouraged to periodically inspect and
maintain their structures for the safety of the motoring public.
[[Page 74421]]
There are some minimal NBI data items that are collected for
highway tunnels and non-highway bridges over certain highways that can
be collected without trespassing on private property. These items are
described in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``Recording and Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' December 1995, Report No. FHWA-
PD-96-001, is available electronically at the following URL: http//
www.fhwa.dot.gov//bridge/mtguide.doc and may be inspected and copied
as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chickasaw Nation commented that it agreed that tribally owned
bridges are not subject to 23 U.S.C. 144 explicitly, however; if a
tribally owned bridge is planned for replacement with Federal funds
such as IRRBP funds,\4\ then an inspection must be conducted. It also
cautioned against considering tribally owned bridges not subject to the
NBIS when many tribes consider all Indian Reservation Road (IRR) routes
and bridges that fall within Indian lands to be tribally owned with
right of way granted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It indicated that
all bridges that fall on an IRR to be public regardless of ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IRRBP funds are provided under the Federal Lands Highway
Program see 23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A) and the regulation can be found
at 23 CFR 661.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA response: As stated previously, one of the requirements for
participation in the IRRBP and eligibility for Federal funding is for
the bridge to be recorded in the NBI maintained by the FHWA (see 23 CFR
661.25). In order for this to occur the bridge has to be inspected
regardless of ownership. Therefore we agree that a tribally owned
bridge needs to be inspected and placed in the NBI in order to obtain
Federal funding via the IRRBP. For purposes of this rule, tribally
owned bridges mean those bridges designed and constructed to FHWA
standards, meeting the NBIS definition of a bridge, and open to the
public. This rule addresses the responsibility for bridge safety
inspections. It does not provide or intend to address ownership or
jurisdictional issues of bridges on Indian reservations.
Section 650.305 Definitions
The Massachusetts, South Dakota and Tennessee DOTs were in favor of
including a definition section.
The South Dakota DOT wanted clarification of what is meant by
``major flood event,'' ``critical finding,'' and ``predominant bridge
inspection experience.'' The Tennessee DOT wanted to know what
``critical finding'' means as used in the proposed Sec. 650.313(l).
FHWA response: We added a definition for ``critical finding.'' A
definition for ``major flood event'' is not required since the term has
been removed from the regulation. We believe that the definition for
``bridge inspection experience,'' which includes the statement that
``the predominate amount'' of experience be ``bridge inspection,''
adequately addresses the intent that a preponderance of the experience
for qualification should come from other than bridge design, bridge
maintenance or bridge construction experience.
The Kansas DOT wanted the NBIS to either define, replace or
eliminate the following terms: ``public road,'' ``highway bridge,''
``professional engineer,'' ``predominant and substantial,'' ``80
hours,'' ``damage inspection,'' and ``routine permit inspection.''
The Iowa and Kansas DOTs as well as the AASHTO each recommended
that the definition for ``damage inspection'' be changed. The Illinois
DOT proposed a definition for ``damage inspection.''
The Missouri DOT indicated a preference for retaining the current
definition for a ``bridge.'' The Iowa DOT recommended a change in the
first sentence of the ``bridge'' definition deleting reference to
``other moving loads.''
The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO did not like the 80-hour requirement
used in the definition for ``comprehensive bridge inspection
training.'' The Kansas DOT was also concerned about its impact on local
agencies being able to find qualified consultants with this level of
training.
The Iowa DOT as well as the AASHTO recommended inclusion of the
term ``professional engineer'' within the NBIS.
The New Jersey DOT wanted to include a definition for ``public
road.''
The Washington DOT wanted the term ``public authority'' defined in
the NBIS.
The Wyoming DOT commented that the NBIS should clearly identify
whether it applies to ``privately owned bridges,'' those located on
seasonally opened roads, and those with limited access.
FHWA response: Definitions have been added for ``professional
engineer'' and ``damage inspection.'' The definition from the AASHTO
manual for ``damage inspection'' that was proposed by the Illinois DOT
has been adopted. The terms ``80 hours,'' ``substantial,'' ``routine
permit inspection,'' and ``public authority'' will not be used in the
regulation. The term ``predominate'' will continue to be used in the
definition of bridge inspection experience as explained above. The
terms ``highway'' and ``public road'' are already defined in 23 U.S.C.
101 (a) (11) and (27), respectively. Since the U. S. Code takes
precedence over regulations, we reference 23 U.S.C. for the definitions
for highway and public road. These definitions will be cited in Sec.
650.305.
We will continue to use the AASHTO definition for ``bridge,'' an
action supported by the majority of commenters. The FHWA adopted the
AASHTO definition for ``bridge'' early in the National Bridge
Inspection Program. Title 23, U.S.C., section 151 directed the
Secretary to establish national bridge inspection standards in
consultation with the State transportation departments and interested
and knowledgeable private organizations and individuals. Consultation
with the State transportation departments through the AASHTO Highway
Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, convinced the FHWA to adopt the
AASHTO definition of bridge that has been used since the NBIS was first
drafted.
The ADCI wanted the NBIS to include Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulation requirements when diving operations
are conducted. The ADCI also commented that a definition for OSHA
Safety Standards for Commercial Diving Operations be included in the
NBIS. The ADCI also recommended that the term ``designated diving
supervisor'' be included with the definitions along with a revised
definition for underwater inspection to indicate diving operations
shall be completed in accordance with OSHA regulations.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes that safe diving practices as
prescribed by OSHA regulations should be employed during all bridge
inspection diving, but we do not reference them. OSHA regulations
pertain to both underwater and above-water inspections, so any omission
in this standard does not relieve diving inspectors of the requirement
to follow OSHA regulations.
The term ``designated diving supervisor'' is not used in the
regulation and will not be included in the definition section.
The Tennessee DOT provided commentary and questions regarding the
use of the terms ``action plan'' and ``inspection plan.''
FHWA response: The Tennessee DOT points out that these terms are
used throughout the regulation and that their
[[Page 74422]]
intent should be clear and consistent. Where these terms are used, we
have made changes to clarify their meaning, or we have removed them.
Refer to the preamble discussion of Sec. 650.313.
The AASHTO and Kansas DOT indicated that the word ``and'' was
missing in the AASHTO title.
FHWA response: We agree and have made this change.
The Massachusetts, Minnesota, Kansas, Michigan, Iowa, and Arkansas
DOTs along with the AASHTO asked for a more precise definition of the
terms used in the definition for ``bridge inspection experience.'' The
IACE discussed the impact of this definition on inspections performed
by local agencies.
FHWA response: We have reviewed the definition of ``bridge
inspection experience'' and made minor changes to address these
comments. We noted that this definition is adequate to convey the
minimum requirements for experience to assure that inspectors are
qualified.
The New Jersey, Minnesota and Tennessee DOTs wanted clarification
of the term ``complex bridge.''
FHWA response: The definition gives the States latitude to
determine which bridges should be placed in this category and receive
special attention. Including complex bridges in Sec. 650.313 captures
the intent in the AASHTO Manual that some structures deserve special
attention. Cable stayed bridges, suspension bridges, and movable
bridges require specialized procedures. The bridge inspection program
manager, as defined in Sec. 650.305, may determine that other bridge
types require special attention.
The Michigan DOT recommended defining the term ``fatigue
sensitive'' to distinguish from the term ``fracture critical.''
FHWA response: Since the term ``fatigue sensitive'' refers to steel
members or details that may or may not be part of a load-path redundant
system, and since this term is not used in the regulation, we have not
added a definition to Sec. 650.305.
The Iowa DOT recommended that ``fracture critical inspection'' be
changed to ``fracture critical member inspection.'' It also provided
some commentary on the use of the term ``hands on'' in this definition
and made some suggestions to modify the definition. The Minnesota and
Oregon DOT were concerned about the definition for ``fracture critical
member'' and recommended that it be rewritten.
FHWA response: The term ``fracture critical'' is consistent with
the AASHTO Manual. The term ``fracture critical member inspection''
will be used in the regulation. The intent is to give special attention
to member or member components in spans that do not have load path
redundancy.
The IACE, Michigan and Iowa DOTs commented that the definition for
``hands-on'' inspection should be modified using ``may be supplemented
by nondestructive testing'' instead of ``are supplemented by
nondestructive testing.''
The Iowa DOT recommended that the definition for ``in-depth
inspection'' be modified to note that ``hands on inspection may be
necessary'' but not mandatory.
FHWA response: The second sentence of the definition for ``hands-
on'' has been modified by changing ``are'' to ``may be'' so that
nondestructive testing is not a requirement of hands-on inspection. The
definition for ``in-depth inspection'' has been modified to note that
hands-on inspection may be necessary at some locations.
The Michigan DOT provided a discussion and questions regarding
initial inspection. Their discussion states that the definition should
include the term ``routine inspection procedures'' and require
timelines for ratings. Collins Engineers commenting on Sec.
650.311(a)(1) pointed out that the depth of routine, biennial
inspections varies greatly and recommended a change reflecting that
routine inspections be performed hands-on.
FHWA response: We have adopted the definitions for inspection types
including ``initial'' and ``routine'' that are consistent with the
AASHTO Manual.
The Indiana and Maryland DOTs provided commentary and suggested
that the definition and role of the ``program manager'' needs
clarification.
FHWA response: The Indiana DOT's concern is that the definition
allows more than one program manager. That is a correct assessment of
our intent. We do not want to restrict those States that want to have
more than one program manager. However, the FHWA desires one individual
with overall responsibility for Sec. 650.307(c)(1) and (2). The
Maryland DOT wants the definition changed to ``eliminate the need for
any small local jurisdiction to require fully trained individuals.'' A
qualified team leader must be present for each initial, routine, in-
depth, fracture critical member and underwater inspection, regardless
of the jurisdiction, and a program manager must be available to provide
overall direction to team leaders. The program manager definition in
Sec. 650.305 has been revised and the role clarified in Sec. 650.307.
The Arkansas DOT wanted the term ``responsible capacity'' defined
in the NBIS.
FHWA response: We have removed this term from the regulation.
The Iowa, Kansas and Washington DOTs as well as the AASHTO
recommended that the definition for ``legal load'' be modified.
FHWA response: This definition allows the States the flexibility to
use their own legal loads, established in State law.
The Illinois, Kansas, and Wisconsin DOTs and the AASHTO recommended
changes for the definition ``routine permit load.''
FHWA response: We have amended the definition in Sec. 650.305 to
reflect these recommendations.
The Texas and Oklahoma DOTs recommended that the definition for
``scour critical'' be modified.
FHWA response: We have considered the comments on this topic and
have provided a definition for ``scour critical bridge.'' The NBI item
number 113, scour critical bridge, is used to identify the current
status of a bridge regarding its vulnerability to scour.
The observed scour condition is one determined during a bridge
inspection, or during/after a flood event. A conclusion of instability
would typically be attained by comparing the observed scour condition
with: (a) The known foundation type and tip elevation, and (b) computed
scour critical elevation as determined by an interdisciplinary team.
The evaluated scour condition is one determined by: (1) An
assessment of the bridge information available such as foundation type
and tip elevation; location of the bridge; review of bridge inspection
files; comparison of channel profiles upstream of the bridge, within
the bridge opening and downstream of the bridge; soil type; historical
data from other bridges on an adjacent stream, and/or (2) a calculation
to determine potential scour around the bridge foundation and/or stream
instability in the vicinity of the bridge.
The Washington DOT recommended that the NBIS include a definition
for ``State transportation department.''
FHWA response: The term ``State transportation department'' is
already defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11).
Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection Organization
Federally Owned Bridges
The Missouri DOT wanted clarification that in Sec. 650.307(a)
States are relieved of responsibility for federally owned bridges. The
Kansas
[[Page 74423]]
DOT indicated it is having problems obtaining data on federally owned
bridges. The AASHTO suggested that supplying Federal bridge data is
waived for Federal agencies.
FHWA response: States are no longer responsible for reporting
inspection data on Federal bridges to the FHWA. Federal bridge owners
report inspection data directly to the FHWA. The FHWA supplies Federal
bridge inspection data to the States. For security and other purposes,
the States should have an up-to-date inventory of Federal bridges
located within each State.
Bridge Inspection Program Responsibility
The Michigan and Iowa DOTs in response to Sec. 650.307(a) argued
that public authorities and/or bridge owners should be responsible for
bridge inspections and not the State. The Washington DOT noted that the
majority of county and city bridges are inspected by their owners.
FHWA response: The present bridge inspection standards regulation
requires the States to have a bridge inspection organization capable of
performing the bridge inspections (23 CFR 650.303(a)). The part of the
regulation that requires the actual inspection of all bridges on public
roads (Sec. 650.305(a)) is written in the passive voice. Consequently,
there might be some confusion as to who is responsible for inspecting
each highway bridge in a State.
The FHWA believes, however, that the language of 23 U.S.C. 151 is
clear that a State is ultimately responsible for the inspection of
public highway bridges within the State, except for those that are
federally owned or tribally owned. Subsection (a) of section 151
directs the Secretary, ``in consultation with the State transportation
departments and interested and knowledgeable private organizations,''
to establish the bridge inspection standards for ``all highway
bridges.'' In subsection (b) the Congress mandates that the standards
shall, at a minimum, ``specify, in detail, the method by which such
inspections shall be carried out by the States.'' The final rule clears
up any ambiguity caused by the existing regulation.
The State DOT can delegate to a smaller unit of the State, for
example, a city or county, the inspection of bridges owned or
controlled by that unit. A State can direct smaller State units to
conduct the NBIS inspections on bridges under its control and that
would satisfy Sec. 650.307. However, because of the fundamental
relationship established in title 23 of the U.S. Code between the FHWA
and a State DOT, if the inspections by a city or county were not done,
the FHWA could withhold Federal-aid highway funds from the State.
Bridge Inspection Funding
The NACE commented on Sec. 650.307(a) and asked why counties have
to complete inspections using their own funds.
FHWA response: Federal Bridge Funds (i.e., Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) funds) can be spent on
bridge inspection activities, regardless of the agency performing the
inspections. The use and distribution of HBRRP funds within the State
is within the State's discretion.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The Wyoming DOT commented on Sec. 650.307(c)(1) that all
references to ``quality assurance (QA)'' be removed.
FHWA response: In the past, the FHWA addressed QA as part of a
nonregulatory supplement to the Federal-aid program guide. QA is also
addressed in the AASHTO Manual. Many States currently have active QA
programs; some do not. The FHWA believes that it is imperative that a
statewide or Federal agency wide QA program be in place to assure that
bridge inspections are being conducted in accordance with these
standards and to assure the quality of inspection data. We have
included a definition of quality control (QC) and QA to reflect this in
Sec. 650.305.
Role of Consultants
The Washington DOT had a question regarding Sec. 650.307(c) for
acceptable roles of consultants based on the discussion in the preamble
to the NPRM.
FHWA response: Consultants may perform Sec. 650.307(c)(1) and/or
(2) activities and functions. To ensure that all NBIS requirements are
met, the State still needs a program manager, even when paragraph
(c)(1) activities are performed by consultants.
The California DOT supports the changes contained in Sec.
650.307(c).
OSHA Standards
The ADCI wanted to amend Sec. 650.307(c) to add requirements for
bridge inspection organizations to conduct dive operations in a safe
manner by establishing dive team member qualifications and training for
the conduct of safe diving operations that meet or exceed OSHA
standards.
FHWA response: This comment was previously addressed in the
discussion of Sec. 650.305 regarding diving operations meeting or
exceeding OSHA standards.
Delegation of NBIS Functions
The Hillsdale County Road Commission (HCRC) in Michigan, commented
that Sec. 650.307(d) may enable the State to perform inspections of
county bridges and was concerned about what will be charged and whether
control will be lost regarding bridge postings.
FHWA response: States have always had the responsibility for
inspections under the NBIS. Delegation of the NBIS functions to
counties and other local agencies is a State issue.
Written Agreements
The Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, and Michigan DOTs as well as the
AASHTO commented on Sec. 650.307(d) and the ramifications of entering
in agreements with local agencies, stating such agreements should not
be part of the NBIS. The Indiana DOT indicated that it would need
additional resources (i.e., funding) in order to comply with this
section and stated that the intent of clearly defining responsibilities
was good, but did not require a regulatory change. The Illinois DOT and
the IACE maintain that local agencies and the State have excellent
working relationships and need no agreements or State statutes. The New
Jersey DOT expressed concern that this section might be interpreted to
mean that bridge inspections are discretionary and may limit delegation
to public authorities. The Minnesota DOT suggested a rewrite to this
section to indicate that delegation does not relieve the State of
program oversight or quality assurance. The Alabama DOT commented that
the FHWA should ``acknowledge that States may delegate NBIS
requirements (not responsibilities) in accordance with any laws,
regulations or policies that the States may have in effect.'' The
California DOT supported the proposed change. The Marshal and Miami
Counties in Kansas indicated that the States should be responsible to
assure compliance and delegation should be by written agreement. The
Miami County in Kansas further commented that the consequences of not
following the NBIS should be strongly stated. Thirty-seven Kansas
counties, seven Kansas cities, and one Kansas consultant commented that
they did not want written agreements that were proposed in Sec.
650.307(d) and that local agencies currently have a good working
relationship with the State.
FHWA response: The FHWA has reconsidered its position on written
agreements after reviewing the many
[[Page 74424]]
comments provided. The proposed requirement that delegation must be
according to State law or fully executed written agreements has been
removed. However, State transportation departments are encouraged to
use formal means in delegating these activities and it is essential
that all parties involved have a clear understanding as to what
requirements are and are not being delegated. The State is still
ultimately responsible for the inspection of public highway bridges
within the State, except for those that are federally owned or tribally
owned.
Program Manager Leadership
The Indiana DOT, in response to Sec. 650.307(e), stated it would
need additional resources (i.e., funding) in order to comply with this
section and argued that it did not require a regulatory change. The
Illinois, Alabama, Kansas, Michigan and Oregon DOTs as well as the
AASHTO were concerned regarding proposed language related to the
requirement for ``program manager.''
The Illinois DOT noted that many local agencies use consulting
engineers and that the rule change prohibits ``program managers'' from
being consultants. The NACE stated that program manager guidelines are
sufficient; however, the expectation that the same experience be
required of a town with one bridge is not practical. The Marshal County
in Kansas commented that delegated authorities be allowed to hire
consultants to act as ``project'' managers. The Iowa DOT commented that
Sec. 650.307(e) qualification standard would place more education,
training and experience requirements onto the counties and cities.
Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, and one Kansas
consultant commented that local agencies should continue to have the
option to hire a consultant to handle inspections. The Alcona County
Road Commission (ACRC) in Michigan commented that program manager
requirements applying to towns with only one bridge is cause for
serious local agency concern and requires further discussion.
FHWA response: The FHWA has reconsidered its position regarding
each organizational unit being led by a program manager. The program
manager qualification requirement applies to the overall State or
Federal agency program level. Each State transportation department or
Federal agency is only required to have one statewide or Federal agency
wide program manager. Applying the program manager requirement to
organizational sub-units or delegated agencies is at the discretion of
the State or Federal agency. However, State transportation departments
remain responsible for the application of these standards to all
highway bridges, even when inspections or other requirements are
delegated. For this reason, State transportation departments should be
cautious when delegating inspections or other requirements to local
agencies that do not have a qualified bridge inspection program
manager. In such cases, as in the example of the small town with one
bridge and no qualified program manager, the State will assume a direct
program manager role in the delegated inspection program.
Qualified consultants may be hired or contracted by State
transportation departments, their delegated agencies, and Federal
agencies to perform the activities and functions of these standards.
However, to ensure that all of the requirements of these standards are
met, the States or Federal agencies still need a program manager, even
when consultants perform Sec. 650.307(c)(1) activities and functions.
Section 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel
Professional Engineer Discipline; Comprehensive and Refresher Training
The Missouri DOT commented relative to Sec. 650.309 (a)(1), that
the NBIS should not specify the discipline of the professional engineer
and that the States or Federal agencies can elect to adopt even more
specific requirements. A private citizen noted that the professional
engineer discipline should be specified as structural, and, that too
much emphasis was placed on the professional engineer title rather than
the amount and extent of experience and training. The New Jersey DOT
stated that the program manager should be required to have field
experience.
FHWA response: Our position remains as stated in the preamble to
the NPRM that the laws governing licensure within each State or Federal
agency ensure that professional engineers only practice engineering in
the fields in which they are qualified and experienced. Furthermore,
the State or Federal agency is responsible for ensuring that those
individuals involved in the bridge inspection program meet the minimum
qualifications defined in the NBIS. Although the regulations do not
specify the engineering discipline of the professional engineer,
individual States or Federal agencies can adopt requirements that are
more stringent than the minimum requirements established by the NBIS.
The FHWA agrees that additional emphasis on training is needed.
Recommendations from the June 2001 FHWA study of the ``Reliability of
Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges'' \5\ also support the need for
further emphasis on training. Accordingly, the regulation includes
comprehensive training and refresher training requirements for program
managers and team leaders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges Vols I
and II [FHWA-RD-01-020 ; FHWA-RD-01-021] is a publication which
documents research done on the accuracy and reliability of the
highway bridge inspection process. This report is available through
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161 or it may be ordered online at the following URL: http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Manager Qualifications
The South Dakota DOT indicated that they have a professional
engineer exemption within their State and asked how the FHWA would
address this issue.
FHWA response: Section 650.309 (a)(1) allows two ways of qualifying
as a program manager, one of which is being a professional engineer. In
those instances where the State exempts its staff from registration
requirements, a program manager would have to either be a professional
engineer, despite the exemption for State government employees, or have
10 years of bridge inspection experience.
Completion of Comprehensive Bridge Inspection Training
Mr. Todd Hertel commented on Sec. 650.309(a)(2), asking why the
program manager is given 12 months to complete training and not the
team leader.
FHWA response: Ideally, an individual will have completed the
comprehensive bridge inspection training prior to becoming a team
leader or program manager. Exceptions to this should be rare. In
recognition of the fact that some flexibility is needed to accommodate
employee turnover and scheduling of the training, we have removed the
12-month time frame from Sec. 650.309(a)(2). As stated above, the
expectation is that individuals will complete the comprehensive
training prior to becoming program managers or team leaders. When this
is not possible, those individuals will aggressively seek to obtain the
training as soon as possible, preferably within 12 months of becoming a
program manager or team leader. Prior successful completion of the FHWA
approved comprehensive bridge inspection training is acceptable for
individuals serving as program managers and team leaders at the time
this regulation becomes effective.
[[Page 74425]]
County Engineer Qualifications
The HCRC in Michigan asked if a county engineer would still be
qualified to administer the county program that is performed by a
consulting firm and if small consulting firms would be able to adhere
to these personnel requirements.
FHWA response: The roles and responsibilities of a program manager
have been clarified in Sec. 650.307. The qualifications for a program
manager or team leader apply regardless of the individual's employer,
i.e., State, county, city, consulting firm, etc.
Comprehensive Bridge Inspection Training Requirement
The Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Kansas, and Virginia
DOTs as well as the AASHTO and the IACE in commenting on Sec.
650.309(a)(2) do not agree with the requirement for ``comprehensive
bridge inspection training'' for program managers particularly those
who are professional engineers. The Massachusetts, South Dakota and
California DOTs support the requirement for ``comprehensive bridge
inspection training'' for program managers. The Pennsylvania DOT
recommended that those currently serving as program managers be
exempted from the comprehensive training requirement and that
nonprofessional engineers should not be program managers. The IACE and
the NACE stated that the ``comprehensive bridge inspection training''
would be burdensome on local agency resources. Thirty-six Kansas
counties, six Kansas cities, and two Kansas consultants commented on
the proposed Sec. 650.309(a) that local agencies should continue to
have the option to hire consultants to handle inspections, with the
professional requirement for the program manager, but not the
comprehensive training requirement.
FHWA response: The FHWA's position on comprehensive bridge
inspection training for program managers has not changed from the
previously proposed Sec. 650.309(a)(2). We agree with the majority of
commenters to the ANPRM, who were in favor of establishing training and
experience requirements for the individual in charge of the bridge
inspection program. A program manager needs to be thoroughly familiar
with bridge inspection terminology and techniques along with data
collection practices and procedures in order to ensure the consistency
and reliability of the bridge inspection program. Completion of the
same comprehensive training as required for team leaders is one method
of addressing the consistency and reliability issues. These issues
apply regardless of the program manager's experience level or
professional engineer status.
We have clarified the roles and responsibilities of the program
manager in part to address the concerns expressed by several localities
regarding the burden imposed by the training requirement.
The current comprehensive training course offered by the National
Highway Institute (NHI) is not the only option available. A few States
have developed their own comprehensive training and certification
programs. In recognition of the need to retain this flexibility, States
or Federal agencies are permitted to develop their own ``comprehensive
inspection training'' programs subject to approval by the FHWA. The
FHWA will use the ``comprehensive bridge inspection training''
definition and the ``Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM)'' \6\
as criteria to apply when reviewing these programs. In addition, the
NHI course material \7\ is available for those who wish to deliver the
training using their own resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM), 2003, FHWA-
NHI-03-001, may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC and from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, and may be viewed online at
the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bripub.htm.
\7\ Information regarding NHI training course material can be
obtained by contacting the FHWA Report Center at the following
electronic mail address: [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the FHWA approval of comprehensive training proposals, it
is anticipated that the local FHWA Division office, in consultation
with the FHWA Headquarters Office of Bridge Technology, will review and
approve proposals from the States. The FHWA Headquarters Office of
Bridge Technology will review and approve submittals from Federal
agencies.
Professional Engineering, Specialty
The South Dakota and Virginia DOTs and Mr. Todd Hertel commented on
Sec. 650.309(b)(2)(i) asking what is meant by a bachelor's degree in
``professional engineering'' and recommended that it should say
bachelor's degree in engineering.
FHWA response: The FHWA has reconsidered its position and has
deleted the word ``professional.''
The New Jersey and Massachusetts DOTs commented on Sec.
650.309(b)(2)(i) and noted that the engineering specialty is too vague
and needs to be specified. The Massachusetts DOT stated that a
bachelor's degree in civil, structural or related engineering
discipline that provides a background in structural analysis should be
included.
FHWA response: The FHWA's position is that at a minimum, an
individual with a bachelor's degree in engineering who has successfully
completed the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination and obtained two
years of bridge inspection experience, would qualify as a team leader
regardless of the specific discipline of the bachelor's degree.
Although the phrase ``bachelor's degree in engineering'' is not
specific to the discipline of engineering, individual States or Federal
agencies can adopt requirements that are more stringent than the
minimum established by the NBIS.
Engineers Educated at Foreign Universities
The New Jersey DOT commented on Sec. 650.309(b)(2)(i) and
indicated that engineers educated at foreign universities would not
comply with the accreditation board requirement.
FHWA response: The Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) evaluates institutions outside of the United States.
The evaluation is not the same as accreditation; however, an ABET
evaluation can result in an assessment of ``substantial equivalency.''
The ``substantial equivalency'' determination implies reasonable
confidence that the foreign institution's program has prepared its
graduates to begin professional practice at the entry level.
Information on the substantial equivalent programs, including a list of
programs that have been assessed by ABET, is available at http://www.abet.org/international/sub_equ_prg1.html.
Additionally, in 1989, several countries including the United
States entered an international agreement known as the ``Washington
Accord'' which recognizes the substantial equivalency of engineering
programs accredited by these countries. The accord further recommends
that graduates of accredited undergraduate programs in any of the
signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met
the requirements for entry into the practice of engineering. Additional
information, including a list of signatory countries, may be obtained
at http://www.washingtonaccord.org.
In consideration of international engineering education programs,
the regulation has been revised to reference the substantial
equivalency options available through the ABET.
[[Page 74426]]
Engineer-in-Training
Mr. Todd Hertel commented on Sec. 650.309(b)(2)(ii) and wanted to
know why the engineer-in-training (EIT) is a requirement. The Miami
County in Kansas commenter agreed with all provisions of Sec. 650.309
especially the addition of an EIT as a team leader with two years
experience. The Wyoming DOT and Mr. Jerry Fowler, private citizen,
stated that the proposed qualifications for ``team leader'' were too
stringent. The Illinois and Kansas DOTs, the IACE, and the AASHTO noted
that Sec. Sec. 650.309(b)(1) through 650.309(b)(4) were required for
``team leaders''; however a team leader only needs to meet one of the
qualifications, not all. The Maryland DOT stated that professional
engineer team leaders with five years experience could be
``grandfathered'' with respect to the comprehensive training
requirement. The Iowa DOT commented that the requirements of Sec.
650.309(b) would place more education, training and inspection
experience requirements onto counties and cities. The Pennsylvania DOT
agreed with the proposed Sec. 650.309(b); however, it argued that
States with a rigorous training and certification program for
inspectors should be allowed to substitute an acceptable combination of
education, experience and training for the requirements in this
section.
FHWA response: The EIT is not a requirement. It is a component of
one of the options available for qualification as a team leader under
Sec. 650.309(b). The team leader requirements resulted in confusion
among several commenters. Accordingly, the FHWA clarified the wording
under Sec. 650.309(b) and re-ordered the subparagraphs.
The FHWA's position on comprehensive bridge inspection training for
team leaders has not changed from the previously proposed Sec.
650.309(a)(2). We believe that an individual in a team leader position
needs to be thoroughly familiar with bridge inspection terminology and
techniques along with data collection practices and procedures
regardless of the team leader's experience level or professional
engineer status. With respect to ``grandfathering'' current team
leaders who are professional engineers but have never completed
comprehensive bridge inspection training, the expectation is that those
individuals will aggressively seek to obtain the required training as
soon as possible, preferably within 12 months of the effective date of
this regulation. Prior successful completion of the FHWA approved
comprehensive bridge inspection training is acceptable for individuals
serving as team leaders at the time this regulation becomes effective.
As indicated in a previous response, the current comprehensive
training course offered by the National Highway Institute is not the
only option available. A few States have developed their own
comprehensive training and certification programs. In recognition of
the need to retain this flexibility, States and Federal organizations
are permitted to develop their own ``comprehensive inspection
training'' programs subject to approval by the FHWA. The FHWA will use
the comprehensive bridge inspection training definition and the
``Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM)'' as criteria to apply
when reviewing these programs. In addition, the National Highway
Institute course material is available for those who wish to deliver
the training using their own resources.
The FHWA acknowledges the Pennsylvania DOT comment, that there are
acceptable alternative combinations of education, experience and
training for the requirements of ``team leader.'' Accordingly, we added
Sec. 650.309(b)(5) to provide another option to qualify as a team
leader.
Bridge Inspection Experience
The Iowa DOT and the AASHTO commented on Sec. 650.309(b)(3) as it
relates to ``bridge inspection experience'' and noted that the term
``predominant'' used in the definition for this phrase be replaced with
the word ``substantial.'' Mr. Todd Hertel commented that a ``year's
experience'' is not defined.
FHWA response: The FHWA recognizes that there are many factors
involved in evaluating an individual's bridge inspection experience
level. We believe that the definition for ``bridge inspection
experience,'' which includes the statement that ``the predominate
amount'' of experience be ``bridge inspection,'' adequately addresses
the intent that a preponderance of the experience for qualification
should come from other than bridge design, bridge maintenance or bridge
construction experience.
Experience in the Field of Practice
The New Jersey DOT commented on Sec. 650.309(b)(4) indicating that
the regulation should mandate that a team leader with a professional
engineer license should have experience in the field in which they are
practicing.
FHWA position: We believe that the laws governing licensure within
each State or Federal agency ensure that professional engineers only
practice engineering in the fields in which they are qualified and
experienced. The process for obtaining a professional engineer license
involves a requirement for a minimum number of years of engineering
experience. It is the State or Federal agency's responsibility to
ensure that the experience that qualified the individual for
professional engineer status is relevant to bridge inspection
activities. In addition, although the regulations do not specify a
field inspection experience requirement for a team leader who is a
professional engineer, individual States or Federal agencies can adopt
requirements that are more stringent than the minimums established by
the NBIS.
Load Rater Qualifications
The Missouri, Illinois, South Dakota, Alabama, and Pennsylvania
DOTs agreed with the requirement in the proposed Sec. 650.309(c). The
Maryland DOT indicated that the term ``determining'' should be changed
to ``certifies'' or ``reviews and approves.'' The South Dakota DOT is
concerned regarding the impact of the South Dakota exemption for State
government professional engineers on this section. The Kansas DOT
commented that a ``structural engineer'' might function in some States
as the ``professional engineer.'' The Illinois DOT and the AASHTO
provided language addressing the State of Illinois use of ``structural
engineers'' as a ``professional engineer'' specialty used to perform
structural evaluations.
The Virginia DOT did not agree with the proposed language and
stated that a professional engineer license should not be required to
fill out a computer data input form. The Pennsylvania DOT commented
that responsibility for this individual should also include load-
posting evaluations.
FHWA response: Bridge load rating calculations require engineering
judgment in determining the safe load-carrying capacity of a bridge and
arriving at posting and permitting decisions. Given the importance of
these calculations, the person charged with the overall responsibility
for load rating bridges should be a professional engineer. The
licensing laws require that the professional engineer only practice
engineering in areas where he/she is qualified and experienced.
Although the discipline of the professional engineer is not specified
in the regulation, States or Federal organizations may opt to require a
more specific professional engineer discipline, such as structural
engineering.
[[Page 74427]]
In some organizational structures, the overall responsibility for
load ratings may rest with the program manager. In others, there may be
several individuals responsible for determining load ratings, in which
case each would have to be a professional engineer. The intent is not
to require a professional engineer qualification for individuals who
simply enter data into load rating computer programs, but rather
require that the person(s) who provides the necessary engineering
judgment and reviews and approves the actual load rating result be a
professional engineer.
The posting of load restrictions on bridges is based in part on the
load rating values provided by a professional engineer. As long as a
professional engineer has accepted the load rating calculation, the
FHWA does not see a need to require a professional engineer to make the
posting decision as well. Again, a State or Federal agency may opt to
require that the person responsible for load posting be a professional
engineer.
Bridge Inspection Refresher Training
The Massachusetts DOT and the U.S. Navy commented that they were in
favor of bridge inspection refresher training. The Pennsylvania DOT
strongly supports refresher training of inspectors and team leaders
every two years with exams; however, they recommended that the
``refresher course'' should be defined in the NBIS. Mr. Michael Magner,
private citizen, indicated that in order to keep his National Institute
for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) certification he
must document continuing education and experience every four years;
therefore, he agrees with not only continuing training but also
certification. The Wisconsin DOT does not agree with the proposed Sec.
650.309(d), however; it believes in the concept of refresher training
and that it should be left up to the State to determine frequency,
content, and duration.
The Missouri DOT does not agree with the proposed Sec. 650.309(d)
for program managers and opposes the refresher training requirement for
team leaders; however, it recognizes some merit to refresher training
if there has been a lapse in conduct of inspections of 2 or more years.
The Indiana DOT agrees that the intent of refresher training is
good; however, the costs and logistics involved in executing this
requirement would place a strain on State resources. The Wyoming DOT
commented that this refresher training should not be a requirement for
program managers, but should be required of team leaders as long as the
training can be performed in-house. The Illinois DOT commented that
because of the costs associated with refresher training they were
reluctant to mandate this requirement especially for professional
engineers.
The Minnesota DOT noted that the term ``refresher training'' is
undefined, and as such may be overly burdensome and expensive and
recommends that it be advisory and not mandatory. The Kansas DOT
commented that training costs are significant and that they have no
need for refresher training. The Washington DOT noted that the extent
of refresher training needs clarification and that those who work full
time in the inspection arena under an FHWA approved quality assurance
program be exempted from this requirement.
The IACE indicated that the refresher-training requirement would be
a burden on the local agency resources. The NACE thought the refresher
training provision to be costly for local governments and proposed a
tiered approach based on bridge type and complexity. They also
recommended that turning the training development and deployment over
to the local technical assistance programs (LTAPs) would be a more
economical approach.
The Iowa DOT commented that refresher training would place more
requirements on the counties and cities. The ACRC in Michigan supported
refresher training, but thought that it should be carefully tailored to
local needs, and also be relevant, economical and of short duration.
The AASHTO recommended that the NBIS not mandate refresher training
every five years for all program managers and team leaders. The
Virginia DOT asked that the requirement for refresher training for
program managers be removed.
FHWA response: The FHWA has reevaluated the refresher training
requirement. First, we have determined that refresher training would be
more appropriately addressed as part of quality control (QC) and
quality assurance (QA) procedures. Accordingly, we have deleted the
proposed Sec. 650.309(d) and revised Sec. 650.313 to include
refresher training as part of QC and QA. For additional details
regarding QC and QA procedures see Sec. 650.313 preamble discussion.
Second, we recognize there are some differences in inspection
programs across the nation and the need for flexibility in determining
the frequency, duration, and to some extent, the content of refresher
training. Accordingly, we have added a definition of ``bridge
inspection refresher training'' under Sec. 650.305 that allows for the
necessary flexibility.
While the NHI Bridge Inspection Refresher 130053 training course
\8\ would be acceptable, it is not the only option. States or Federal
agencies are permitted to develop their own refresher training
programs. The details of these programs, such as training content,
frequency, and method of delivery, would be defined in the QA and QC
procedures that are periodically reviewed by the FHWA under Sec.
650.313(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Information regarding this particular course of NHI training
in general can be obtained at the following URL: http//
www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Diver Bridge Inspection Training
The Missouri and Massachusetts DOTs agreed with the proposed Sec.
650.309(e) that requires either the comprehensive bridge inspection
training or other FHWA approved training for underwater bridge
inspection divers.
The Wyoming DOT disagreed with the proposed Sec. 650.309(e) in
regards to the option of having FHWA approved underwater bridge
inspection training. The Illinois DOT argued that divers did not need
this degree of training if a qualified team leader were on site and in
communication with the divers during underwater inspection. The
Minnesota, Illinois and Kansas DOT stated that the pool of firms
meeting this requirement would be reduced. The Maryland DOT suggested
that the training requirement should be waived for those divers
certified by a national diving authority, divers who are engineers with
5 years of experience, and divers who are non engineers with 10 years
experience with a provision for refresher training every 5 years.
Thirty-four Kansas counties, eleven Kansas cities, and two Kansas
consultants commented on the proposed Sec. 650.309(e) that as long as
team leaders are on site during underwater inspections, the diver does
not need this training; however, two Kansas counties agreed that divers
should complete the comprehensive training. The Virginia DOT and the
AASHTO were not in favor of the proposed Sec. 650.309(e), particularly
since a qualified team leader must be present during the inspection.
Collins Engineers noted that the comprehensive course should be
preceded by 40 hour engineering concepts for bridge engineers course
for those with little or no practical bridge experience or background
in bridge technology.
[[Page 74428]]
FHWA Response: We have renumbered this section from the proposed
Sec. 650.309(e) to the final Sec. 650.309(d). The FHWA does not
concur with the commenters who argued that the presence of a team
leader during the inspection negates the need for comprehensive
training of the divers. During a typical underwater inspection, the
divers are not under direct visual observation by the team leader.
Divers need to be capable of conducting thorough inspections,
recognizing defects and deterioration, and documenting and describing
their observations using common terminology and techniques. For this
reason, divers must complete the comprehensive training or alternate
underwater diver bridge inspection training. States or Federal agencies
are allowed to develop their own underwater diver bridge inspection
training course. To provide additional clarification, a definition of
``underwater diver bridge inspection training'' has been added to Sec.
650.305.
In situations where divers possess little or no experience in
bridge inspection, training on basic engineering concepts and
inspection techniques should be considered. The FHWA believes that the
need for prerequisite training is an issue that must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis rather than specified in the regulation.
Collins Engineers noted that the comprehensive course currently
offered by NHI does not address diving operations. The U.S. Navy and
the ADCI recommended including reference to the OSHA regulations
regarding diving operations within the NBIS.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes that safe diving practices as
prescribed by the OSHA regulations should be employed during all bridge
inspection diving, but we do not reference them. We believe that a
reference would unnecessarily complicate this regulation. There are a
number of OSHA regulations that pertain not only to underwater
inspection but also above-water inspections, and any omission in this
standard does not relieve diving inspectors of the requirement to
follow OSHA regulations.
Training Certification
The Pennsylvania DOT commented on Sec. 650.309 indicating that
training needs to be coupled with certification tests. Furthermore, the
Pennsylvania DOT stated that inspectors who have demonstrated prior
knowledge through engineering degree or Fundamentals of Engineering
exam should be provided an opportunity to waive training requirements
via certification testing.
FHWA response: The regulation requires successful completion of
comprehensive bridge inspection training. The FHWA has elected to leave
the definition of ``successful completion'' to the States or Federal
agencies. In some States, minimum passing grades on final examinations
have been specified and the FHWA supports this concept.
We do not allow certification tests to substitute for comprehensive
bridge inspection training. The FHWA believes that successful
completion of the comprehensive bridge inspection training is
appropriate regardless of an individual's education, experience, or
professional engineer status.
Section 650.311 Inspection Frequency
Routine Inspections
The Massachusetts DOT supported clarification of the inspection
frequency. The Kansas, Tennessee, Michigan and Colorado DOTs as well as
the AASHTO, the ACRC in Michigan and the NACE recommended that more
flexibility should be given to adjust to unexpected weather events, or
to permanently move a bridge or group of bridges to a more logical
inspection period. The AASHTO recommended that routine inspections be
performed ``within a calendar year and later or within 2 months
later.'' The NACE argued that a 90-day grace period would allow for
efficient scheduling of inspections and personnel. The ACRC in Michigan
and Arkansas DOT pointed out that the NPRM preamble discussed the 30-
day grace period; however, the proposed regulation did not address
this. The Arkansas DOT recommended a 45-day grace period.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes that the inspection frequency
should not exceed 24 months. We recognize that severe weather, concern
for bridge inspector safety, concern for inspection quality, the need
to optimize scheduling with other bridges, or other unique situations
may be cause to adjust the scheduled inspection date. The adjusted date
should not extend more than 30 days beyond the scheduled inspection
date, and subsequent inspections should adhere to the previously
established interval.
Establishment of a formal inspection frequency grace period may
have the unintended consequence of extending the inspection interval
beyond twenty-four months. The twenty-four month interval has been used
as the standard since the inception of the national bridge inspection
program. Concern for safety makes us reluctant to take actions that may
make bridges less safe, therefore we have not established a grace
period.
Routine Inspections Less Than 24 Months
The Michigan DOT commented on Sec. 650.311(a)(2) that the program
manager should put guidelines in place, but the ultimate responsibility
for setting intervals less than 24-months should reside with the on-
site inspector.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes criteria to determine the level
and frequency of less than 24 month inspections should be established
and implemented according to statewide or Federal agency wide
procedures to ensure consistency throughout an entire State or Federal
agency program. The term program manager was removed from this section
to provide flexibility in how this provision is implemented.
Routine Inspections Not To Exceed 48 Months
The HCRC in Michigan in commenting on Sec. 650.311(a)(3) applauded
the opportunity for inspecting certain bridge types in up to 48-month
intervals. The South Dakota DOT commented that they have been using the
48-month inspection frequency for certain structures and support this
concept. The IACE commented that the proposed provision could be
interpreted to prohibit local agencies from inspecting at greater than
24-month intervals. The Michigan DOT noted that the program should
provide guidelines to let the States know factors being considered
during the application process to lengthen the inspection interval
otherwise each State might be treated differently depending on the
local FHWA Division Office. The NACE and the ACRC in Michigan wanted to
know if the 48-month option could be extended to local agency bridges.
Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, and one Kansas
consultant commented to the proposed Sec. 650.311(a)(3) that the local
agency should govern when bridges need inspection more than every 24
months.
FHWA response: In guidance published on September 16, 1988, the
FHWA established consistent criteria for extending an inspection
interval to 48 months, but maintains that approval be administered from
the FHWA Office of Bridge Technology in order to maintain consistency
across States and Federal agencies. Guidance on the 48-month inspection
interval criteria can be found in the FHWA Technical Advisory
T5140.21.\9\ The FHWA acknowledges
[[Page 74429]]
that further study is needed before consideration could be given to
automatically allow certain bridges to be placed on a 48-month cycle.
County bridges are also eligible; however, the State must support and
submit the request for the extended inspection cycle to the FHWA for
approval. The FHWA has removed the reference to State or Federal
agencies in the proposed Sec. 650.311(a)(3) to avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This document provides guidance for implementing the changes
contained in the 1988 revision to the NBIS and is available at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t514021.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Inspections Less Than 60 Months
The Michigan DOT commented on Sec. 650.311(b)(2) that the ultimate
responsibility for setting interval less than 60 months should reside
with the on-site inspector.
FHWA response: As with the routine inspection interval discussed
earlier, the FHWA believes criteria to determine the level and
frequency of less than 60-month inspections should be established and
implemented according to statewide or Federal agency wide procedures to
ensure consistency throughout an entire State or Federal agency
program.
Underwater Inspections Not To Exceed 72 Months
The Missouri DOT commented on Sec. 650.311(b)(3) and agreed that
they would like to see a 72-month interval. The New Jersey DOT argued
that this was excessive and should remain at the 60-month interval. The
Indiana DOT agreed with the change, but would like the maximum moved
out to 120 months. The IACE commented that the proposed provision could
be interpreted to restrict local agencies from inspecting at greater
than 60-month intervals and that there is inconsistent treatment of
local agencies. The Iowa DOT thought the proposed provisions too
restrictive and that flexibility be given to bridge owners in the range
of 6 to 10 years for various reasons. The U.S. Navy commented that it
was not in favor of extending the underwater inspection interval beyond
60 months and currently inspect on a 48-month interval to coincide with
successive biennial inspections.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes that underwater inspection
intervals for certain bridges can be extended to 72 months, with FHWA
approval. The FHWA believes that applying engineering judgment and
approval on a case-by-case basis to bridges with little or no change
from inspection cycle to cycle in benign environments provides an
adequate margin of safety to the motoring public. Industry standards,
such as those provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) in its ``Underwater Investigations Standard Practice Manual,
2001,'' \10\ promote a degree of latitude in the maximum interval
between routine underwater inspections up to 6 years. The guidance
provided is tied to material, environment, scour and condition rating
from previous inspections. While we are including an additional year
beyond the current 60-month underwater inspection interval, we are
taking into consideration these same factors of material composition
(timber, steel, concrete, protected or unprotected steel or timber,
composite), environment (benign or aggressive), scour (susceptibility
to scour) and previous condition rating (excellent to failed). Based on
our assessment, again on a case-by-case basis, the FHWA may approve
requests not to exceed 72 months. This authorization can be rescinded
at any time owing to structural degradation, adverse change in
environment and presence of localized bridge scour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This document may be obtained from ASCE, 1801 Alexander
Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-4400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of a situation that may warrant an extended interval may
include a highway bridge supported by concrete piles with no
degradation over a lined irrigation canal carrying fresh water. An
example of a situation that would not warrant approval would be a
highway bridge over a high flow saltwater or brackish water
environment, with structural piles showing degradation and subject to
localized scour. Four-year frequencies may be used, if desired, but
retention of the 60-month frequencies allows more flexibility to
program managers. The FHWA does not believe there is justification at
this time to warrant extended intervals beyond 72 months, but
acknowledges that further study in this area is needed. The FHWA has
removed the reference to State or Federal agencies in the proposed
Sec. 650.311(b)(3) to avoid confusion.
Fracture Critical Member Inspections
The Massachusetts DOT in commenting on Sec. 650.311(c) supports
clarification of the inspection frequency being proposed, specifically
with regard to fracture critical (FC) inspections. The Texas DOT
commented on Sec. 650.311(c)(1) and indicated that preliminary
estimates of having a ``not to exceed 24 months'' interval would
increase statewide inspection costs by $10 million per year, that the
program manager should be allowed to set that interval based on sound
engineering judgment and FHWA approval and the maximum approved
frequency should not exceed 60 months. The Texas DOT also commented
that routine and underwater inspection frequency can be extended, and
questioned why this does not apply to fracture critical inspection
frequency.
The Illinois DOT noted that the proposed Sec. 650.311(c)(1)
establishes a 24-month maximum frequency for fracture critical members
and recommended a 24-month interval that allows States to have the
latitude to establish criteria for inspecting bridges at intervals up
to 60 months. The Minnesota DOT recommended that ``routine inspection
of FCMs shall be at intervals not to exceed 24 months.'' The Kansas and
Oregon DOTs argued that the 24-month interval was excessive and the
Kansas, Wyoming, and New Mexico DOTs as well as the AASHTO recommended
that States be allowed to establish intervals up to 60 months. The New
Mexico DOT also urged that the discretion for an extension be left with
the State bridge engineer or designee and not with the program manager.
The California DOT requested clarification regarding whether the
proposed language applied to ``fracture critical bridges'' or to
``bridges with fracture critical elements.'' The Wyoming and Kansas
DOTs as well as the AASHTO recommended deletion of the proposed Sec.
650.311(c)(3). The Washington DOT wanted clarification as to the
nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods to be used on FCMs.
FHWA response: The inspection frequency for fracture critical
bridges was first defined in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges.'' \11\ The
FHWA continues to believe that all FCMs or member components be given,
at a minimum, a hands-on inspection as defined in Sec. 650.305 at
intervals not to exceed 24 months. The FHWA recognizes that the
interval for use of NDE and other specialized techniques may be greater
than 24 months. The FHWA also believes that some FCMs or member
components should be inspected at more frequent intervals, and these
[[Page 74430]]
inspections may require NDE or other specialized techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The ``Recording and Coding Guide for Structure Inventory
and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' December 1995, Report No.
FHWA-PD-96-001, is available electronically at the following URL:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//bridge/mtguide.doc and may be inspected and
copied as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCM Inspections Less Than 24 Months
The Michigan DOT commented on Sec. 650.311(c)(2) and stated that
the ultimate responsibility for setting intervals less than 24 months
should reside with the on-site inspector.
FHWA response: As with other inspection intervals discussed above,
criteria to determine the level and frequency of less than 24 month
inspections should be established and implemented according to
statewide or Federal agency wide procedures to ensure consistency
throughout an entire State or Federal agency program.
Damage, In-Depth and Special Inspections
The Missouri and Minnesota DOTs commented on Sec. 650.311(d) and
agreed that the program manager should be provided the discretion to
determine the level and frequency of damage, in-depth and special
inspections. The Michigan DOT argued that Sec. 650.311(d) takes away
all responsibility from the inspector in the field and places it in the
hands of a person who has not likely to have seen the specific bridge.
FHWA response: The FHWA believes that although input from a team
leader is an important consideration, the ultimate decision should rest
with the program manager in order to ensure consistency throughout an
entire State or Federal agency program.
National Bridge Inventory Item Numbers
The Indiana DOT noted that proposed Sec. 650.311 does not include
any reference to NBI item number 92C,\12\ other special detail
inspections and asked if it is covered by Sec. 650.311(d) and whether
the inspection frequencies are to be determined by the program manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Bridge Inventory ``item number 92'' denotes
critical features that need special inspections or special emphasis
during inspections and the designated inspection interval.
Specifically item 92C addresses ``other special inspection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA response: NBI item number 92C, other special inspection, is
addressed in Sec. 650.311 (d) Damage, in-depth and special inspection.
Definition for special inspection is covered in Sec. 650.305. The
inspection frequency is established by the program manager.
Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures
The Oregon DOT stated that the requirements of Sec. 650.313 were
very reasonable.
The Michigan DOT stated that Sec. 650.313(a) contains conflicts
with the AASHTO Manual that must be resolved.
FHWA response: The NBIS take precedence over the AASHTO Manual. The
AASHTO Manual has excellent guidance that should be followed whenever
it is not in conflict with the requirements of the NBIS.
On-Site Team Leader
The Massachusetts and South Dakota DOTs supported the proposed
Sec. 650.313(b). The Maryland, Kansas, and Michigan DOTs, as well as
the AASHTO, do not support the requirement for having ``team leader''
on site at all times during inspection. The Tennessee DOT had questions
regarding having a designated person act as ``team leader'' when the
team leader is unavailable. Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven Kansas
cities, one Kansas consultant commented on the proposed Sec.
650.313(b) and stated that there are too many structures to require the
``team leader'' at every inspection and that this requirement will
likely increase local agency costs which would deplete funding
available for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. The HCRC in
Michigan commented on Sec. 650.313(b) and asked whether this new
requirement would mean that two people will have to perform inspections
and, if so then there would be a costly increase for counties
performing bridge inspections.
FHWA response: The requirement to have the team leader on site
during the inspection is not new. However, the language requiring this
was clarified in this section because the FHWA agrees there has been
some misinterpretation of the NBIS in the past. The qualifications for
team leader were established to ensure that those conducting the
inspections meet specific minimum standards, not to establish
qualifications of the supervisor of those who perform the inspection.
This requirement does not mandate that two people are required to
conduct an inspection. However, if only one person is conducting an
inspection, that person must meet the qualifications of a team leader,
as defined in the NBIS. Even though there is no requirement to have a
minimum of 2 people on an inspection team, the FHWA highly recommends
at least 2 people be present to ensure the safety of the inspectors, to
improve the quality of the inspection data, and to provide
opportunities to train new inspectors.
Load Rating and Posting
The Wyoming DOT commented on Sec. 650.313(c) and stated that the
new the AASHTO, Manual for load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) of
Highway Bridges \13\ could change some of this regulatory language if
adopted by the AASHTO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The AASHTO 2003, Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR
of Highway Bridges may be obtained upon payment in advance by
writing to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249,
Washington, DC 20001or it may be ordered at the following URL:
http://www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/FrontPage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois DOT argued that the requirement to post bridges that
are unable to carry routine permit loads not be applied to all
structures under local agency jurisdiction, only those on local
highways that are designated truck route system by the State for
routine permit loads.
FHWA response: The FHWA agrees that the AASHTO, Manual for
Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges uses new terminology.
The phrase, ``or equivalent rating factor'' was included in the
requirement to account for the differences. The FHWA also agrees that
bridges under local jurisdiction on roads where unrestricted permit
loads are not allowed, need not be posted for the permit loads. The
FHWA believes the language in the requirement is consistent with that
interpretation, since permit loads would be considered to be restricted
from using those bridges. The FHWA agrees that bridge owners may post
bridges for less than the operating load level, and the FHWA believes
this final rule allows for that possibility.
When restricting routine or continuous permit loads from crossing
specific bridges, States or Federal agencies may elect to erect posting
signs or to issue restrictions to the permit holders to keep them from
traveling specific routes with permit loads capacity problems. To
account for different methods of controlling access for permit
vehicles, the phrase, ``Post or restrict'' was added to Sec.
650.313(c).
Bridge Files
The Wyoming DOT commented on Sec. 650.313(d) and indicated that
maintaining inspection records for the life of the bridge, while ideal,
may not be realistic or beneficial in all cases and therefore
recommended that this requirement be deleted. The Indiana DOT pointed
out the problems associated with availability and storage of bridge
data and that maintaining such files would be labor intensive. The
Michigan DOT indicated that records no longer relevant should be purged
from the files and recommended that Sec. 650.311(d) be modified to
allow
[[Page 74431]]
agencies to purge files. The Minnesota DOT noted that tracking ``any
action taken'' would be very laborious and recommended that Sec.
650.311(d) be changed to reflect that only ``action(s) taken pursuant
to the critical findings'' be tracked. The Missouri, New Jersey and
Michigan DOTs commented that ``standard forms'' or report documentation
is somewhat confusing and can vary from State to State. The New Jersey
DOT wants clarification whether electronic as well as paper documents
would be included in the ``bridge file.'' The Miami County in Kansas
noted that the recording and coding guide format is appropriate for
most bridge data reporting.
FHWA response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that maintaining
bridge records could be misunderstood to apply to all data, even though
it may not be relevant or necessary to properly assess the current
condition. The language was revised to state the minimum requirement is
to maintain data that is relevant. The determination of relevant data
is made by the program manager following guidance contained in the
AASHTO Manual. We have revised the wording of Sec. 650.313(d)
accordingly. The FHWA agrees that ``standard forms'' is not specific,
but it does indicate that for a given State or Federal agency, the
forms should be consistent to facilitate recording and interpretation
of the data. The wording of Sec. 650.313(d) has been revised
accordingly. The FHWA agrees that records may be maintained in paper or
electronic versions, or both. The NBIS does not specify or eliminate
either method.
Bridge Lists
The Wyoming DOT commented on Sec. 650.313(e) and argued that the
agency, not the program manager, should be responsible for identifying
and maintaining bridge lists. Wyoming DOT urged that this provision
should be deleted. The Massachusetts DOT supports the requirement for
maintaining lists and does so with relative ease using a computerized
database. The Illinois DOT, the IACE, and the AASHTO stated that the
requirement to list bridges ``vulnerable to seismic damage'' should not
be included in the NBIS. The Kansas DOT sees no benefit in keeping
bridge lists assuming data is readily available. The Washington DOT
seeks clarification as to what qualifies a bridge as ``seismically
vulnerable.'' The Michigan DOT viewed the bridge list requirement for
multiple written documents and or plans for nearly every bridge in the
inventory as an overwhelming work burden for State DOTs.
FHWA response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that the program
manager may not be the designated individual who actually identifies
bridges in specific categories. However, the FHWA believes the program
manager has overall responsibility to see that such work is done. The
language was revised to eliminate any specific reference to the person
who identifies the bridges. The FHWA also agrees that maintaining a
paper list is not necessarily the only way this requirement can be met.
Computerized data base lists or simply an identifier in the State's
inventory would satisfy the requirement. However, it is necessary to
identify bridges in at least the specific categories listed so their
unique inspection requirements and potential needs can be assessed
appropriately.
The proposed requirement to identify and evaluate bridges in high
seismic risk areas has been removed. We believe that this is an
important consideration for bridge safety, best addressed through a
comprehensive evaluation of seismic risk through a bridge management
program. The FHWA has previously advised States to identify bridges
vulnerable to seismic damage, based on a State's site specific
assessment.
Fracture Critical Bridges
The Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and Wyoming DOTs as well
as the AASHTO commented on Sec. 650.313(f) and recommended that it
should be deleted. The New Jersey DOT indicated that an electronic
record of such bridges would meet this requirement. The Texas DOT
commented that generating an ``action plan'' would not be an efficient
use of resources, would not add any benefit and may contain redundant
information. The Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania DOTs
supported this section. The Maryland DOT recommended that in lieu of
Sec. 650.313(f), we should require States to follow procedures
described in the FHWA's ``Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge
Members.'' \14\ The Michigan DOT viewed the bridge list requirement for
multiple written documents and or plans for nearly every bridge in the
inventory as an overwhelming work burden for State DOTs. The Oklahoma
DOT recommended adding a waiver to Sec. 650.313(f) for bridges with an
average daily traffic (ADT) less than 500. The Pennsylvania DOT
recommended the addition of a fracture critical (FC) indicator to the
NBI to identify FC bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members, Report No.
FHWA-IP-86-26 is available through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 or it may be
ordered online at the following URL: http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA response: The FHWA did not intend the proposed language for an
``inspection plan'' to be substantially different than the current
rule, which requires identification, description, frequency and
procedures to be established for fracture critical members (FCMs).
Those items essentially would constitute the ``plan.'' The FCM
inspections should be done in accordance with FHWA-IP-86-26,
``Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members.'' Therefore the
reference to a plan has been eliminated and language similar to the
existing rule has been adopted. The features of the FCM inspections can
be shown in a listing, on the inspection records, or in an electronic
database. The proposed Sec. 650.313(f) has been redesignated as Sec.
650.313(e)(1).
Underwater Inspections
The Missouri, Wyoming, Illinois, Minnesota and Kansas DOTs as well
as the AASHTO stated that Sec. 650.313(g) should be deleted. The New
Jersey DOT indicated that an electronic record of such bridges would
meet this requirement, but stated that it is unclear. The Texas DOT
commented that generating an action plan would not be an efficient use
of resources, not add any benefit and may contain redundant
information. The Massachusetts and California DOTs indicated support
for this section. The Maryland DOT recommended that in lieu of Sec.
650.313(g) the FHWA should require States to follow procedures
described in the FHWA's Underwater Inspection of Bridges report.\15\
The Alabama DOT argued that this requirement would pose a significant
burden on those States with a large population of bridges requiring
underwater inspections, and be unnecessary, wasteful, and a duplicative
effort. The Michigan DOT viewed the bridge list requirement for
multiple written documents and or plans for nearly every bridge in the
inventory as an overwhelming burden for State DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Underwater Inspection of Bridges, November 1989, Report No.
FHWA-DP-80-1, provides guidelines for underwater bridge inspection.
This document is available through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA response: The FHWA did not intend the proposed language for an
``inspection plan'' to be substantially different from the current
rule, which requires identification, description, frequency and
procedures to be
[[Page 74432]]
established for members requiring underwater inspection. Those items
essentially would constitute the ``plan.'' Therefore the reference to a
plan has been eliminated and language similar to the existing rule has
been adopted. Those four features of the underwater inspections can be
shown in a listing, on the inspection records, or in an electronic
database. The proposed Sec. 650.313(g) has been redesignated as Sec.
650.313(e)(2).
Scour Critical Bridges
The Missouri DOT commented on Sec. 650.313(h) and recommended that
language regarding inspecting bridges after a ``major flood'' event
should be changed to ``consideration should be given to inspecting
scour critical bridges after a major flood event.'' The Missouri and
Colorado DOTs also noted that the ``major flood event'' guidance would
be addressed in the ``action plan.''
The Texas DOT commented that generating an action plan would not be
an efficient use of resources and, instead, proposed that generic
guidelines be developed outlining appropriate evaluation milestones as
well as monitoring criteria. The Indiana DOT indicated that at the
State level there are scour plans; however, at the county level
additional resources would be needed to develop scour plans. The
Indiana, Wyoming, Illinois, Minnesota and Kansas DOTs as well as the
AASHTO recommended deleting Sec. 650.313(h). The Massachusetts DOT
recommended that the requirement be changed to establishing a list of
bridges that are vulnerable to events and developing monitoring and or
inspection plans for such structures in the wake of a scour event. The
South Dakota DOT asked for clarification of a ``major flood event.''
The Washington DOT indicated that its inspection of bridges after major
flood events are performed by maintenance staff and asked if this
section required that a team leader perform these inspections. The
California DOT indicated support for this section.
The Michigan DOT viewed the bridge list requirement for multiple
written documents and or plans for nearly every bridge in the inventory
as an overwhelming burden on State DOTs. Thirty-seven Kansas counties,
seven Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant commented on the proposed
Sec. 650.313(h) and indicated that the requirement to prepare an
action plan is not justified, and that the local agency should decide
proper actions based on degree of risk. The Virginia DOT understood the
need to have lists of scour critical bridges to identify structures
that needed inspection after a flood event; but did not agree that the
NBIS covers retrofit guidelines.
FHWA response: Scour related deficiencies are the leading cause of
serious bridge failures and closings. The requirements for scour
evaluation and action plans are consistent with the existing
requirement for evaluation of underwater members, with a renewed
emphasis. The FHWA does agree with the commenters that the action plans
for some bridges may be very similar and that monitoring and assessment
after flood events may be done using different levels of effort
depending on the degree of risk. The wording of this section was
changed to reflect the need for some flexibility in the application of
the action plans. Monitoring after flood events is described in the
FHWA guidance manuals, ``Evaluating Scour at Bridges'' \16\ and
``Bridge Scour and Stream Instability.'' \17\ The proposed Sec.
650.313(h) has been redesignated as Sec. 650.313(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Evaluating Scour at Bridges FHWA-NHI-01-001 (HEC-18)
presents the state of knowledge and practice for the design,
evaluation and inspection of bridges for scour. This document is
available through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
\17\ Bridge Scour and Stream Instability FHWA-NHI-01-003 (HEC-
23) provides guidelines for identifying stream instability problems
at highway stream crossings. This document is available through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seismic Vulnerability
The Missouri, Wyoming, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and Pennsylvania
DOTs, the IACE and the AASHTO commented on Sec. 650.313(i) and
recommended that it should be deleted. The Colorado DOT urged that
Sec. 650.313(i) should be either deleted or rewritten to better define
criteria for determining ``seismic vulnerability'' and expectation for
the ``action plan.'' The New Jersey DOT commented that it does not
believe that ``the benefit of such a program in New Jersey would be
consistent with the costs to develop it considering the historical lack
of damage from seismic events.'' The Indiana DOT indicated the proposed
language is too vague, leaves too much for interpretation, and that
additional resources would be needed at the county level.
The Massachusetts DOT recommended establishing a list of bridges
that are vulnerable to events and developing monitoring and or
inspection plans for such structures in the wake of a seismic event.
The Illinois DOT and the IACE argued that this provision was an
``unfunded mandate.'' The Washington DOT wanted clarification as to
what qualifies a bridge as ``seismically vulnerable.'' The California
DOT supported this section. The Michigan DOT viewed this requirement
for multiple written documents and or plans for nearly every bridge in
the inventory as an overwhelming burden for State DOTs. Thirty-seven
Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant disagreed
with Sec. 650.313(i) because they believe the requirement to prepare
an action plan is not justified, and that it should be a local agency
decision based on degree of risk. The Virginia DOT understood the need
to have lists of seismically vulnerable bridges to identify structures
that needed inspection after a significant seismic event; however, it
does not agree that the NBIS covers retrofit guidelines. The
Pennsylvania DOT noted that the term ``seismic vulnerability'' was not
defined in Sec. 650.305 and that the inspection requirement in Sec.
650.313(i) is an open ended assignment that could be very costly,
particularly in States with low seismic event probabilities.
FHWA response: The proposed requirement has been eliminated.
Although we believe that this is an important consideration for bridge
safety, we believe that it is best addressed by a comprehensive
evaluation of seismic risk through a bridge management process.
Complex Bridges
The Missouri DOT opposed the proposed Sec. 650.313(j) because it
believes States have sufficient knowledge to recognize inspection needs
for unusual bridges or features. The Wyoming and Minnesota DOTs and the
AASHTO recommended that this provision should be deleted. The Texas DOT
indicated that generating an ``action plan'' for ``complex'' bridges is
not an efficient use of resources, would not add benefit and would
likely contain redundant information. The Washington DOT commented that
it needed further clarification as to ``inspection and training
requirements.'' The California DOT is unclear as to the level of effort
needed to comply with preparation of the proposed complex bridge
``inspection plan.''
FHWA response: The FHWA agrees that the content of the plan was not
clear in the proposed requirement. The language was changed to specify
that the minimum requirement is to establish specialized inspection
needs, level of effort and additional inspector training and/or
experience. These procedures are applied to the unique features of
complex bridges that would not normally be covered in a routine
[[Page 74433]]
inspection. We also clarified the definition for complex bridges. The
proposed Sec. 650.313(j) has been redesignated as Sec. 650.313(f).
Quality Control and Quality Assurance
The Missouri DOT, regarding the proposed Sec. 650.313(k), is
opposed to the requirement of a formal QC and QA program. The Missouri
DOT believes it would be redundant and not sufficiently enhance public
safety compared to efforts expended to provide such a program. The
Indiana DOT argued that they would need additional resources to comply
with this requirement and also expressed concern over the subjectivity
of the required FHWA approval. The Wyoming DOT urged that this
provision should be deleted. The Massachusetts, South Dakota,
California and Pennsylvania DOTs supported this provision.
The Illinois DOT was concerned about the FHWA having a more active
role. The South Dakota DOT supports this concept, but believes that the
program should be left up to the States.
The Minnesota DOT recommended rewording this section to say,
``submit documentation of the QA program to the FHWA for review and
comment.'' Additionally, the Minnesota DOT suggested that if QC is
retained both QA and QC should be defined and the difference between
them explained.
The Kansas DOT wanted to improve the consistency of NBI data by
having the FHWA improve the ``Edit/Update program'' and distribute the
program for general use. The Washington DOT asked for clarification as
to the level of effort intended for submittal of QC and QA program
documentation to the FHWA and requested criteria for program
expectations.
The Michigan DOT recommended that the FHWA provide guidelines to
the States outlining the evaluation factors used to grant approval, and
that the FHWA should provide a standard for national uniformity. The
Iowa DOT and the AASHTO recommended that the requirement to review load
calculations be eliminated.
The ACRC in Michigan noted that in instances where inspection
responsibilities are delegated to local agencies, the required QC and
QA program should be developed in cooperation with the local agencies.
Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, one Kansas
consultant commented on Sec. 650.313(k) and the majority indicated
that they disagreed with the provision because the current limited
oversight is working well. They recommended that the FHWA develop and
distribute software to collect QA and QC data to encourage consistency
and uniformity nationwide. The Virginia DOT commented that the
documentation of findings for the QC and QA program should be available
for review and comment by the FHWA but should not be subject to FHWA
approval.
FHWA response: We have added definitions for QC and QA that are
consistent with the AASHTO Manual. An FHWA study, ``Reliability of
Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges,'' found wide variations in the
condition assessment of typical highway bridges by experienced and
trained inspectors from a variety of States. The study concludes that
formal quality assurance is needed to obtain better uniformity in
assigning condition codes. The FHWA believes that using computer
software tools to check data is an important part of obtaining data
accuracy and consistency, but is not adequate alone as a QC and QA
procedure. The FHWA believes many States have well-developed and
effective QC and QA procedures, but others have very minimal programs.
This requirement will help States or Federal agencies develop more
uniform systems that will lead toward more accurate national data.
Example QC and QA procedures from other States are available at URL:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/index.htm. for review and consideration.
The FHWA agrees with commenters that methods of review of reports
and computations may vary and the precise method should be done
according to normal State or Federal agency procedures. The FHWA agrees
that it is not necessary to include in the rule a specific requirement
to submit the QC and QA procedure to the FHWA for approval. During NBIS
program reviews \18\ the FHWA will examine QC and QA procedures. The
proposed Sec. 650.313(k) has been redesignated as Sec. 650.313(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The NBIS program reviews are routinely done by the FHWA on
an annual basis to determine compliance with the NBIS. This program
is delineated in a June 22, 2001 memorandum that can be found at the
following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Up on Critical Findings
The Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois and Pennsylvania DOTs and the AASHTO
commented on Sec. 650.313(l) and recommended that this provision be
deleted. The Missouri DOT had no objections on this provision, but
recommended annual reporting. The Texas and Pennsylvania DOTs sought
clarification as to how often this information should be provided and
recommended that the FHWA define the term ``critical finding.'' The
Maryland DOT suggested a definition for ``critical finding'' as ``any
condition that affects the safe passage of any legal vehicle.'' The
South Dakota DOT supported this provision and also recommended that the
States be allowed to set their own definition of ``critical finding.''
The Washington DOT requested more details on how States are to report
the information to the FHWA. The IACE did not see a benefit to
requiring such information be reported since it would require
additional resources to generate the information. The California DOT
supported the proposed provision on the basis that its current FHWA
reporting procedure be used. The Michigan DOT indicated that ``critical
findings'' is not defined; frequency of reporting is not delineated and
workload would double when this provision is applied to local agencies.
The Colorado DOT recommended the provision should be deleted and the
subject left to the language contained in Sec. 650.313(d).
Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, one Kansas
consultant commented on the proposed Sec. 650.313(l) and the majority
disagreed with the provision because the cost of establishing a
statewide procedure to address critical findings is not justified. The
Oklahoma DOT suggested revising this section to require the program
manager be responsible for determining a procedure to address critical
findings and that the FHWA should define the term ``program manager.''
FHWA response: The broad definition for ``critical finding'' was
added to allow flexibility to establish, in cooperation with the FHWA,
criteria and reporting procedures specific to a particular State or
Federal agency. The FHWA noted that many States already have
established procedures that are working well, and the rule was not
meant to require significant changes in those procedures. ``Notify the
FHWA of actions taken to assure public safety'' was changed to
``Periodically notify the FHWA of the actions taken to resolve or
monitor critical findings.'' The period between notifications is to be
agreed upon between the FHWA and the State or Federal agency. The
proposed Sec. 650.313(l) has been redesignated as Sec. 650.313(h).
Section 650.315 Inventory
Prepare and Maintain
The Oregon DOT commented that Sec. 650.315 requirements are very
reasonable. The Texas and Oklahoma DOTs suggested that the first
sentence of
[[Page 74434]]
Sec. 650.315(a) be rewritten as follows: ``Each State and Federal
agency must prepare and maintain an inventory of all bridges subject to
the NBIS that are inspected according to Sec. 650.307.'' The Texas DOT
asked if the States were required to maintain an inventory of federally
owned bridges even though they are not inspected by the States.
The Kansas DOT recommended that the second sentence in Sec.
650.315(a) be rewritten to say, ``State and Federal agencies must
collect, retain and submit certain * * *''.
The AASHTO recommended revising the first two sentences of Sec.
650.315(a) as follows: ``Each State must prepare and maintain an
inventory of all bridges subject to the NBIS. Each Federal agency must
prepare and maintain an inventory of all bridges subject to the NBIS.''
FHWA response: We have modified Sec. 650.315(a) by removing the
word ``and'' and replacing it with the word ``or.'' We do not require
that States collect, report or retain the Federal bridge information.
The FHWA annually provides a copy to each State of all the inspection
information that was submitted by Federal agencies for each State. This
is done so that the States may have a complete inventory and have
access to Federal bridge data within the State.
Data Submittal Deadlines: Initial, Routine, In-Depth, Fracture
Critical, Special and Underwater Inspections
The New Jersey DOT interpreted the proposed Sec. 650.315(b) to
apply only to major changes in NBI data rather than all inspection data
which may not be available until the inspection report is complete. The
Massachusetts DOT support the proposed changes. The Kansas DOT and the
AASHTO recommended that inspection data from initial, routine, in-
depth, fracture critical, special and underwater inspections be entered
into the NBI within 120 days of inspection, rather than 90 days.
FHWA response: All inspection data is to be entered into the
inventory whether it is new data or changed data. This is not always
restricted to NBI item number 58 \19\, NBI item number 59 \20\ and NBI
item number 60 \21\ since other items such as bridge clearances and
safety features, may also change during an inspection cycle. The FHWA
believes that the 90 day (3 month) period for entering the data allows
a reasonable amount of time for completion of the inspection report and
data entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Bridge Inventory ``item number 58,'' Deck,
describes the overall condition rating of the deck.
\20\ National Bridge Inventory ``item number 59,''
Superstructure, describes the physical condition of all structural
members.
\21\ National Bridge Inventory ``item number 60,'' Substructure,
describes the physical condition of piers, abutments, piles,
fenders, footings, or other components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA believes that extending the time required for entering the
data after inspection to 180 days (6 months) for States or Federal
agencies is too long. The 90-day time period for entering the data is
consistent with the current regulation. The FHWA only collects this
data once a year and any delay in the data being properly inventoried
would not provide the FHWA the most current data available. Up-to-date
information is vital to the program oversight, management and
stewardship for the State and the FHWA. It is also important that the
FHWA have current data because this data is used to: (1) Distribute
funds for the HBRRP program (23 U.S.C. 144), (2) provide reports to
Congress, and (3) make critical decisions regarding the bridge program.
This necessitates adherence to a firm 90-day collection period.
Data Submittal Deadlines: Bridge Modifications and New Bridges
The Massachusetts DOT supported the changes proposed to Sec.
650.315(c). The Minnesota DOT recommended extending timelines to
provide more flexibility to inspection agencies entering data, ``within
one year not to exceed 90 days.'' The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO
recommended allowing 120 days rather than 90 days to enter the data.
The Washington DOT recommended adding a qualifier, ``open to traffic,''
to appropriately consider bridges built in phased construction where
only a portion of the bridge may be open.
FHWA response: The FHWA noted that extension of the time required
for entering changed data because of bridge modifications or new bridge
construction is not justified. The 90 day time frame for entering data
is consistent with the current regulation. For the reasons listed in
the FHWA response to Sec. 650.315(b), up-to-date information is vital
to the bridge program. If any part of a highway bridge is open to
traffic it should be inspected and inventoried in accordance with the
NBIS.
Data Submittal Deadlines: Load Restriction or Closure Status
The Massachusetts DOT supported the changes proposed to Sec.
650.315(d). The Minnesota DOT recommended extending timelines to
provide more flexibility to inspection agencies entering data, ``within
one year not to exceed 90 days.'' The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO
recommended allowing 120 days rather than 90 days to enter the data.
The Minnesota DOT indicated it did not want to see the requirement to
develop QA and QC measures to enforce these timelines.
FHWA response: The FHWA noted that the time required for entering
changed data due to load restriction or closure status being extended
to 180 days (6 months) is too long. The 90-day time frame for entering
data is consistent with the current regulation. The FHWA only collects
this data once a year and any delay in the data being properly
inventoried would not provide the FHWA the most current data available.
For the reasons listed in the FHWA response to Sec. 650.315(b), up-to-
date information is vital to the bridge program. The FHWA is not
requiring that a ``QA and QC measure'' be developed to enforce these
timelines.
Section 650.317 Reference Manuals
The South Dakota DOT supports Sec. 650.317.
The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO recommended the FHWA combine Sec.
650.317(a) and Sec. 650.317(b). The Michigan DOT does not support the
incorporation of the AASHTO Manual in Sec. 650.317(a), reasoning that
an overly detailed regulation could incur unnecessary liability for the
States due to the difficulty of achieving 100 percent compliance. The
AASHTO commented that the availability of a 2003 Interim revision to
the AASHTO Manual would necessitate adding it to the reference manuals.
FHWA response: The FHWA does not agree with combining Sec.
650.317(a) and Sec. 650.317(b) since they are two distinct documents.
The FHWA agrees that the 2003 Interim revision to the AASHTO Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges needs to be incorporated by reference
and has made that change.
Related Rulemakings and Notices
The FHWA is also in the process of reviewing 23 CFR part 650,
subpart D, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP). The FHWA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
for the HBRRP on September 26, 2001, at 66 FR 49152. The FHWA also
recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the HBRRP on
June 21, 2004, at 69 FR 34314.
[[Page 74435]]
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is
significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. This action is considered
significant because of the substantial public interest in the safety of
highway bridges. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated
this regulation as a significant regulatory action and has reviewed it
under E.O. 12866.
We have analyzed the costs associated with this rulemaking. We
believe that the costs of the changes in this final rule will be
minimal because we believe that most States already adhere to many of
the inspection procedures set forth in this rule and, therefore, we
believe these changes will add less than $1 million to the costs
associated with a multi-billon dollar program. Additionally, the bridge
program is part of the Federal-aid highway program and, thus, the costs
associated with this rule are eligible for funding under this program.
We believe the changes to the inspection program are minor and will not
be costly to the States. Finally, we have carefully analyzed the costs
associated with the information collection and we believe the cost
associated with the minor increase in burden hours will be $52,000 or
about $1000 per State (to include the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico); therefore, the total cost of the entire information collection
will be approximately $13,552,000, or an average of $260,000 per State.
These information collection costs also may be reimbursed under the
Federal-aid highway program.
This final rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any
sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere
with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is
not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on
small entities and has determined that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Since the regulatory changes are primarily directed to the States,
which are not considered small entities for the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA is able to certify that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995,
109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The
definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local or
tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal
government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of
flexibility to the States. Additionally, funding to inventory highway
bridges, as well as Indian reservation and park road bridges, is
currently provided under 23 U.S.C. 144, Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). Bridge inspection is an eligible
activity under the HBRRP and Federal funding is available to the States
under the HBRRP.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This final rule is not an economically significant rule and does
not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This action will not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has
determined that this action will not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The
FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA believes that this action will not
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The State reporting
requirements related to the National Bridge Inspection Standards are
covered by an existing FHWA information collection entitled Structure
Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) Sheet. The OMB control number for this
collection is 2125-0501. The current annual burden imposed on the
States under this information collection is 540,000 hours.
The SI&A sheets are used by the States and Federal agencies to
provide to the FHWA the required information on annual bridge
inspections. The FHWA has determined that the new requirements in this
final rule will place an additional 2,080 burden hours on the States,
which will result in a total annual burden of 542,080 hours. The
additional burden is based on a review of the national bridge
inspection data coupled with the additional NBIS requirements this
rulemaking action
[[Page 74436]]
imposes on the States. These requirements include the development of
procedures for follow-up on critical findings.
In the NPRM published on September 9, 2003, the FHWA proposed a
burden increase of 67,000 hours for the information collection, OMB
control number 2125-0501, and invited interested parties to send
comments regarding any aspect of these information collection
requirements. Such comments could include, but were not limited to: (1)
Whether the collection of information will be necessary for the
performance of the functions of the FHWA, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the
collection burden without reducing the quality of the information
collected. The FHWA did not receive any comments in response to the
proposed burden hour increase of 67,000 hours. The revision to the
information collection, OMB control number 2125-0501, based on this
final rule will increase the burden hours by only 2,080 hours, a much
smaller amount than that originally proposed in the NPRM.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and has determined
that this action will not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant
energy action under that order, because although it is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650
Bridges, Grant Programs--transportation, Highways and roads,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Issued on: December 9, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations, part 650, subpart C, as follows:
PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS
0
1. The authority citation for part 650 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 (a) and (h), 144, 151, 315, and 319; 33
U.S.C. 401, 491 et seq., 511 et seq.; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b),
E.O. 11988 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 117); Department of Transportation
Order 5650.2 dated April 23, 1979 (44 FR 24678); sec. 161 of Public
Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097, 3135; sec. 4(b) of Public Law 97-134, 95
Stat. 1699; and sec. 1057 of Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 2002; and
sec. 1311 of Pub. L. 105-178, as added by Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat.
842 (1998).
0
2. Revise subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards
Sec.
650.301 Purpose.
650.303 Applicability.
650.305 Definitions.
650.307 Bridge inspection organization.
650.309 Qualifications of personnel.
650.311 Inspection frequency.
650.313 Inspection procedures.
650.315 Inventory.
650.317 Reference manuals.
Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards
Sec. 650.301 Purpose.
This subpart sets the national standards for the proper safety
inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 151.
Sec. 650.303 Applicability.
The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in this subpart
apply to all structures defined as highway bridges located on all
public roads.
Sec. 650.305 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Manual. ``Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges,'' second
edition, published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317).
Bridge. A structure including supports erected over a depression or
an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track
or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an
opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet
between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or extreme
ends of openings for multiple boxes; it may also include multiple
pipes, where the clear distance between openings is less than half of
the smaller contiguous opening.
Bridge inspection experience. Active participation in bridge
inspections in accordance with the NBIS, in either a field inspection,
supervisory, or management role. A combination of bridge design, bridge
maintenance, bridge construction and bridge inspection experience, with
the predominant amount in bridge inspection, is acceptable.
Bridge inspection refresher training. The National Highway
Institute ``Bridge Inspection Refresher Training Course'' \1\ or other
State, local, or federally developed instruction aimed to improve
quality of inspections, introduce new techniques, and maintain the
consistency of the inspection program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Highway Institute training may be found at the
following URL: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov./
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM). A comprehensive FHWA
manual on programs, procedures and techniques for inspecting and
evaluating a variety of in-service highway bridges. This manual may be
purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402 and from National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161, and is available at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bripub.htm.
Complex bridge. Movable, suspension, cable stayed, and other
bridges with unusual characteristics.
Comprehensive bridge inspection training. Training that covers all
aspects of bridge inspection and enables inspectors to relate
conditions observed on a bridge to established criteria (see the Bridge
Inspector's Reference Manual for the recommended material to be covered
in a comprehensive training course).
Critical finding. A structural or safety related deficiency that
requires immediate follow-up inspection or action.
Damage inspection. This is an unscheduled inspection to assess
structural damage resulting from environmental factors or human
actions.
[[Page 74437]]
Fracture critical member (FCM). A steel member in tension, or with
a tension element, whose failure would probably cause a portion of or
the entire bridge to collapse.
Fracture critical member inspection. A hands-on inspection of a
fracture critical member or member components that may include visual
and other nondestructive evaluation.
Hands-on. Inspection within arms length of the component.
Inspection uses visual techniques that may be supplemented by
nondestructive testing.
Highway. The term ``highway'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11).
In-depth inspection. A close-up, inspection of one or more members
above or below the water level to identify any deficiencies not readily
detectable using routine inspection procedures; hands-on inspection may
be necessary at some locations.
Initial inspection. The first inspection of a bridge as it becomes
a part of the bridge file to provide all Structure Inventory and
Appraisal (SI&A) data and other relevant data and to determine baseline
structural conditions.
Legal load. The maximum legal load for each vehicle configuration
permitted by law for the State in which the bridge is located.
Load rating. The determination of the live load carrying capacity
of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by information gathered
from a field inspection.
National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies
(NICET). The NICET provides nationally applicable voluntary
certification programs covering several broad engineering technology
fields and a number of specialized subfields. For information on the
NICET program certification contact: National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-2794.
Operating rating. The maximum permissible live load to which the
structure may be subjected for the load configuration used in the
rating.
Professional engineer (PE). An individual, who has fulfilled
education and experience requirements and passed rigorous exams that,
under State licensure laws, permits them to offer engineering services
directly to the public. Engineering licensure laws vary from State to
State, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate
of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam,
gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the
Principles of Practice of Engineering exam.
Program Manager. The individual in charge of the program, that has
been assigned or delegated the duties and responsibilities for bridge
inspection, reporting, and inventory. The program manager provides
overall leadership and is available to inspection team leaders to
provide guidance.
Public road. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(27).
Quality assurance (QA). The use of sampling and other measures to
assure the adequacy of quality control procedures in order to verify or
measure the quality level of the entire bridge inspection and load
rating program.
Quality control (QC). Procedures that are intended to maintain the
quality of a bridge inspection and load rating at or above a specified
level.
Routine inspection. Regularly scheduled inspection consisting of
observations and/or measurements needed to determine the physical and
functional condition of the bridge, to identify any changes from
initial or previously recorded conditions, and to ensure that the
structure continues to satisfy present service requirements.
Routine permit load. A live load, which has a gross weight, axle
weight or distance between axles not conforming with State statutes for
legally configured vehicles, authorized for unlimited trips over an
extended period of time to move alongside other heavy vehicles on a
regular basis.
Scour. Erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water;
often considered as being localized around piers and abutments of
bridges.
Scour critical bridge. A bridge with a foundation element that has
been determined to be unstable for the observed or evaluated scour
condition.
Special inspection. An inspection scheduled at the discretion of
the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected
deficiency.
State transportation department. The term ``State transportation
department'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
Team leader. Individual in charge of an inspection team responsible
for planning, preparing, and performing field inspection of the bridge.
Underwater diver bridge inspection training. Training that covers
all aspects of underwater bridge inspection and enables inspectors to
relate the conditions of underwater bridge elements to established
criteria (see the Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual section on
underwater inspection for the recommended material to be covered in an
underwater diver bridge inspection training course).
Underwater inspection. Inspection of the underwater portion of a
bridge substructure and the surrounding channel, which cannot be
inspected visually at low water by wading or probing, generally
requiring diving or other appropriate techniques.
Sec. 650.307 Bridge inspection organization.
(a) Each State transportation department must inspect, or cause to
be inspected, all highway bridges located on public roads that are
fully or partially located within the State's boundaries, except for
bridges that are owned by Federal agencies.
(b) Federal agencies must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all
highway bridges located on public roads that are fully or partially
located within the respective agency responsibility or jurisdiction.
(c) Each State transportation department or Federal agency must
include a bridge inspection organization that is responsible for the
following:
(1) Statewide or Federal agencywide bridge inspection policies and
procedures, quality assurance and quality control, and preparation and
maintenance of a bridge inventory.
(2) Bridge inspections, reports, load ratings and other
requirements of these standards.
(d) Functions identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section may be delegated, but such delegation does not relieve the
State transportation department or Federal agency of any of its
responsibilities under this subpart.
(e) The State transportation department or Federal agency bridge
inspection organization must have a program manager with the
qualifications defined in Sec. 650.309(a), who has been delegated
responsibility for paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
Sec. 650.309 Qualifications of personnel.
(a) A program manager must, at a minimum:
(1) Be a registered professional engineer, or have ten years bridge
inspection experience; and
(2) Successfully complete a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course.
(b) There are five ways to qualify as a team leader. A team leader
must, at a minimum:
(1) Have the qualifications specified in paragraph (a) of this
section; or
(2) Have five years bridge inspection experience and have
successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection
training course; or
[[Page 74438]]
(3) Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under
the National Society of Professional Engineer's program for National
Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) and have successfully
completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training
course, or
(4) Have all of the following:
(i) A bachelor's degree in engineering from a college or university
accredited by or determined as substantially equivalent by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology;
(ii) Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for
Engineering and Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination;
(iii) Two years of bridge inspection experience; and
(iv) Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge
inspection training course, or
(5) Have all of the following:
(i) An associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology
from a college or university accredited by or determined as
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology;
(ii) Four years of bridge inspection experience; and
(iii) Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge
inspection training course.
(c) The individual charged with the overall responsibility for load
rating bridges must be a registered professional engineer.
(d) An underwater bridge inspection diver must complete an FHWA
approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course or other FHWA
approved underwater diver bridge inspection training course.
Sec. 650.311 Inspection frequency.
(a) Routine inspections. (1) Inspect each bridge at regular
intervals not to exceed twenty-four months.
(2) Certain bridges require inspection at less than twenty-four-
month intervals. Establish criteria to determine the level and
frequency to which these bridges are inspected considering such factors
as age, traffic characteristics, and known deficiencies.
(3) Certain bridges may be inspected at greater than twenty-four
month intervals, not to exceed forty-eight-months, with written FHWA
approval. This may be appropriate when past inspection findings and
analysis justifies the increased inspection interval.
(b) Underwater inspections. (1) Inspect underwater structural
elements at regular intervals not to exceed sixty months.
(2) Certain underwater structural elements require inspection at
less than sixty-month intervals. Establish criteria to determine the
level and frequency to which these members are inspected considering
such factors as construction material, environment, age, scour
characteristics, condition rating from past inspections and known
deficiencies.
(3) Certain underwater structural elements may be inspected at
greater than sixty-month intervals, not to exceed seventy-two months,
with written FHWA approval. This may be appropriate when past
inspection findings and analysis justifies the increased inspection
interval.
(c) Fracture critical member (FCM) inspections. (1) Inspect FCMs at
intervals not to exceed twenty-four months.
(2) Certain FCMs require inspection at less than twenty-four-month
intervals. Establish criteria to determine the level and frequency to
which these members are inspected considering such factors as age,
traffic characteristics, and known deficiencies.
(d) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. Establish criteria
to determine the level and frequency of these inspections.
Sec. 650.313 Inspection procedures.
(a) Inspect each bridge in accordance with the inspection
procedures in the AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317).
(b) Provide at least one team leader, who meets the minimum
qualifications stated in Sec. 650.309, at the bridge at all times
during each initial, routine, in-depth, fracture critical member and
underwater inspection.
(c) Rate each bridge as to its safe load-carrying capacity in
accordance with the AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317). Post or restrict the bridge in accordance with the AASHTO
Manual or in accordance with State law, when the maximum unrestricted
legal loads or State routine permit loads exceed that allowed under the
operating rating or equivalent rating factor.
(d) Prepare bridge files as described in the AASHTO Manual
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.317). Maintain reports on the
results of bridge inspections together with notations of any action
taken to address the findings of such inspections. Maintain relevant
maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of current bridge
condition. Record the findings and results of bridge inspections on
standard State or Federal agency forms.
(e) Identify bridges with FCMs, bridges requiring underwater
inspection, and bridges that are scour critical.
(1) Bridges with fracture critical members. In the inspection
records, identify the location of FCMs and describe the FCM inspection
frequency and procedures. Inspect FCMs according to these procedures.
(2) Bridges requiring underwater inspections. Identify the location
of underwater elements and include a description of the underwater
elements, the inspection frequency and the procedures in the inspection
records for each bridge requiring underwater inspection. Inspect those
elements requiring underwater inspections according to these
procedures.
(3) Bridges that are scour critical. Prepare a plan of action to
monitor known and potential deficiencies and to address critical
findings. Monitor bridges that are scour critical in accordance with
the plan.
(f) Complex bridges. Identify specialized inspection procedures,
and additional inspector training and experience required to inspect
complex bridges. Inspect complex bridges according to those procedures.
(g) Quality control and quality assurance. Assure systematic
quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are used to
maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in the inspection
program. Include periodic field review of inspection teams, periodic
bridge inspection refresher training for program managers and team
leaders, and independent review of inspection reports and computations.
(h) Follow-up on critical findings. Establish a statewide or
Federal agency wide procedure to assure that critical findings are
addressed in a timely manner. Periodically notify the FHWA of the
actions taken to resolve or monitor critical findings.
Sec. 650.315 Inventory.
(a) Each State or Federal agency must prepare and maintain an
inventory of all bridges subject to the NBIS. Certain Structure
Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) data must be collected and retained by
the State or Federal agency for collection by the FHWA as requested. A
tabulation of this data is contained in the SI&A sheet distributed by
the FHWA as part of the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' (December 1995)
together with subsequent interim changes or the most recent version.
Report the data using FHWA established procedures as
[[Page 74439]]
outlined in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges.''
(b) For routine, in-depth, fracture critical member, underwater,
damage and special inspections enter the SI&A data into the State or
Federal agency inventory within 90 days of the date of inspection for
State or Federal agency bridges and within 180 days of the date of
inspection for all other bridges.
(c) For existing bridge modifications that alter previously
recorded data and for new bridges, enter the SI&A data into the State
or Federal agency inventory within 90 days after the completion of the
work for State or Federal agency bridges and within 180 days after the
completion of the work for all other bridges.
(d) For changes in load restriction or closure status, enter the
SI&A data into the State or Federal agency inventory within 90 days
after the change in status of the structure for State or Federal agency
bridges and within 180 days after the change in status of the structure
for all other bridges.
Sec. 650.317 Reference manuals.
(a) The materials listed in this subpart are incorporated by
reference in the corresponding sections noted. These incorporations by
reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are
incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of
any change in these documents will be published in the Federal
Register. The materials are available for purchase at the address
listed below, and are available for inspection at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). These materials may also be reviewed
at the Department of Transportation Library, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, in Room 2200. For information on the availability of
these materials at NARA call (202) 741-6030, or go to the following
URL: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. In the event there is a conflict
between the standards in this subpart and any of these materials, the
standards in this subpart will apply.
(b) The following materials are available for purchase from the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Suite 249, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001. The
materials may also be ordered via the AASHTO bookstore located at the
following URL: http://www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/FrontPage.
(1) The Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 1994, second
edition, as amended by the 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2000 interim
revisions, AASHTO, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec.
650.305 and 650.313.
(2) 2001 Interim Revision to the Manual for Condition Evaluation of
Bridges, AASHTO, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec.
650.305 and 650.313.
(3) 2003 Interim Revision to the Manual for Condition Evaluation of
Bridges, AASHTO, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec.
650.305 and 650.313.
[FR Doc. 04-27355 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P