[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41282-41309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16929]
[[Page 41281]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 213 and 237
Bridge Safety Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 41282]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 213 and 237
[Docket No. FRA 2009-0014, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC04
Bridge Safety Standards
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is establishing Federal safety requirements for railroad
bridges. This final rule requires track owners to implement bridge
management programs, which include annual inspections of railroad
bridges, and to audit the programs. This final rule also requires track
owners to know the safe load capacity of bridges and to conduct special
inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such
inspections.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 13, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Chief
Engineer--Structures, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6320); or Sarah
Grimmer Yurasko, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20950 (telephone: (202) 493-6390).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges
A. General
B. Guidelines
C. Regulatory History
II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview
III. RSAC Railroad Bridge Working Group
IV. Response to Public Comment
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Environmental Impact
E. Federalism Implications
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Energy Impact
H. Privacy Act Statement
Background
I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges
A. General
There are nearly 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States.
These bridges are owned by over 600 different entities. The bridges
vary in length, load capacity, design, and construction material.
Everything that is shipped or transported via rail likely travels
across one or more railroad bridges. Thus, everything from intermodal
goods, automobiles, grain, coal, hazardous materials, and passengers is
transported on the nation's rail system and therefore across railroad
bridges.
The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is
important to the safety of railroad employees and to the public. The
responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges rests with the owner
of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to
whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner. The
severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a bridge is
involved, regardless of the cause of the accident.
Beginning in 1991, FRA conducted a review of the safety of railroad
bridges. The review was prompted by the agency's perception that the
bridge population was aging, traffic density and loads were increasing
on many routes, and the consequences of a bridge failure could be
catastrophic. During the past five decades, not one fatality has been
caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge. Train accidents
caused by the structural failure of railroad bridges have been
extremely rare.
Although the average construction date of railroad bridges predates
most highway bridges by several decades, the older railroad bridges
were designed to carry heavy steam locomotives. Design factors were
generally conservative, and the bridges' functional designs permit
repairs and reinforcements when necessary to maintain their viability.
Railroad bridges are most often privately, rather than publicly, owned.
Their owners seem to recognize the economic consequences of neglecting
important maintenance. Private ownership enables the railroads to
control the loads that operate over their bridges. Cars and locomotives
exceeding the nominal capacity of a bridge are allowed on a bridge only
with permission from the responsible bridge engineers, and then only
under restrictions and conditions that protect the integrity of the
bridge.
Many railroad bridges display superficial signs of deterioration
but still retain the capacity to safely carry their loads. Corrosion on
a bridge is not a safety issue unless a critical area sees significant
loss of material. Routine inspections are prescribed to detect this
condition, but determination of its effect requires a detailed
inspection and analysis of the bridge. In general, timber bridges
continue to function safely, and masonry structures built as early as
the 1830s remain functional and safe for their traffic. Of the few
train accidents that involved bridges, most have not been caused by
structural failure. FRA accident records for the 27 years 1982 through
2008 show 58 train accidents that were caused by the structural failure
of railroad bridges. These accidents resulted in nine reportable
injuries and a reported $26,555,878 in damages to railroad facilities,
cars and locomotives.
B. Guidelines
On April 27, 1995, FRA issued an Interim Statement of Policy on the
Safety of Railroad Bridges. Published in the Federal Register at 60 FR
20654, the interim statement included a request for comments to be
submitted to FRA during a 60-day period following publication. On
August 30, 2000, FRA published a Final Statement of Agency Policy on
the Safety of Railroad Bridges (``policy statement''). See 65 FR 52667.
With the policy, FRA established criteria for railroads to use to
ensure the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks,
which reflected minor changes following public comment on the interim
statement. Unlike regulations under which FRA ordinarily issues
violations and assesses civil penalties, the policy statement contained
guidelines for the proper maintenance of bridge structures and is
advisory in nature.
On October 16, 2008, President Bush signed into law, the Railroad
Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, Division A
(``RSIA''). Section 417 of the RSIA directs FRA to issue regulations
requiring railroad track owners to adopt and follow specific procedures
to protect the safety of their bridges. Prior to the passage of the
RSIA, FRA had already begun work on revising the policy statement. On
January 13, 2009, FRA published an amendment to the policy statement by
incorporating changes proposed by the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (``RSAC'') on September 10, 2008. RSAC developed a list of
essential elements of railroad bridge management programs (``essential
elements'') which make up the bulk of the amendment. See 74 FR 157. All
aspects of the policy statement that are not incorporated into the
regulatory text of part 237 are now found in its appendix A.
C. Regulatory History
On August 17, 2009, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) as a first step in the agency's promulgation of bridge safety
[[Page 41283]]
regulations as mandated by the RSIA. See 74 FR 41558. FRA received
comments from eight parties, including two professional engineers, the
Alaska Railroad Corporation, Maryland Department of Transportation
(``Maryland DOT''), Iowa Department of Transportation (``Iowa DOT''),
RailAmerica, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). FRA will
address the concerns raised by the comments in the text below.
This final rule is the culmination of FRA's efforts to develop and
promulgate bridge safety standards. In the Section-by-Section Analysis,
below, FRA will discuss how the regulatory text addresses each portion
of the RSIA.
II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview
In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on
rulemakings and other safety program issues. The RSAC includes
representation from all of the industry's major stakeholders, including
railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other
interested parties. A list of RSAC members follows:
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO);
American Chemistry Council;
American Petrochemical Institute;
American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
Association of American Railroads (AAR);
Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Chlorine Institute;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
Fertilizer Institute;
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
Institute of Makers of Explosives;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*;
League of Railway Industry Women*;
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway Business Women*;
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association;
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*;
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America (STA);
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte*;
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
Transport Canada*;
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a
given task. The task force then provides that information to the
working group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous
consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to
the full RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple
majority of RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then
determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff
plays an active role at the working group level in discussing the
issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation.
However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the recommendation, and
the agency exercises its independent judgment on whether the
recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is soundly
supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal requirements.
Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC recommendation in
developing the actual regulatory proposal or final rule. Any such
variations would be noted and explained in the rulemaking document
issued by FRA. If the working group or RSAC is unable to reach
consensus on recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the
issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
III. RSAC Railroad Bridge Working Group
RSAC on February 20, 2008, agreed to accept the task of reviewing
FRA's railroad bridge safety policies and activities, and to make
appropriate recommendations to FRA to improve the bridge safety
program. RSAC accordingly established a Railroad Bridge Working Group
(Working Group), composed of representatives of the various
organizations on the RSAC and including persons with particular
expertise in railroad bridge safety and management. The Working Group
met on April 24-25, 2008, June 12, 2008, and August 7, 2008. On
September 10, 2008, the full RSAC voted on the Working Group's report,
Essential Elements of Railroad Bridge Management Programs, and
recommended that FRA incorporate it into FRA's Statement of Agency
Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges. The Working Group met again
on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24, 2009, to recommend rule
text to address the RSIA's mandate to FRA in Section 417 to promulgate
bridge safety regulations. The Working Group reached consensus on
proposed regulatory text which made up most of the provisions of the
NPRM.
After the NPRM comment period closed, the Working Group reconvened
on December 15, 2009, to review the comments and offer additional
advice on how FRA should proceed with the final rule. Due to time
constraints, FRA elected to seek advice from the Working Group
regarding the public comments and possible revisions to the NPRM rather
than asking the group and the full RSAC to formally provide
recommendations regarding the final rule.
IV. Response to Public Comment
As mentioned above, FRA received eight comments to the NPRM.
Comments were submitted by a variety of affected parties, including
individual professional engineers, the Alaska Railroad Corporation,
RailAmerica, two state DOTs, the AAR and the ASLRRA. FRA reviewed the
comments with the Working Group and FRA staff also extensively reviewed
and evaluated the
[[Page 41284]]
comments. In this section, FRA will respond to comments regarding the
application of the bridge rule, the responsibility for compliance,
definitions, adoption of bridge management programs, the definition of
a railroad bridge engineer, the determination of bridge load
capacities, bridge inspection records, and other general comments. FRA
is also responding to some of the smaller concerns within the section-
by-section analysis.
Application
Mr. Wayne Duffet, P.E., commented that FRA proposed that this part
apply to tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads
are entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. He observed that,
as written, the rule applies to every bridge with a gauge of two feet
or more, that handles trains, regardless of whether part of the general
railroad system. The comment requests clarification on two points:
whether the rule applies to a tourist railroad that is not part of the
general railroad system, and whether the rule applies to a two-foot
gage bridge within an amusement park.
FRA notes that a ``tourist railroad'' comes under the uniform FRA
definition of the term ``railroad'' as found at 49 CFR 209.3 and within
the meaning of the Federal railroad safety statutes as found at 49
U.S.C. 20102(1)(A). Tourist railroads move passengers by the use of
track and equipment that, taken together, would commonly be described
as a ``railroad,'' and their operations pose a distinct risk to the
safety of the public. ``An installation which is not part of the
general railroad system of transportation and over which trains are not
run by a railroad'' refers to tracks located within an industrial
operation where rolling equipment is moved only by and for the account
of that particular industry. If a railroad as defined in 49 CFR 209.3
operates over a bridge inside such an installation, then this
regulation applies to that bridge and to the owner of track on that
bridge.
Specifically as to tourist railroad operations, FRA exercises
jurisdiction over tourist operations whether or not they are conducted
on the ``general railroad system of transportation'' (``general
system''), which is defined as ``the network of standard gage track
over which goods may be transported throughout the nation.'' Appendix A
to 49 CFR part 209. The only exceptions where FRA typically does not
exercise jurisdiction are for tourist operations on track gage that is
less than 24 inches and tourist operations that are off of the general
system and are ``insular.'' A tourist operation is considered
``insular'' if its operations are limited to a separate enclave in such
a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of any
member of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of the
tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be
affected by the operation. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. FRA does,
however, exercise limited jurisdiction over tourist railroads that do
not operate on the general system, but that are non-insular.
Specifically, FRA will consider a railroad to be non-insular if one or
more of the following exist on its line: A public highway-rail crossing
that is in use; an at-grade rail crossing that is in use; a bridge over
a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or a common
corridor with another railroad. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. With
respect to this rule, FRA is exercising jurisdiction over all tourist
and excursion operations regardless of whether they are insular or not.
Maryland DOT requested an explanation of the definition of the
``general railroad system of transportation'' as it applies to urban
rapid transit operations as set forth in the rule. FRA replies that
Sec. 237.1(b) is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 20102(1)(B) and 49 CFR
213.3(b)(2), which exempt ``track used exclusively for rapid transit
operations in urban areas that are not connected with the general
system of transportation'' from the application of that regulation. If
an urban rapid transit system operates over the general system, FRA
will exercise jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit operation to
the extent that it is connected to the general system. In situations in
which an urban rapid transit operation has a minor connection to the
general system, i.e., at a highway-rail grade crossing, FRA will
exercise limited jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit system and
only to the extent necessary to ensure safety at the points of
connection for that system, the general system, and the public.
Responsibility for compliance
AAR noted that there are numerous tracks on railroad bridges that
have been leased by their owners to other companies. The proposed
bridge rule attempted to account for these historical leases by
providing that where an owner of the track over the bridge has assigned
responsibility for the track to another company and FRA has been
notified pursuant to 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification under
part 237 for the bridge is not needed. This is because part 237 places
responsibility for the bridge with the person to whom responsibility
for the track has been assigned and recognized pursuant to part 213.
AAR is concerned that there will be situations where notification
pursuant to Sec. 213.5(c) has not taken place, and argues that
notification might not have taken place because the lease was entered
into before Sec. 213.5 was adopted. AAR explains that there might be
other reasons notification did not take place or a railroad might
simply be unable to determine whether notification occurred. If it
cannot be established that notification did occur, AAR argues that the
rule, literally interpreted, might not permit FRA to hold the lessee
responsible for compliance even though, as a practical matter, the
lessee controls the track and bridge and is performing all functions
related to track and bridge safety. AAR suggests FRA address the issue
of historical leases by adding regulatory text which states that FRA
may hold a lessee of track to which this part applies responsible for
compliance with this part where the lessee exercises control over the
track.
This provision follows the use of the term ``owner of track'' in
the Track Safety Standards at 49 CFR part 213. FRA believes that it
would be confusing and inconsistent for FRA to define an ``owner of
track'' differently in two different parts of the Rail Safety
Standards. FRA advises an owner of track to resubmit a notification of
assignment if the owner is uncertain whether an assignment has been
made. However, assignment does not relieve a track owner of compliance
with part 237, as Sec. 237.3(c) states that FRA can always hold the
track owner responsible for compliance with the bridge safety
standards.
Maryland DOT noted that its state highway administration, and
several counties in the state, own and inspect several railroad-
carrying bridges. Unstated, but implicit in the comment, is that while
the state highway administration owns the bridge, the track is owned by
a third party. Maryland DOT states that in accordance with this
section, however, the state highway administration would not be
responsible for compliance with this rule, since the ``track owner'' is
responsible. In addition, several counties own railroad-carrying
bridges as well.
FRA replies that the rule does not alter the financial
responsibility of a highway agency that owns, inspects and maintains
railroad bridges. The rule does, however, hold the track owner
responsible to assure that the inspections and maintenance are
performed correctly by qualified and
[[Page 41285]]
designated persons. The track owner would be permitted to accept work
performed by a highway agency provided that it conforms to the
requirements of this part. FRA also notes that instances have arisen in
which state agencies have performed inspections and evaluations in
which a state-owned railroad bridge was found to be seriously
deficient, and where the operating railroad was never notified or
advised of the problem. FRA accident records include at least one such
instance in which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a
catastrophic train accident, an accident which occurred on the Southern
Railroad of New Jersey on August 12, 1999. This provision is intended,
partly, to prevent such a loss of vital communication among the
concerned parties
Maryland DOT also questions whether the track owner could assign
responsibility to someone else. If one of these railroads requests the
state agency to be the responsible party for the FRA inspection, they
would consider refusing the request because they would have to be in
compliance with the whole program, which would require a railroad
bridge engineer, railroad bridge inspectors and a railroad bridge
management program.
FRA responds that, in any case of assignment of responsibility, the
assignee must first accept the assignment before it can become
effective. See Sec. 237.3(b)(6). The final rule states that the track
owner must send a written notification of assignment to FRA at least 30
days in advance of the assignment, and that the notification must
include a statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the
assignment. A notification that did not include an acknowledging
statement would not comply with Sec. 237.3(b)(6), and FRA would
disregard the assignment.
Definitions
FRA received three comments regarding the definition of a railroad
bridge. The comments suggested that the definition of a railroad bridge
is either not broad enough or too broad and that there is an
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge and the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) definition of a bridge. FRA
intends the explanations in this response to clarify that the
definition of a railroad bridge is consistent with long-held industry
practice and is neither too broad nor too narrow.
One commenter suggested that the definition of a bridge be changed
to ``any structure with an open deck.'' FRA replies that the regulatory
definition of a bridge includes open decks, ballast decks, and solid
decks. Essentially, a bridge deck is the component of the bridge upon
which the track is supported, and which is subject to bending stresses
from trains moving over it.
Another comment requests an explanation of an apparent
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge in this rule,
and the definition of a bridge used by the FHWA, which defines a bridge
as a structure with a span length of 20 feet or more. FRA responds that
railroad bridges differ greatly from highway bridges in many respects,
particularly in regard to the nature of the heavy live load which they
support. This definition represents the consensus of all parties in the
Working Group and is consistent with long-held railroad industry
practice.
A third commenter suggests that the railroad bridge definition is
broad and potentially includes types of structures that are affected by
track live loads that have not previously been managed as bridges.
These structures may include waterfront structures such as piers and
wharves, mechanical shop structures including drop tables and
inspection pits, as well as scales, large culverts and potentially even
various types of retaining walls that have under-grade structural
layout features that could be interpreted to be span lengths of 10 feet
or more.
FRA replies that piers and wharves, scales, and other structures
that carry railroad track and meet the span definition of a bridge are
included under this regulation. Retaining walls and other roadbed
structures are not included, because they do not carry track on a span
over a gap. Additionally, culverts with a span of 10 feet or greater
are also subject to this regulation and must be included in track
owner's bridge management program.
Adoption of Bridge Management Programs
Three comments addressed concerns with the adoption of bridge
management programs. Maryland DOT asked if the regulations
``distinguish between Transit Railroads or short-lines, or rail traffic
volume,'' and requested that FRA define Class I and II carriers and the
general railroad system. ASLRRA remarks that some design documents for
each bridge might be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. ASLRRA
proposes that all documentation required by the rule be completed no
later than five years following the program's adoption. This would
allow for the search and retrieval, or replication, of required
documentation over more realistic time frames, as well as the
allocation of necessary expense over a longer, and possibly less
impacting, period of time. The Alaska Railroad Corporation requests
that the bridge management program adoption time be extended to the
effective date of the final rule plus one year. The additional time is
necessary for inventory and database development of all structures
covered by the regulation, as seasonal climatic conditions will
potentially make some of these structures on the Alaska Railroad
inaccessible until early summer 2010.
With regard to the first concern, FRA replies that the Surface
Transportation Board defines the class of railroad at 49 CFR part 1201,
based on the carrier's annual operating revenue. This section specifies
time periods for program adoption according to the type of railroad,
not according to railroad traffic volume or load intensity. By
``general railroad system of transportation,'' FRA refers to the
network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported
throughout the nation and passengers may travel between cities and
within metropolitan and suburban areas. See appendix A to 49 CFR part
209.
Regarding the second comment, ASLRRA's proposal is consistent with
the proposed rule. Pursuant to Sec. 237.33(c), the program, when
adopted by a track owner, need only incorporate a provision to obtain
and maintain the design documents of each bridge if available, and to
document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge.
There is no deadline for acquisition of these documents. FRA
anticipates that the priorities for acquisition of archived bridge
design documents would closely follow their usefulness in determining
bridge capacities.
To address the Alaska Railroad Corporation's concerns, FRA replies
that the bridge inventory need not be complete in all of its details at
the time of adoption of a railroad's bridge management program. It is
reasonable to expect that an adopted program would specify the format
for recording the inventory information, or ``bridge list,'' and that
information readily available from existing records, such as valuation
maps, could be used to initially populate the data base. After that,
additions and refinements to that information would be generated by
normal inspection work.
[[Page 41286]]
Railroad Bridge Engineer
AAR noted in its comment that the NPRM reference to the
``Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)'' is
obsolete in that the organization has changed its name to ABET, Inc.
AAR further notes that ABET Inc. only accredits engineering education
programs in the United States, but mutually recognizes programs
accredited by corresponding organizations in other nations. The same
commenter notes an ambiguity in the term ``licensed scope of practice''
as it applies to the professional practice of engineering.
FRA acknowledges the concern regarding ABET, Inc., and has changed
the reference in the regulatory text to ABET, Inc., or its successor.
FRA did not intend to exclude engineers who received their education in
other nations from being recognized as railroad bridge engineers, and
has amended the text to specify that, in order to fulfill the
educational requirements of this section, a railroad bridge engineer
can also have received a degree from a program accredited as a
professional engineering curriculum by a foreign organization
recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor. FRA has clarified the
ambiguity commented on in the language of the NPRM by stating that a
railroad bridge engineer can also be considered to have fulfilled the
educational requirements of this section if he or she is currently
registered as a professional engineer. FRA notes that state law
governing the professional practice of engineering requires that
professional engineers limit the subject of their practice to areas in
which they are competent.
RailAmerica commented that nothing in this section speaks to the
competence of an engineer as a railroad bridge engineer. FRA replies
that the determination of the competence of a railroad bridge engineer
is left to the track owner. FRA does not intend to engage in qualifying
individuals to perform those functions. That determination will have to
be made by the track owner after review of the engineer's
qualifications and experience in the light of the qualification
requirements of this part. The employer or the client of an engineer
has always had the prerogative and responsibility to determine the
qualifications of that individual, and FRA does not propose to alter
that relationship.
Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
One commenter remarked on the difficulty of assigning a precise
capacity rating to a timber bridge owing to the wide variations in the
properties of timber material and the changes that occur to timber
components over time. FRA recognizes that the evaluation of timber
trestles is not an exact science. Although theoretical values of safe
forces and stresses can be placed on individual timber components, the
actual nature of wood varies widely, even within the same species. In
addition, timber deteriorates over time and under repeated loads. Some
timber bridge components are not easily inspected, especially where
faces of the members are hidden by other adjacent or supported members.
A load rating on a timber bridge must also account for time and for
expected costs to maintain the bridge under its rated traffic. An
engineer can raise the capacity of a timber trestle from 263,000- to
286,000-pound cars, for instance, but the owner must be advised that
increased maintenance costs will probably result, and that a more
intensive inspection program must be instituted for that bridge, owing
to the more rapid deterioration that will occur.
The same commenter also suggested that a revised rating not be
required where an existing, valid rating provides a large margin of
capacity above the loads that are actually operated. The rule text has
been slightly modified to address that issue with a realistic solution.
FRA has revised Sec. 237.71(f) to state that a new bridge load
capacity shall be determined, if, in the opinion of the railroad bridge
engineer, a bridge inspection reveals that the condition of a bridge or
a bridge component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to
carry the traffic being operated. This issue is also addressed further
in the section-by-section analysis, below.
The same commenter also noted the difficulty of assigning a precise
rating to many older concrete and masonry structures that are not well
documented, and of which the internal configuration cannot be easily
determined. FRA recognizes that many older concrete and masonry
structures are not documented. Especially in the case of reinforced
concrete, the configuration of reinforcing steel greatly affects the
calculated capacity of the bridge. The analysis of brick and stone
arches is possible, but the unknown variables can produce widely
differing results. The practice to date in the railroad bridge
engineering profession has been to observe these structures for any
obvious signs of distress, and to rate them based on their condition at
the time of inspection. FRA will accept the reasonable application of
present methods for evaluating and managing these structures, because
there is not a history of sudden catastrophic failure, absent sudden
damage from severe weather conditions or heavy water flows.
ASLRRA commented that ``an individual trained as a bridge
supervisor and inspector with many years of experience inspecting a
bridge that itself has been in place for many years, is fully qualified
to determine whether that bridge has the capacity to carry the loads
for which it is rated. Under normal bridge inspection procedures, if
the bridge shows signs of problems, a bridge inspector usually `rates'
a bridge each time he inspects it. If problems are encountered,
additional steps will be taken to address the problem in accordance
with these regulations. Rating an old masonry arch or bridge span may
be difficult to do even for a railroad bridge engineer. While a number
of bridges have been upgraded on many short lines and capacity rating
calculations are available for those bridges, many more have not been
upgraded and are performing well.'' FRA responds that there is a clear
distinction between what some consider a ``condition rating'' ascribed
to a bridge by an inspector, and a ``capacity rating'' which is
determined by a qualified engineer. The term ``rating'' in the context
of this rule refers only to a ``capacity rating.'' This rule does not
address a ``condition rating'' to be applied to a bridge.
A bridge inspector or supervisor who is not an engineer can
certainly determine by observation and measurement whether the
condition and configuration of a bridge corresponds with its state when
it was rated by an engineer for capacity. However, if the bridge
displays a condition or deterioration that materially affects its
capacity, as by increasing the stress intensity in one or more
components of the bridge, accurate determination of the revised
capacity requires the experience, education and training of a competent
railroad bridge engineer. In the same manner, the determination of the
capacity of an existing bridge requires that the engineer should
consider all available information related to the configuration and
condition of the bridge, including all available design and
modification documents and current reports of inspections. These
determinations of bridge capacity ratings are usually performed in an
office environment, and only seldom in the field.
RailAmerica commented that the rule would require bridge ratings to
be completed within 5 years of the adoption of a Bridge Management
System. This provision would penalize
[[Page 41287]]
those railroads which have adopted a bridge management program before
the final date required in the rule. FRA agrees with this comment. The
rule has been modified so that the determinations of load capacity are
required within five years of the required date for adoption of the
bridge management program, rather than the actual date of adoption if
earlier than required.
Bridge Inspection Records
Several commenters suggested that the interim bridge inspection
report be deleted from the rule, or that the time period for its
submission be extended. Several also suggested that the time period for
submission of the complete inspection report be extended. FRA
understands that the regulated community is reluctant to see the
imposition of record-keeping requirements that might not correspond
with their current practices. However, bridge inspections performed by
or for the track owner are a critical function which must be monitored
in the enforcement process. Since FRA cannot be present on-site at each
bridge inspection, the agency must see a record that shows that the
inspection was performed, when and by whom it was performed, and the
conditions found in the inspection. If there were no time requirements
for recording inspections, it would be impossible for FRA to
effectively monitor this vital function.
FRA views the interim report as a management tool in the bridge
program audit to show whether bridge inspections are being performed at
or near their scheduled frequency, with ample time to permit
adjustments as necessary in the inspection program. Most railroad
bridge inspection programs at present do not incorporate an interim
inspection report. The time between an inspection and the filing of the
inspection report is found to vary. An effective bridge management
program requires that the person in charge of the program have
reasonably current information on the progress of the vital function of
bridge inspection. The proposed time frame of 14 days has been extended
to 30 days in the final rule because FRA now believes that the 30-day
time period is sufficient for effective management by the railroad and
effective compliance monitoring by FRA.
Two commenters requested that the time period for submission of the
complete inspection report be extended from 45 to 90 days, and one
commenter requested 120 days. FRA understands the circumstances in
which a consultant is engaged to conduct detailed bridge inspections
and evaluations. Some of those evaluations include a considerable
amount of engineering work that is performed in an office rather than
in the field, and several months are often used in preparing the
complete report. The extension of the time period for filing the report
is intended to allow the most efficient use of inspection and
engineering resources, while still providing effective input for
management by the bridge owner and monitoring by FRA.
In light of the reasons given, and discussion at the RSAC Railroad
Bridge Working Group, FRA finds that a 120-day period for submission of
the complete report would be reasonable and effective.
Two commenters noted that the proposed requirement to retain
inspection reports until the completion of the next two following
inspections of the same type would be burdensome and ineffective in the
case of certain special inspections. For instance, if a highway vehicle
strike occasions a special inspection, it would have been necessary to
retain the records of the special inspection until the bridge had twice
again been struck by a highway vehicle and inspected. This is not
realistic, so the final rule simply requires that records of
inspections be retained for two years following completion of the
inspection, and that records of underwater inspections be retained
until the completion and review of the next underwater inspection of
the same components of the bridge.
Additionally, the final rule also accommodates instances in which a
bridge inspection does not encompass the entire bridge. It also
includes a clarification that when a complete report is filed before an
interim report is due, the interim report is not required.
Other Comments
FRA received a number of comments that did not pertain to specific
sections of the rule text. FRA will address these concerns below.
Maryland DOT suggested that FRA consider whether it would be
beneficial to have the same inspection frequency criteria for all rail
and transit lines or whether it is relevant to distinguish between
Class I railroads, short lines, and transit lines, or to factor in rail
traffic volume in general. Maryland DOT also states that it already has
a detailed structural inspection program and database. It recommends
that the new regulations not require replacement of existing agency
programs, reporting forms, etc., to be in accordance with a national
standard. Additionally, Maryland DOT asks whether FRA will compensate
state agencies for the cost of overhauling their structural inspection
program and database, and for the additional expense of conducting
annual rather than biennial inspections. Finally, Maryland DOT asked if
any regulations are proposed for tunnel, station or other miscellaneous
structural inspections.
With respect to the first question, FRA has not distinguished among
railroads of different sizes because the size of the railroad is in no
way related to the physical attributes of a bridge and the loads that
it carries. As noted above, this rule does not affect transit lines.
The only criterion related to inspection frequency in this rule is a
minimum of one inspection per year. As this provision is found in the
RSIA, FRA has no option in this regard. See Section 417(b)(5), Public
Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). With regard to the
second concern, the rule does not require replacement of existing
programs as long as they comply with the requirements of the rule. In
response to the third concern, FRA is not aware of any Congressional
appropriation of funds to provide assistance in order for regulated
entities to comply with bridge safety regulations and thus FRA will not
be providing any funding for that purpose. Finally, tunnels, stations,
and other structures were not addressed in the proposed rule and thus
are not addressed in this final rule.
Iowa DOT commented on the various types of ownership and
maintenance agreements in place between highway agencies and railroads
that cross those highways on bridges. Iowa DOT stated that ``it would
be more logical and provide a more consistent bridge safety program if
the responsibility for inspection, load capacity ratings, and other
aspects of the bridge safety program were fully retained by the track
owner and not by the party that is financially responsible for
maintenance. Where no agreement exists there can be a conflict over the
responsibilities, therefore having the track owner fully responsible
for the bridge safety program aspects would prevent any bridge from
`falling through the cracks' due to that conflict.'' Iowa DOT would
like to see the final rule assign track owners the full responsibility
for the bridge safety program, regardless of who is financially
responsible for the structure's maintenance. Finally, the comment also
states that, although the agency's bridge inspectors are fully
qualified to inspect railroad bridges, determine load capacities, etc.,
they would not have the experience or
[[Page 41288]]
knowledge to translate the load capacities into railroad operational
terms as required by the rule.
FRA notes that the final rule holds the track owner responsible for
compliance, which is consistent with the commenter's request. The
regulation does not address the question of financial responsibility or
apportionment of expenses for bridge management or maintenance. That
issue would continue to be governed by the terms of any agreements
between the track owner and bridge owner. The rule does not assign or
apportion financial or functional responsibility for inspection or
maintenance of railroad bridges. The rule simply holds the track owner
responsible for the adequate and safe support of its track on bridges.
FRA does not specify who will perform those functions, so long as they
are performed correctly by qualified individuals designated by the
track owner. That designated individual may accept work performed by
others, such as a state agency, if it is acceptable to them and can be
adequately verified.
Regarding the last concern, bridge inspectors do not normally
calculate the load capacities of a railroad bridge, unless they also
happen to be competent railroad bridge engineers. Moreover, an engineer
who cannot translate load capacities into railroad operational terms is
not qualified to prescribe the loadings for a railroad bridge. The rule
places the responsibility upon the track owner to have this done by a
designated, competent railroad bridge engineer.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Amendment to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards
Appendix C to Part 213--Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of
Railroad Bridges
FRA is removing appendix C to part 213, which is FRA's Statement of
Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges (``policy statement'').
As many portions of the text in the policy statement are covered in
part 237, it would be redundant and confusing to leave them in the
policy statement as currently published in part 213. With regard to the
portions of the policy statement that are advisory in nature, FRA is
publishing them in a new appendix to part 237, which will be discussed
further below.
Addition of 49 CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards
Subpart A--General
This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for the management
of railroad bridges that support one or more tracks. Track owners may
adopt more stringent standards as long as they are in accordance with
this part. FRA notes that it expressed these statements in proposed
Sec. 237.1, Scope of part, in the NPRM. See 74 FR 41560, 41573. FRA
does not believe it necessary to include these explanatory statements
directly in a section of the rule text, however, and is retaining them
here instead.
Separately, FRA has removed proposed Sec. 237.3, Preemptive
effect. See 74 FR 41573. One commenter questioned whether the
provisions in the proposed section were necessary, and whether they
were inconsistent with other regulations. This section has been
removed; discussion of the federalism implications of the rulemaking is
found under Regulatory Impact and Notices, below. The sections in
subpart A have been renumbered, accordingly.
Section 237.1 Application
This rule applies to all owners of track carried on railroad
bridges with certain exceptions as outlined or explained in following
subsections. As delineated in FRA's Statement of Agency Policy
Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws at appendix
A of 49 CFR part 209, FRA exercises jurisdiction over tourist, scenic,
and excursion railroad operations whether or not they are conducted on
the general railroad system. This part applies to both insular and non-
insular tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads are
entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. As a matter of
policy, FRA does not consider devices that run on rails in amusement
parks to be railroads.
Paragraph (b). This part does not apply to bridges on track used
exclusively for rapid transit operations in urban areas that are not
connected with the general system of transportation. This is in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20103 and appendix A of 49 CFR part 209.
Paragraph (c). This part does not apply to bridges located in an
installation which is not a part of the general railroad system of
transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.
Section 237.3 Responsibility for Compliance
The responsibility for the safety of trains on any track lies with
the owner of that track. Therefore, the track owner is responsible for
complying with the bridge safety standards promulgated in this part. If
a bridge carries tracks owned by two or more owners, then the track
owners can choose to make an assignment of responsibility for
compliance with this part. The assignment process, delineated in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, is similar to the
assignment process detailed in 49 CFR 213.5. However, FRA will hold the
track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance with
this part and subject to penalties under Sec. 237.7. FRA intends that
the responsibility for compliance with this part will follow, as
closely as practicable, the responsibility for compliance with the
Federal Track Safety Standards, and that where such responsibility is
already established, it would not be necessary for the track owner to
file an additional assignment of responsibility. As in part 213, FRA
intends that ``person'' means an entity of any type covered under 1
U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a
manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a
railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad
equipment, track or facilities; any independent contractor providing
goods or services to a railroad; any employee of such owner,
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor; and anyone
held by FRA to be responsible for compliance with this part.
Paragraph (d). As described in 49 CFR part 213, a common carrier by
railroad which is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to
provide service over the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C.
11123 is considered the owner of that track for the purposes of the
application of this part during the period the directed service order
remains in effect. On rare occasions, such as a cessation of service by
a railroad, the Surface Transportation Board has directed a railroad
other than the track owner to provide service. In such cases, the
designated operator shall be considered the owner for purposes of
compliance with the bridge safety regulations.
Paragraph (e). This paragraph requires any person, including a
state agency, who performs a function on a railroad bridge that is
required by this part to perform that function in accordance with this
part. Instances have occurred
[[Page 41289]]
in which state agencies have performed bridge inspections and
evaluations in which the bridge was found to be seriously deficient,
and where the operating railroad was never notified or advised of the
problem. FRA accident records include at least one such instance in
which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a catastrophic
train accident. Section 237.109 requires that the track owner keep the
bridge inspection reports, and must therefore obtain them from a state
agency or any other party that performs bridge inspections in
conformance with the requirements of these regulations. This provision
will prevent a loss of vital communication among concerned parties.
Paragraph (f). Where an owner of track to which this part applies
has previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to
another person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional
notification to FRA is not required.
Paragraph (g). This paragraph provides that FRA reserves the right
to reject an assignment of responsibility under Sec. 237.3(b) for
cause shown. As stated in paragraph (c) of this section, FRA may hold
the track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance
with this part and subject to penalties under Sec. 237.7.
Consequently, if FRA rejects an assignment of responsibility, FRA will
not consider the rejected assignee responsible for compliance with part
237 pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
Section 237.5 Definitions
The definitions in this section are only intended to apply to this
part, and not to alter the same terminology wherever used outside this
part for other purposes.
Bridge modification and bridge repair. ``Bridge modification''
means a change to the configuration of a railroad bridge that affects
the load capacity of the bridge, while ``bridge repair'' means
remediation of damage or deterioration which has affected the
structural integrity of a railroad bridge. This part requires that
modifications and repairs to bridges be designed by railroad bridge
engineers, and the work supervised by designated railroad bridge
supervisors. This definition clarifies that minor modifications and
repairs, such as replacing a wire rope handrail with one made of pipe,
or painting a bridge, do not need to be designed and supervised
pursuant to this part. However, this does not exempt the track owner
from properly supervising the personal safety of the individuals
performing the work because that issue is addressed in other rules.
Railroad bridge. A ``railroad bridge'' is any structure which spans
an opening under the track except for a small culvert, pipe, or other
such structure that is located so far below the track that it only
carries dead load from soil pressure and is not subjected to measurable
bending, tension or compression stresses from passing trains. Unloading
pits, track scales, and waterfront structures such as piers and wharves
that fall within the definition of a ``railroad bridge'' are considered
bridges for purposes of this part.
FRA does not intend to relieve a railroad from taking any action
necessary to protect the safety of trains in the case of any structure,
including small culverts, retaining walls, tunnels or overhead
structures by providing for their inspection and maintenance, but it
exempts them from the specific requirements of this regulation. A
structure in a locomotive or car maintenance facility which is used to
support cars or locomotives for maintenance is not included in the
specific requirements of this regulation.
Section 237.7 Penalties
This provision conforms to provisions of the enabling legislation
and stated agency policy. Consistent with FRA's Statement of Agency
Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, a
penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
CFR part 209, appendix A.
Section 237.9 Waivers
This section provides that each petition for a waiver under this
part shall be filed in the manner and contain the information required
by 49 CFR part 211, which prescribes rules of practice that apply to
waiver proceedings. The processing of petitions for waiver of safety
rules is found at subpart C to part 211.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for persons
responsible for railroad bridges to implement programs to assure the
structural integrity of those bridges and to protect the safe operation
of trains over those bridges. The responsibility for the safety of a
railroad bridge rests with the owner of the track supported by that
bridge, who relies upon the work of the engineer who makes the critical
decisions regarding the management and use of that bridge.
Section 237.31 Adoption of Bridge Management Programs
Congress mandated that FRA ``promulgate a regulation requiring
owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a
bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration of
railroad bridges and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental
damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system
that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure.'' Section 417(a),
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This
section requires track owners to adopt a bridge safety management
program that prevents the deterioration of railroad bridges by
preserving their capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated
over them. Class I carriers and owners of track segments which are part
of the general railroad system of transportation and which carry more
than ten scheduled passengers trains per week shall implement their
bridge safety programs no later than March 14, 2011. Class II carriers
which carry ten or fewer scheduled passenger trains per week shall
implement their bridge safety programs no later than September 13,
2011. All other track owners subject to this part shall implement their
bridge safety programs no later than September 13, 2012.
FRA considers this implementation schedule to be realistic and
effective, with priorities given to railroads with the highest levels
of freight or passenger traffic. The implementation dates apply to the
track owner, not to specific track segments. However, it is reasonable
to consider that the specific provisions of each program will be
implemented in a manner that accords higher priority to individual
track segments with high volumes of freight or passenger traffic.
Section 237.33 Content of Bridge Management Programs
Certain elements of a bridge management program are essential to
its effectiveness. Those elements are enumerated in this section. Track
owners and individuals responsible for the safety of railroad bridges
are encouraged to adapt these elements to the needs of their areas of
responsibility, and to adopt additional elements not inconsistent with
the requirements of this part.
Paragraph (a). Congress mandated that the new regulations require
each track owner to ``develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its
railroad bridges, which shall identify the
[[Page 41290]]
location of each bridge, its configuration, type of construction,
number of spans, span lengths, and all other information necessary to
provide for the safe management of the bridges.'' Section 417(b)(1),
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This
paragraph requires that such an inventory be maintained. An accurate
inventory of any property to be managed is essential so that the
responsible individuals may schedule and track inspection, maintenance,
and repair of the property units.
Paragraph (b). Congress mandated that the new regulations require
that the track owner ``maintain, and update as appropriate, a record of
the safe capacity of each bridge which carries its track and, if
available, maintain the original design documents of each bridge and a
documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of the
bridge.'' Section 417(b)(3), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49
U.S.C. 20103, note). This paragraph requires that a record of the safe
load capacity of each bridge be established. The operation of
excessively heavy loads over a bridge will seriously shorten a bridge's
useful life and will reduce or even eliminate the margin of safety
between structural integrity and catastrophic failure. It is essential
that the track owner should know that the loads permitted to be
operated on a bridge are within the safe limits of the bridge.
Paragraph (c). The track owner must obtain and maintain the design
documents of each bridge, if available, and document all repairs,
modifications, and inspections of each bridge. The determination of
safe load capacity requires knowledge of the configuration of the
bridge and the materials of which it is constructed. Although the
configuration may be determined by actual measurements of all of the
components, that procedure can be tedious and expensive. Good
documentation of the design and history of a bridge will facilitate
more rapid and accurate determination of bridge capacity when such
calculations are needed, as well as determination of the maintenance
and service history of a bridge to detect and correct possible
deterioration of its components. If the design documents for a bridge
cannot be located, the track owner must measure and document the
configuration of the bridge in sufficient detail to enable an accurate
determination of the safe capacity of the bridge.
Paragraph (d). Bridge inspection is absolutely essential to an
effective bridge management program. In this paragraph, FRA requires
that the track owner's bridge management program contain a bridge
inspection program. Items (1) through (6) should be addressed in the
program to a degree that promotes effective and efficient conduct of
the inspection program. With regard to item (1), bridge inspection can
present certain risks that are inherent in working at heights and
around moving vehicles. A bridge inspection program should at least
address the unique hazards associated with the process. With regard to
item (2), a bridge inspection program should incorporate standards for
the procedures and required details of any different types of
inspection that are referenced in the program, such as annual
inspections, post-event inspections, rating inspections, and
intermediate periodic inspections. A large railroad might find it
convenient to describe the standard procedures for various types of
inspections in some detail, while a small railroad that normally
conducts only annual inspections might describe only that procedure as
well as post-event special inspections, and then issue instructions of
particular applicability for other types of inspections that occur only
infrequently. With regard to items (3) through (6), use of a standard
method of describing the condition of components promotes effective and
efficient communication between the inspector and those persons who
review and evaluate a bridge using information from the inspection.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
In subpart C, FRA establishes minimum standards for incorporation
in railroad bridge management programs for qualification and
designations of persons who perform safety critical functions that
affect the integrity and safety of railroad bridges. Many aspects of
railroad bridge work differ from other fields of engineering,
inspection and maintenance. It is essential that the individuals who
are responsible for these safety-critical functions be qualified by
education, training and experience to perform them correctly.
Section 237.51 Railroad Bridge Engineers
This section sets forth the minimum standards that a railroad
bridge engineer must meet. Congress directed FRA to ``ensure that an
engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering''
is responsible for the development of all inspection procedures,
reviews all inspection reports, and determines whether bridges are
being inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequency,
and reviews any items noted by an inspector as exceptions. See Section
417(b)(7) of the RSIA. Railroad bridge engineering is based on the same
principles of engineering as all other structural engineering work, but
the application of many of those principles is unique to this
particular field. The live loads carried on railroad bridges are
generally much higher than the loads on highway bridges or other
transportation structures. Overall configuration and details of
construction of railroad bridges differ greatly from other classes of
structures, to the extent that dealing with these features requires
some experience with them as well as an understanding of the
fundamentals of engineering.
FRA understands that not all railroad bridge engineers will be
faced with all aspects of railroad bridge engineering. For example, an
engineer engaged to prescribe safe loads for short steel spans and
timber trestles on a particular railroad might never have to perform a
detailed analysis of a large truss bridge. The basic premise is that
the engineer be competent to perform the functions that are encompassed
by that individual's employment. The determination of qualifications by
the track owner includes employment of the engineer by the track owner,
and designation of the engineer to exercise the authority called for in
this part. By employment, FRA includes both engineers who are employees
of the track owner as well as those engaged under a consulting
contract.
A railroad bridge engineer must also have either: (1) A degree in
engineering granted by a school of engineering with at least one
program accredited by ABET, Inc. or its successor organization, as a
professional engineering curriculum, or a degree from a program
accredited as a professional engineering curriculum by a foreign
organization recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor; or (2) current
registration as a professional engineer.
FRA believes that the critical nature of railroad bridge
engineering work called for in this rule requires persons to meet a
minimal educational or experience standard which is common to the
engineering profession and which is necessary for an individual who
will perform the functions of an engineer as called for in this rule.
In paragraph (c), FRA states that nothing in this part affects the
States' authority to regulate the professional practice of engineering.
This section represents a minimum standard to be attained by engineers
who perform the functions called for in this regulation.
[[Page 41291]]
Recognition by FRA as a railroad bridge engineer would not enable a
person to provide professional engineering services in violation of a
state law or regulation. FRA does not intend to preempt or interfere
with any state laws regarding the professional practice of engineering.
For example, a person registered as a professional engineer in Maryland
could not work as a professional engineer in Virginia under this
regulation in violation of Virginia law if such work violated Virginia
law regarding the practice of engineering.
Section 237.53 Railroad Bridge Inspectors
In this section, FRA establishes the minimum standards that a
railroad bridge inspector must meet. Effective inspection of bridges is
essential to preserving their integrity and serviceability. Inspectors
must be able to understand and carry out the inspection procedures,
including accessing inspection points on a bridge, measuring components
and any changes, describing conditions found in a standard, unambiguous
manner, and detecting the development of conditions that are critical
to the safety of the bridge. It is essential that an inspector who
detects a potential hazard to the safe operation of trains be
authorized by the track owner to place appropriate restrictions on the
operation of railroad traffic, pending review as necessary by a
railroad bridge engineer. An individual who is not competent in
railroad bridge work cannot overrule a determination made by a
designated bridge inspector, supervisor, or engineer.
Section 237.55 Railroad Bridge Supervisors
In this section, FRA establishes minimum standards that a railroad
bridge supervisor must meet. Individuals who supervise and take
responsibility for construction, repair and modification of railroad
bridges must be competent to ensure that the work is performed in
accordance with valid standards and any specific specifications, plans
and instructions applicable to the work to be performed. This provision
applies to any such individual, regardless of job title, who directly
oversees such work and approves or restricts the movement of railroad
traffic during the progress of the work.
Section 237.57 Designations of Individuals
In the RSIA, Congress mandated that the bridge regulations
designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to
authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage,
or indications of potential structural problems. See Section 417(b)(8),
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In this
section, FRA requires that each track owner designate certain
individuals as qualified railroad bridge engineers, inspectors, and
supervisors, and provide a recorded basis for each designation in
effect. The track owner must record designations of individuals,
whether employees, consultants or contractors. If a consultant or
contractor has several individuals performing the described functions
then one or more individuals should be designated as being responsible
to the track owner for the work performed under that engagement, with
the others working under the responsible charge of that individual.
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
In subpart D, FRA prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated
in railroad bridge management programs to prevent the operation of
equipment that could damage a bridge by exceeding safe stress levels in
bridge components or by extending beyond the horizontal or vertical
clearance limits of the bridge. Protection of bridges and bridge
components from overstress is essential to the continued integrity and
serviceability of the bridge. It is also essential that equipment or
loads that exceed the clearance limits of a bridge not be operated
owing to the potential for severe damage to the bridge.
Section 237.71 Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
Paragraph (a). Each track owner must determine the load capacity of
each of its railroad bridges. It is essential that the track owner know
that loads operated over a bridge do not exceed the safe capacity of
that bridge. However, once it is determined that a bridge has adequate
capacity to carry the loads being operated, the regulation does not
require that the track owner precisely calculate the additional
capacity of that bridge, although that could be useful from a planning
or economic standpoint.
Paragraph (b). This paragraph requires that the load capacity of
each bridge be documented in the track owner's bridge management
program, together with the method by which the capacity was determined.
Once the load capacity is determined, the value must be recorded in
order for it to be useful. Examples of methods of determination could
be the original design documents, recalculation, or rating inspection.
Paragraph (c). In the RSIA, Congress mandated that a professional
engineer competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering, or a
qualified person under the supervision of the track owner, determine
bridge capacity. See Section 417(b)(2), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat.
4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). Load capacity determination in most
instances requires the education, experience and training of an
engineer who is familiar with railroad bridges and the standard
practices that are unique to that class of structure.
The present standard references for railroad bridge design and
analysis are found in the ``Manual for Railway Engineering'' of the
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
(AREMA). The chapters in this Manual dealing with Timber, Concrete and
Steel structures, and Seismic Design, are under continuous review by
committees consisting of leading engineers in the railroad bridge
profession, including representatives of FRA. Although bridges exist
that were designed using different or earlier references, they can
still be evaluated by use of the AREMA Manual.
Paragraph (d). This paragraph permits bridge load capacity to be
determined from existing design and modification records of a bridge,
provided that the bridge substantially conforms to its records
configuration. Determination of bridge load capacity requires
information on the configuration of the bridge and the dimensions and
material of its component parts. If the bridge is found to conform to
the drawings of its original design and modifications, those drawings
may serve as the basis for any rating calculation that might be
performed, thus simplifying the process. Lacking that prior
information, it is necessary that the configuration, dimensions,
condition and properties of the bridge and its components be determined
by on-site measurement of the bridge as it currently exists.
FRA recognizes that a rigorous, exact method of rating is not
practicable with several types of bridges, including some massive
concrete or masonry bridges and many timber trestles. The railroad
bridge engineer will necessarily use judgment in determining the loads
which should be permitted to operate over these bridges, and assuring
that adequate inspections are performed so that any developing
deterioration or signs of overload are detected before they progress to
become a serious problem.
Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA requires a track owner to
schedule the evaluation of bridges for which the load capacity has not
already been
[[Page 41292]]
determined. This section provides for a phase-in period for
determination of bridge capacities. There is probably not sufficient
engineering expertise available in the United States for immediate
rating of all unrated railroad bridges. This will provide a reasonable
time period for track owners to accomplish this work. It is intended
that the unrated bridges be given relative priority for rating, based
on the judgment of a railroad bridge engineer. This prioritization can
be accomplished either by observation or by evaluation of certain
critical members of a bridge, as determined by the engineer using
professional judgment.
Paragraph (f). A new capacity must be determined by a railroad
bridge engineer when a bridge inspection record reveals that the
condition of a bridge or a bridge component might affect the load
capacity of the bridge. Accurate determination of current bridge
capacity depends on accurate information about the current
configuration and condition of the bridge. The railroad bridge engineer
might determine that a change in condition or configuration calls for a
revised rating calculation.
Paragraph (g). In this paragraph, FRA states that bridge load
capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a
standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any case be stated in
terms of weight and length of individual or combined cars and
locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel. Engineers use
standard definitions of loading combinations for design and rating of
bridges. Common among these standard definitions is a series of
proportional loads known as the Cooper System. The capacity of a bridge
and its components can be described in terms of a Cooper Rating, and
the effect of rail equipment on a bridge can also be related to a
Cooper System value.
Proper application of this system requires a full understanding of
its use and limitations. However, the results of its application can be
translated into terms of equipment weights and configurations that can
be effectively applied by persons who manage regular transportation
operations of the railroad. This enables them to determine if a given
locomotive, car, or combination can be operated on a bridge with no
further consideration, or if the equipment must be evaluated as an
exceptional movement.
Paragraph (h). FRA states that bridge load capacity may be
expressed in terms of both normal and maximum load conditions. Normal
bridge ratings generally define the loads that can be operated on a
bridge for an indefinite period without damaging the bridge. In some
cases, mostly involving steel or iron bridges, a higher rating, up to a
maximum rating, can be given to the bridge to permit the operation of
heavier loads on an infrequent basis. These heavier loads should not,
in themselves, damage the bridge, but the cumulative effect of the
higher resulting stresses in bridge members could cause their eventual
deterioration.
Paragraph (h) also states that operation of equipment that produces
forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any
restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge
engineer. A railroad bridge engineer can often prescribe compensating
conditions that will permit the movement of equipment that is heavier
than normal. Examples include speed restrictions to reduce the impact
factor of the rolling load, the insertion of lighter-weight spacer cars
between the heavier cars in a train, or the installation of temporary
bents or other supports under specific points on the bridge.
Section 237.73 Protection of Bridges From Over-Weight and Over-
Dimension Loads
Bridges can be seriously damaged by the operation of loads that
exceed their capacity. Movement of equipment that exceeds the clear
space on a bridge is an obvious safety hazard. In this section, FRA
addresses Congress' mandate in the RSIA that the track owner ``develop,
maintain, and enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its
bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities.'' See Section
417(b)(4), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).
Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each track
owner issue instructions to its personnel who are responsible for the
configuration and operation of trains over its bridges to prevent the
operation of cars, locomotives and other equipment that would exceed
the capacity or dimensions of its bridges. Transportation personnel of
a railroad are ultimately responsible for the movement of trains, cars
and locomotives. It is essential that they should know and follow any
restrictions that are placed on those movements.
Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions
regarding weight shall be expressed in terms of maximum equipment
weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or axle spacing.
Transportation personnel have information on the weights and
configuration of cars and locomotives, and they must be able to relate
that information to any restrictions placed on the movement of that
equipment.
Paragraph (c). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions
regarding dimensions shall be expressed in terms of feet and inches of
cross section and equipment length, in conformance with common railroad
industry practice for reporting dimensions of exceptional equipment in
interchange in which height above top-of-rail is shown for each cross
section measurement, followed by the width of the car or the shipment
at that height. In the industry, a standard format exists for the
exchange of information on dimensions of railroad equipment. This
standard practice is practical, even if it is not intuitive. Use of the
industry practice is necessary to avoid error and confusion.
Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions
may apply to individual structures or to a defined line segment or
groups of line segments where the published capacities and dimensions
are within the limits of all structures on the subject line segments.
Railroads commonly issue instructions related to equipment weights and
dimensions to be effective on line segments of various lengths. It is
not necessary that transportation personnel be advised of the capacity
of every bridge as long as each bridge in the line segment has the
capacity to safely carry the loads permitted on that line.
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
In subpart E, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated
into railroad bridge management programs to provide for an effective
program of bridge inspections.
Bridge inspection is a vital component in any bridge management
program. A bridge with undetected or unreported damage or deterioration
can present a serious hazard to the safe operation of trains. Bridge
inspection and evaluation is a multi-tiered process, unlike many other
types of inspection on a railroad. While track, equipment and signal
inspectors usually can compare measurements against common standards to
determine whether the inspected feature complies with the standards,
such is not the case with most bridges. The evaluation of a bridge
requires the application of engineering principles by a competent
person, who is usually not present during the inspection. It is
therefore necessary that an inspection report should show any
conditions on the bridge that might lead to a reduction in capacity,
initiation of repair work, or a more detailed inspection to further
characterize the condition.
[[Page 41293]]
Section 237.101 Scheduling of Bridge Inspections
Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA establishes regulations to
address Congress' mandate that the track owner ``conduct regular
comprehensive inspections of each bridge, at least once every year, and
maintain records of those inspections that include the date on which
the inspection was performed, the precise identification of the bridge
inspected, the items inspected, and accurate description of the
condition of those items, and a narrative of any inspection item that
is found by the inspector to be a potential problem.'' Section
417(b)(5), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).
Annual inspection of bridges has been an industry practice for over a
century, and has proven to be an effective tool of bridge management.
Even where a bridge sees very low levels of railroad traffic, the
potential still exists for damage from external sources or natural
deterioration. This paragraph calls for one inspection per calendar
year, with not more than 540 days between successive inspections. Both
criteria apply. For example, if a bridge is inspected on January 3,
2011, it becomes overdue for inspection on June 27, 2012, 541 days
later. If it is inspected on December 18, 2011, it becomes overdue on
January 1, 2013, since it was not inspected in calendar year 2012.
One commenter requested that FRA clarify what constitutes a yearly
inspection. The commenter asked if this means a ``hands-on'' type of
inspection, or a routine cursory type of inspection. FRA responds that
the rule does not prescribe an inspection procedure; that decision is
left to the railroad bridge engineer. It is quite likely that the
engineer might prescribe varying levels of detail for inspections
performed at different periods, depending on the configuration and
condition of the bridge.
Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA states that a bridge shall be
inspected more frequently than the period referenced in paragraph (a),
above, when a railroad bridge engineer determines that such inspection
frequency is necessary. The responsibility for adequate inspection
remains with the track owner, with the conditions prescribed by a
railroad bridge engineer. The inspection regimen for every bridge
should be determined from its condition, configuration, environment,
and traffic levels.
Paragraph (c). FRA requires that each bridge management program
define requirements for the special inspection of a bridge to be
performed whenever the bridge is involved in an event which might have
compromised the integrity of the bridge, including flood, fire,
earthquake, derailment, or other vehicular or vessel impact. It is
essential that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge
failure resulting from damage from an event caused by natural or non-
railroad agents. The track owner should have in place a means to
receive notice of such an event, including weather and earthquakes, and
a procedure to conduct an inspection following such an event.
Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA states that any railroad
bridge that has not been in railroad service and has not been inspected
in accordance with this section within the previous 540 days must be
inspected and the inspection report reviewed by a railroad bridge
engineer prior to the resumption of railroad service. The inspection
frequency requirements of this section do not apply to bridges that are
not in railroad service. FRA notes that although inspections are not
required on out-of-service railroad bridges, state law regarding
responsibility for damage to outside parties that might be caused by
the condition of the bridge is not affected. If a bridge not in service
has been inspected within the 540 day period, the track owner may
accept that inspection and begin railroad service, subject to any
determination in that regard by a railroad bridge engineer. The
inspection period would date from the last inspection, with no credit
for out-of-service time.
Section 237.103 Bridge Inspection Procedures
In this section, FRA requires that each bridge management program
specify the procedure to be used for inspection of individual bridges
or classes and types of bridges. As mandated by the RSIA, FRA states
that the bridge inspection procedures must be as specified by a
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the
conduct and review of the inspections. See Section 417(b)(7)(A), Public
Law 110-432, 122 Stat 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In the RSIA,
Congress also mandated that the bridge safety regulations must ``ensure
that the level of detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate
to the configuration of the bridge, conditions found during the
previous inspections, and the nature of the railroad traffic moved over
the bridge, including car weights, train frequency and lengths, levels
of passenger and hazardous materials traffic, and vulnerability of the
bridge to damage.'' Accordingly, FRA requires that the bridge
inspection procedures must ensure that the level of detail and the
inspection procedures are appropriate to the configuration of the
bridge. Additionally, the bridge inspection procedures must be designed
to detect, report and protect deterioration and deficiencies before
they present a hazard to safe train operation. The responsibility for
adequate inspection remains with the track owner, with the conditions
prescribed by a railroad bridge engineer. The inspection regimen for
every bridge should be determined from its condition, configuration,
environment, and traffic levels. The instructions for bridge inspection
may be both general, as by bridge type or line segment; and specific,
as needed by particular considerations for an individual bridge.
ASLRRA commented that the rule provides that a railroad bridge
engineer must direct programs, review inspections, record procedures,
and undertake other similar steps. ASLRRA suggests that this seems to
imply the railroad must have a railroad bridge engineer capable of
designing a bridge on staff or employed as a consultant each time an
inspection is made. ASLRRA contends that a railroad supervisor can
implement a program, review the inspection, audit a program, and assess
whether a bridge inspection exception needs to go to a railroad bridge
engineer for review.
FRA responds that a bridge inspection program can be established by
a railroad bridge engineer, either as an employee of or as a consultant
to the track owner. The engineer is not required to be on site, or even
on the property, during an inspection. A primary purpose of the audit
procedure called out below is to permit the railroad bridge engineer to
review and monitor the effectiveness of the bridge inspection program
that has been conducted under his overall charge.
Section 237.105 Special Inspections
Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each bridge
management program prescribe a procedure for protection of train
operations and for inspection of any bridge that might have been
damaged by a natural or accidental event, including flood, fire,
earthquake, derailment or vehicular or vessel impact. It is essential
that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge failure caused
by damage from an event caused by natural or non-railroad agents. The
track owner should have in place a means to receive notice of such an
event, including weather conditions and earthquakes, and a procedure to
conduct an inspection following such an event.
[[Page 41294]]
Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each bridge
management program provide for the detection of scour or deterioration
of bridge components that are submerged or subject to water flow. The
condition of bridge components located underwater is usually not
evident from above. Means to determine their condition might be as
simple as using measuring rods from the surface, or might call for
periodic or special diving inspection. Advanced technology might also
provide devices that can be used to determine underwater conditions.
Maryland DOT requested that FRA provide advice on a required
inspection frequency for the underwater inspection, noting that FHWA
requires underwater inspections at least once in every five years. FRA
responds that the rule does not prescribe a particular frequency for
underwater inspections; that decision is left to the railroad bridge
engineer, to be based on the particular conditions at each bridge.
Section 237.107 Conduct of Bridge Inspections
In this section, FRA requires that bridge inspections be conducted
under the direct supervision of a designated railroad bridge inspector,
who shall be responsible for the accuracy of the results and the
conformity of the inspection to the bridge management program. Bridge
inspections can often require more than one person for safety and
efficiency. This provision permits others to assist the designated
inspector, who remains responsible for the results of the inspection.
Section 237.109 Bridge Inspection Records
In this section, FRA requires that each track owner to which this
part applies keep a record of each inspection required to be performed
under this part. A bridge inspection has little value unless it is
recorded and reported to the individuals who are responsible for the
ultimate determination of the safety of the bridge. Bridge inspectors
may use a variety of methods to record their findings as they move
about the bridge. These include notebooks, voice recordings, having
another individual transcribe notes, and photographs. These notes and
other items are usually compiled into a prescribed report format at the
end of the day or at the conclusion of the inspection. In paragraph
(c), FRA delineates the essential elements that must be addressed and
reported in any bridge inspection.
Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA requires that an initial
report of each bridge inspection be placed in the location designated
by the bridge management program within 30 calendar days of the
completion of the field portion of the inspection. The initial report
must include the information delineated in paragraph (c)(1) through
(c)(5). The actual conduct of the inspection should be reported and
recorded, showing the fact that the bridge was actually inspected on a
certain date, the type of inspection performed, by whom it was
performed, and whether or not any critical conditions were detected.
Inspection and reporting procedures vary widely among different
railroads and circumstances. In many cases, especially on larger
railroads, an inspector would prepare the report before leaving the
bridge. The reports might be forwarded by mail, by electronic means, or
by hand delivery. They might be forwarded daily, weekly, or even less
frequently. In other circumstances, a consulting engineer might be
engaged by a small railroad to inspect all of the bridges on all or
part of the line, and the final report might be prepared by the
engineering firm after all of the inspections are completed. Similarly,
a large railroad might begin a comprehensive inspection and evaluation
of a large structure that will take several months to complete.
FRA recognizes the wide range of time periods required for these
various inspections and reporting procedures, so this provision was
developed as a means for the track owner to track inspection progress,
bridge by bridge, with a simple line item showing:
(1) identification of the bridge inspected;
(2) date of completion of the inspection;
(3) identification of the inspector;
(4) type of inspection performed; and
(5) indication on the report as to whether any item noted thereon
requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge engineer,
and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection.
These five items can usually be listed on a single line of a
report. The initial report might include all of the bridges inspected
by one individual in a week or two. FRA does not anticipate that the
initial or summary report include all of the data called for in the
bridge management program, together with any narrative descriptions
necessary for the correct interpretation of the report. This
information would be included in the complete inspection report.
Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA requires that a complete
report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in the location
designated in the bridge management program within 120 days of the
completion of the field portion of the inspection. A bridge inspection
is not complete until the report of the inspection is filed and
available to the persons who are responsible for the management of the
bridges inspected. This time period does not include the time used by a
consultant or in-house engineering group to complete an analysis of the
results of the inspection, and it is not expected that the analysis
need be completed within that time period. In cases where a detailed
analysis is required, FRA intends that the inspection report on which
the analysis is based would be separated from the analysis and filed
within the required time frame.
Paragraph (f). This paragraph requires that each bridge inspection
program specify the retention period and location for bridge inspection
records. The retention period must be at least two years from the
completion of the inspection. A comparison of successive reports can
reveal any accelerating rates of deterioration or degradation of bridge
components. Additionally, an audit or review of the effectiveness of a
bridge inspection program requires comparison of previous inspection
reports with the actual condition of a bridge included in the audit.
The practice of comparing previous inspection reports with actual
bridge conditions has been followed by FRA for more than a decade when
evaluating railroad bridge management programs. It is a valuable factor
in determining the effectiveness of a railroad's program.
Section 237.111 Review of Bridge Inspection Reports
The RSIA requires that an engineer who is competent in the field of
railroad bridge engineering reviews all inspection reports and
determines whether bridges are being inspected according to the
applicable procedures and frequencies, and reviews any items noted by
an inspector as exceptions. See Section 417(b)(7), Public Law 110-432,
122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In this section, FRA requires
responsible railroad bridge supervisors and railroad bridge engineers
to review bridge inspection reports. Bridge inspection is usually a
multi-tiered procedure. The inspector reports on the conditions noted
in the inspection, but an engineer will necessarily evaluate those
noted conditions and determine what, if any, further action is
required.
The regulation does not require that a railroad bridge engineer
review every inspection report, so long as the responsible management
personnel keep
[[Page 41295]]
track of the conduct of inspections to see that they are performed in
accordance with the schedule and other requirements of this rule and
the railroad's program. It should be a simple matter for the inspector
to indicate on a report whether or not the report would require higher-
level or engineering review. The engineering staff would review the
reports that indicate problems or issues for them to resolve. Section
237.153, ``Audits of inspections,'' includes a provision for sampling
of routine inspection reports to assure that the inspectors are
properly identifying reports that require review.
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
In subpart F, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated
in railroad bridge management programs to provide for adequate design
and effective supervision of those bridge modifications and repairs
which will materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses
in any primary load-carrying component of the bridge. This section
provides for correct design and adequate supervision of repair and
modification of bridges where the work could materially affect the
capacity of the bridge, or its continued integrity. FRA does not intend
that minor repairs that do not affect the capacity of the bridge must
be designed by an engineer, but the supervision of that work should be
performed by a person who is competent to assure that the work does not
inadvertently compromise the integrity of the bridge. For instance, arc
welding handrails to the members of a through truss might appear to
some to be a minor repair, but it could seriously compromise the
structural integrity of the bridge.
Section 237.131 Design
Design of entire railroad bridges, modifications and repairs which
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any
primary load-carrying component of the bridge require the intelligent
application of the principles of engineering and can be performed only
by an engineer with training and experience in the field of railroad
bridges. Railroads have typically issued standard instructions for the
performance of common maintenance repairs, such as replacement or
upgrading of components of timber trestles. This section specifically
permits such a practice. For purposes of this part, a primary load-
carrying component is a railroad bridge component, the failure of which
would immediately compromise the structural integrity of the bridge.
One commenter notes that the proposed rule requires that while all
bridge work that eliminates a deteriorated condition requires design by
a bridge engineer, for many situations ranging from cracked flange
angles to failed timber caps, a simple component change-out is the most
effective repair. These types of repairs have historically been
performed by bridge forces without the benefit of formal design
oversight. The commenter suggested that each track owner should
determine what repairs require the oversight of an engineer.
FRA understands this concern, and has modified Sec. 237.131 to
read, in part, that ``[e]ach repair or modification which materially
modifies the capacity of a bridge or the stresses in any primary load-
carrying component of a bridge shall be designed by a railroad bridge
engineer.''
The comment regarding simple component replacement is addressed in
the last sentence of the paragraph, which states that designs and
procedures for repair or modification of bridges of a common
configuration, such as timber trestles, or instructions for in-kind
replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common standard.
Although it may be a standard procedure, the standard should be
designed and issued by a qualified railroad bridge engineer.
Section 237.133 Supervision of Repairs and Modifications
This section requires that each repair or modification pursuant to
this part shall be performed under the immediate supervision of a
railroad bridge supervisor as defined in Sec. 237.55 of this part who
is designated and authorized by the track owner to supervise the
particular work to be performed. Modifications and repairs which
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any
primary load-carrying component of the bridge must be performed
according to the specific or general specifications and instructions
issued by a railroad bridge engineer. Particularly when trains are
permitted to pass over a bridge which is being repaired or modified,
the supervisor at the bridge must be able to make the necessary
determination to either permit, restrict or halt train operation
depending on the state of the bridge. As this part does not specify the
employment relationship between the track owner and the bridge
supervisor, the track owner may designate a contractor or a consultant
as the bridge supervisor.
One commenter asked if FRA would object to a track owner
designating a contractor's foreman as the bridge supervisor qualified
to return a bridge to service at the end of each work window. The
commenter also stated that small railroads that do not have a bridge
engineer may have to designate their engineering consultant as the
bridge supervisor whose full-time presence on a job will be expensive
and will take money away from repairs. FRA responds that the proposed
regulation does not specify the employment relationship between the
track owner and a bridge supervisor. A contractor employee or a
consultant may be so designated. It is necessary, however, that a
qualified individual be responsible for the proper and safe performance
of work on a bridge, and that the individual be authorized to perform
the actions necessary to fulfill that responsibility.
Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management
Programs
Documentation is essential to any effective management program. In
subpart G, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated in
railroad bridge management programs to provide for verification of the
effectiveness of the program and the accuracy of the information
developed thereby, by the track owner and by FRA to evaluate compliance
with this regulation.
Section 237.151 Audits; General
In this section, FRA requires that each program adopted to comply
with this part include provisions for auditing the effectiveness of the
several provisions of that program, including the validity of bridge
inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and the correct
application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment of
exceptional weight or configuration. Effective management of a safety-
critical program such as this requires an adequate level of checks to
assure that the requisite work is being performed correctly.
Section 237.153 Audits of Inspections
FRA has found over the years during which it has conducted
evaluations of railroad bridge programs that one of the most important
indicators of the effectiveness of a program is a comparison of recent
bridge inspection reports against actual conditions found at the
subject bridges. This is fundamental to an effective audit of a bridge
management program. Therefore, in this section, FRA states that each
bridge management program incorporate provisions for an internal audit.
Each
[[Page 41296]]
bridge management program shall incorporate provisions for an internal
audit to determine whether the inspection provisions of the program are
being followed, and whether the program itself is effectively providing
for the continued safety of the subject bridges. Additionally, the
inspection audit shall include an evaluation of a representative
sampling of bridge inspection reports at the bridges noted on the
reports to determine whether the reports accurately describe the
condition of the bridge.
Section 237.155 Documents and Records
In this section, FRA requires each track owner required to
implement a bridge management program and keep records under this part
to make those program documents and records available for inspection
and reproduction by FRA. This section addresses Congress' mandate in
the RSIA to establish a program to periodically review bridge
inspection and maintenance data from railroad carrier bridge inspectors
and FRA bridge experts. See Section 417(d), Public Law 110-432, 122
Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). As in the case of all railroad
safety regulations, FRA has an enforcement responsibility. FRA will
require access to the vital documents and records of the various bridge
management programs to enable it to carry out that responsibility.
Paragraphs (a) and (b). In these paragraphs, FRA establishes
minimum standards for electronic record-keeping provisions that a track
owner may elect to utilize to comply with the record-keeping provisions
of this part. FRA recognizes the growing prevalence of electronic
records, and acknowledges the unique challenges that electronic
transmission, storage, and retrieval of records can present. To allow
for future advances in technology, FRA is establishing electronic
record storage provisions in these paragraphs that are technology-
neutral.
For purposes of complying with the record-keeping requirements of
this part, a track owner may create and maintain any of the required
records through electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval,
provided that certain conditions are met. Not only must the system used
to generate the electronic records meet all of the requirements of this
subpart and the records contain all of the information required by this
subpart, but the track owner must also: monitor the electronic database
through a sufficient number of monitoring indicators to ensure a high
degree of the accuracy of the records; train the employees who use the
system on the proper use of the system; and maintain an information
technology security program adequate to ensure the integrity of the
system, including the prevention of unauthorized access to the program
logic or individual records.
Additionally, the integrity of the bridge inspection records must
be protected by a security system that incorporates user identity and
password, or a comparable method, to establish appropriate levels of
program and record data access meeting all of the following standards:
no two individuals can have the same electronic identity; a record
cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after the record is
certified by the employee who created the record; any amendment to the
record must either be electronically stored apart from the record it
amends, or electronically attached to the record as information without
changing the original record; each amendment to a record must uniquely
identify the person making the amendment; and the electronic system
must provide for the maintenance of inspection records as originally
submitted without corruption or loss of data.
Two commenters expressed a general concern that the security
provisions of the proposed rule would preclude the modification of
permanent bridge records, such as the inventory itself. As FRA responds
that was not the intent, the final rule has been modified so that the
data security provisions apply only to bridge inspection records.
Appendix A to Part 237--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the
Safety of Railroad Bridges
A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges was
originally published by FRA in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal Track
Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 213. With the issuance of 49 CFR part
237, Bridge Safety Standards, certain non-regulatory provisions in that
Policy Statement have been incorporated in that regulation. However,
FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items are still useful as
information and guidance. Those provisions of the Policy Statement are
therefore retained and placed in this Appendix in lieu of their former
location in the Track Safety Standards.
Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties
Consistent with FRA's Statement of Agency Policy Concerning
Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, a penalty may be
assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. The
Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to $100,000
for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209,
appendix A.
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory impact analysis addressing the economic impacts from this
final rule.
As part of the regulatory impact analysis FRA has assessed
quantitative measurements of the cost and benefit streams expected from
the adoption of this final rule. For the 20-year period the estimated
quantified costs total $164.2 million, and have a present value (PV,
7%) of $84.4 million. For the same period of time the estimated
quantified benefits total $19.4 million and have a PV(7%) of $9.8
million. These benefits are exclusive of long-term efficiencies to the
railroads with respect to conservation of the capital value of the
structures in question. Very often targeted repairs or restoration at
an early stage in the deterioration of a bridge may significantly
extend the useful life of a bridge. The benefits also do not consider
the potential for a catastrophic event resulting in a bridge failure
and consequent fatalities to railroad personnel, rail passengers, or
persons underneath the bridge. Although FRA has verified through its
bridge program that most railroads properly manage their bridges most
of the time, in the recent past FRA has also determined circumstances--
even on Class I railroads--where proper inspections or repairs have
been inappropriately deferred. Accordingly, this final rule offers the
opportunity to capture and extend the current heightened attention to
bridge management achieved through industry and FRA efforts over the
past several years.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Final
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and
certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not
[[Page 41297]]
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the NPRM stage, FRA had not determined whether the proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, FRA published an IRFA to aid the public in
commenting on the potential small business impacts of the proposals in
the NPRM. All interested parties were invited to submit data and
information regarding the potential economic impact that would result
from adoption of the proposals in the NPRM.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act also requires an agency to conduct a
final regulatory flexibility assessment (FRFA) unless it determines and
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FRA is not able to certify that
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities due to insufficient information.
FRA did not receive many comments, or data from commenters, on the
IRFA, and the information that was received was not sufficient to make
a determination. Thus, FRA is publishing this FRFA and will issue a
small entity guidance document soon.
FRA estimates, primarily based on two facts, that approximately 70
percent of the total cost of this rulemaking (see regulatory impact
analysis (RIA)) will be borne by small entities. First, larger
railroads generally have more comprehensive bridge management programs
and more frequent bridge inspections. Second, since FRA's RIA is an
overall industry analysis, it is not immediately obvious that the
incremental cost burden on small railroads is proportionally larger
than for larger entities. This is because more small railroads will
have to increase inspection frequency and enhance their management
programs. It should be noted that the bridge populations of typical
small railroads are less complex than those of larger railroads.
Below, FRA provides the rationale it used for assessing what
impacts would be borne by small entities. FRA considered all comments
received in the public comment process when making a determination in
the FRFA.
This FRFA was developed in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
(1) A Succinct Statement of the Need for and Objectives of the Rule
As discussed in Section I of the preamble to this rule, the
structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is important
because the severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a
bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the accident. In 2000,
FRA published a final statement of agency policy for the safety of
railroad bridges, establishing criteria to ensure the structural
integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. The Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) directs FRA to issue, by October 16,
2009, regulations requiring railroad track owners to adopt and follow
specific procedures to protect the safety of their bridges.
There are more than 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States.
Federal regulations offer the benefit of uniformity that would allow
railroads that operate in more than one State to develop and implement
a single management program that would apply to all of its railroad
bridges, supporting one or more tracks, rather than several programs
tailored to meet the different requirements of each different State or
local jurisdiction.
FRA is issuing this rule to promulgate minimum bridge safety
standards as mandated by RSIA, Section 417, Public Law 110-432, 122
Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).
(2) A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments
in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of
Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made to the Proposed Rule
as a Result of Such Comments
No comments were received that directly addressed the IRFA.
However, a few comments did address items of cost used in the RIA,
which are related to the IRFA for the NPRM.
(a) Security of Records
In 49 CFR 237.155, FRA proposed numerous recordkeeping requirements
primarily dealing with security. The recordkeeping requirements in the
proposed rule assumed that the documents would be kept electronically.
One commenter noted that not all documents for small railroads would be
maintained that way. Thus, the final rule has a minor revision that
accommodates bridge inspection records that are not electronic. The
impact of this minor change will not cause any cost calculation
changes.
(b) Bridge Inspection Cost
One commenter did not agree with the average bridge inspection cost
that the FRA used in its RIA. More specifically, this commenter
mentioned that $750 for the average cost of a bridge inspection is not
realistic. This commenter also opined that the actual cost is more
excessive (in the range of $4,000 to $5,000 per bridge) for a bridge
that was inspected on a 2-year cycle.
FRA disagrees with this commenter and believes that the cost used
in the RIA for the NPRM is appropriate, given its understanding and
interpretation of the regulatory requirements. In response, FRA
emphasizes that its cost estimate is an average that includes lower
cost inspections, such as that of a wood trestle bridge over a small
stream, which would be less than the average cost. In addition, this
commenter was basing the higher cost estimate on a more expensive,
hands-on detailed bridge inspection process required on a 2-year
frequency for highway bridges by FHWA. Finally, this commenter was
providing comments related to experiences with inspecting a population
of large highway bridges. For these reasons, FRA has not modified its
cost estimate for bridge inspections.
(3) A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is
Available
The ``universe'' of the entities to be considered generally
includes only those small entities that are reasonably expected to be
directly regulated by this action. Two types of small entities are
potentially affected by this rulemaking: (1) railroads that own track
supported by a bridge, and (2) governmental jurisdictions of small
communities that own railroad bridges.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as having the same
meaning as ``small business concern'' under Section 3 of the Small
Business Act. This includes any small business concern that is
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of
operation. Section 601(4) includes nonprofit enterprises that are
independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their field
of operations within the definition of ``small entities.''
Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines ``small entities'' as governments
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with populations less than 50,000.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates ``size
standards'' for small entities. It provides that the largest a for-
profit railroad business firm may be (and still classify as a ``small
entity'') is 1,500 employees for ``line-haul operating'' railroads, and
[[Page 41298]]
500 employees for ``shortline operating'' railroads.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Table of Size Standards,'' U.S. Small Business
Administration, January 31, 1996, 13 CFR Part 121. See also NAICS
Codes 482111 and 482112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size standards may be altered by Federal agencies in
consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant
to the authority provided to it by SBA, FRA has published a final
policy, which formally establishes small entities as railroads that
meet the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.\2\
Currently, the revenue requirements are $20 million or less in annual
operating revenue, adjusted annually for inflation. The $20 million
limit (adjusted annually for inflation) is based on the Surface
Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which
is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment.\3\
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a
railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity. FRA proposed to use
this definition for the rulemaking in the NPRM and received no comments
on that proposal. FRA is using this definition for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003).
\3\ For further information on the calculation of the specific
dollar limit, please see 49 CFR Part 1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Governmental Jurisdictions of Small Communities
Small entities that are classified as governmental jurisdictions of
small communities may also be affected by this rulemaking. As stated
above, and defined by SBA, this term refers to the governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with populations of less than 50,000. The potential
impact of this rulemaking to these entities is related to their
ownership of a bridge, and possibly the track supported by the bridge
as well. Such bridges are usually built by communities, with railroad
collaboration, to achieve highway-rail grade separation. FRA does not
have information regarding the number of small communities that own
such bridges and received no additional information during the comment
process of the NPRM.
In some cases, however, the government entity and the railroad
apportion ownership, expenses, and maintenance responsibility according
to the provisions of an order from the State regulatory agency that
governs highway and railroad crossing improvements. It is most common
for the railroad to retain the responsibility for the actual inspection
and management of the bridge. To the extent that agreements which
require cost-sharing and existing bridge management programs would have
to be enhanced to meet the final regulation, there may be some burden
passed on to small government jurisdictions; however, such burden is
not expected to be substantial. To the extent that any burden does
result, it is possible that insurance premiums could be adjusted to
reflect the risk reduction, resulting in some level of savings in
addition to the cost of the program enhancement. This would, of course,
be in addition to safety benefits related to fewer accidents.
Accordingly, FRA cannot accurately assess the number of
governmental jurisdictions of small communities that would be directly
impacted by this regulation and what the impact would be to them. FRA
requested comment from affected governmental jurisdictions as to the
impact the proposed rule would have on them during the NPRM comment
process. The comments received during the public comment period of the
NPRM did not provide any additional data or information on this issue.
(b) Railroads
There are approximately 687 small railroads meeting the definition
of ``small entity'' as described above. FRA estimates that
approximately 95 percent of these small entities, or approximately 653,
own track supported by a bridge. Because the final rule would apply to
all of these small railroads, FRA has concluded that a substantial
number of such entities would be impacted. Note, however, that
approximately 125 of these railroads are subsidiaries of large
shortline holding companies with the expertise and resources comparable
to larger railroads. In the IRFA for the NPRM, FRA estimated a smaller
number of subsidiaries, but since then has gained more accurate
information as to the best estimate of how many small railroads are
subsidiaries of larger corporations. In addition, absent this
rulemaking, most railroads that own track supported by bridges,
including many of the railroads identified as small entities, would to
some extent voluntarily incur the expense associated with
implementation of the bridge management programs in accordance with the
requirements imposed by FRA to address the risk associated with
structural failure of a bridge. In fact, the ASLRRA, which represents
most of the small railroads impacted by this rulemaking, has developed
a model bridge management program intended to keep bridge and culvert
infrastructure safe and structurally sound. Member railroads are
expected to take the generic plan and customize it to meet their
specific circumstances and the requirements in this rule. Such
initiative would minimize the program development cost. Nevertheless,
program implementation costs may be substantial for those small
railroads that do not currently have bridge management programs, and do
not inspect railroad bridges regularly.
While FRA does recognize that some small railroads do not currently
have bridge management programs, FRA believes that many railroads have
already made (or are making) the transition to track structures and
bridges capable of handling 286,000-pound cars in line with the general
movement in the industry toward these heavier freight cars. To protect
such investments, which are usually quite significant, railroads are
already implementing bridge management programs.
For example, in 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute reported
that 42 percent of the shortline railroad miles that were operated in
Texas that year had already been upgraded, 9 percent would not need an
upgrade, and 47 percent needed upgrading if they wanted to transport
any type of 286,000-pound shipments.\4\ In addition, the results of a
1998-1999 survey conducted by ASLRRA indicated that 41 percent of
respondent shortline railroads could handle 286,000-pound rail cars and
87 percent of the respondent shortline railroads indicated that they
would need to accommodate 286,000-pound railcars in the future.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Jeffrey E. Warner and Manuel Solari Terra, ``Assessment of
Texas Short Line Railroads,'' Texas Transportation Institute
(November 15, 2005).
\5\ The 10-Year Needs of Short Line and Regional Railroads,
Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC (December
1999). This report was based on a survey conducted by the ASLRRA in
1998 and 1999, with data from 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, at least one Class I railroad has arranged for
shortline and regional railroads that connect with it to send
participants to several multiday bridge inspection classes this year.
In general, implementation of the final rule will likely
significantly burden only a small portion of the small railroads
potentially affected. FRA invited commenters to submit information that
might assist us in assessing the cost impacts on small railroads of the
proposals during the comment process of the NPRM; however, very little
comment was received on this matter, and comments received were not
sufficient to allow us to make a determination.
[[Page 41299]]
(4) A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
The impacts from this rulemaking will primarily result from
complying with the requirements for the adoption of bridge management
programs. The final rule provides affected entities 6- to 24-month
periods of time in which to adopt such programs. Class III railroads
will have the full 24-month period from the effective date of the final
rule, unless they have more than 10 scheduled passenger trains per week
operating anywhere on their system, in which case they would have only
6 months.
(a) Recordkeeping Requirements of Sec. 237.33
The requirements in Sec. 237.33 stipulate that each bridge
management program includes an accurate inventory of railroad bridges;
a record of the safe load capacity of each bridge; a provision to
obtain and maintain the design documents of each bridge if available,
and to document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each
bridge; and a bridge inspection program covering the method of
documenting inspections, including standard forms and formats.
FRA believes that most railroads, regardless of size, already
maintain an accurate inventory of their railroad bridges, records of
the safe load capacity of their bridges, and design documents to the
extent they are available. Likewise, because it is good business
practice to do so, most railroads maintain documents related to all
repairs, modifications, and inspections of bridges. The States of Ohio,
Michigan, and New York have existing bridge regulations requiring
railroads to maintain bridge inventories and inspect bridges annually.
There are approximately 100 small railroads that operate in those
States. However, some railroads may not include in their documentation
some of the particular data items specified in this rule. Thus these
requirements will impose a nominal additional recordkeeping burden on
some small railroads.
As noted above, not all small railroads have inspection programs.
ASLRRA, however, has developed a model program for its members, thus
minimizing the burden associated with the development of such plans.
FRA estimates that the burden for individual railroad customization of
the program would range from $570, for the smaller Class III railroads,
to $3,000 for the larger Class III railroads. Costs associated with
maintenance, modifications, and updates to bridge management plans will
average approximately 15 percent of the initial development cost, or
between $85 and $450, annually. Therefore, this reporting requirement
will have minimal impact on small entities.
Determination of bridge load capacity will be made by a bridge
engineer. The engineer is determined by the track owner to be competent
to perform the functions necessary for the determination of load
capacity. Bridge inspection procedures would be specified by a railroad
bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the conduct and
review of the inspections.
(b) Bridge Inspections
Bridge management programs will be required to contain bridge
inspection programs. Subpart E requires calendar year inspections of
bridges according to specified procedures, as well as special
inspection of bridges that might be damaged by a natural or accidental
event. This subpart also specifies that bridge inspections must be
conducted under the direct supervision of a designated bridge
inspector. The inspector is deemed technically competent to view,
measure, report, and record the condition of a railroad bridge and its
individual components. FRA expects there will be a significant increase
in the number of bridge inspections conducted by small railroads or
their contractors or consulting engineers. FRA requested comments and
input regarding the extent to which Class III railroads already conduct
annual inspection of bridges and the extent to which they would have to
conduct additional bridge inspections. FRA did not receive any comments
or information related to this request.
Most small railroads do not have bridge engineers or inspectors on
staff. They contract out bridge inspections. A typical contract is for
the inspection of most (if not all) the bridges the railroad owns, with
delivery of a final report addressing the state of all bridges. Interim
reports are provided to the railroad, or the responsible railroad
bridge engineer, to record the fact that a certain bridge has actually
been inspected and whether or not any significant deficiencies were
noted. Some States provide shortline railroads funding via grants and
loans for infrastructure improvements including bridge rehabilitation,
track maintenance, and bridge inspection. For instance, the Tennessee
Department of Transportation provides significant grants for such
projects to most of the 20 Class III railroads in the State.\6\ The
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation administers a matching grant
program to support freight railroad maintenance and construction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Railroad Bridges and
Tunnels, Federal Role in Providing Safety Oversight and Freight
Infrastructure Investment Could Be Better Targeted,'' August 2007,
(GAO-07-770).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA believes that small railroads own, or would otherwise be
responsible for inspecting, approximately 20,000 bridges. FRA estimates
that the average cost per bridge inspection is $750, and that
approximately 10,000 bridges are being inspected less frequently than
once a year, while 5,000 are not inspected at all. Most small railroads
may own track supported by several bridges, especially in some areas
where the terrain requires such structures. FRA requested comment
regarding the level of cost burden that the annual inspection would
impose. The cost for this requirement was the largest cost in FRA's
RIA. FRA believes that, of the railroads which do not presently inspect
their bridges on an annual basis, most are small railroads.
(c) Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
Subpart D requires the determination of bridge load capacities. FRA
believes that railroad bridge owners are generally aware of bridge load
capacities. Nevertheless, it is likely that some railroads will have to
take action to verify this information in order to develop the type of
documentation required by this subpart. Bridge load capacity
information is vital to ensuring that safe capacity is not exceeded.
Small railroads affected by this requirement will likely have a
consulting engineer perform such calculations. Most of the bridges that
do not already have load capacities calculated are smaller, less
complex structures.
(d) Repair and Modification of Bridges
Subpart F prescribes minimum standards for bridge modification and
repair that will materially modify the capacity of a bridge or the
stresses in any primary load carrying component of the bridge.
Modifications and repairs to bridges (except for minor modifications
and repairs) will have to be designed by railroad bridge engineers, and
the work will have to be supervised by designated bridge supervisors.
Small railroads will generally contract out such modifications and
repairs. As common
[[Page 41300]]
practice, consulting engineers meet the design and supervision
requirements of this rule, and competent contractor employees may be
designated to perform the immediate supervision of much of the
modification and repair work.
(e) Audits
Each program will have to include provisions for auditing the
effectiveness of several provisions of the program, including the
validity of bridge inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and
the correct application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment
of exceptional weight or configuration. FRA anticipates that Class III
railroad audits will generally be performed by a company official
following guidance in the ASLRRA model program and without assistance
from an external financial or engineering auditor. In general, FRA
anticipates that the audit process will be simpler and consume fewer
resources for small railroads than for larger railroads. This is
because, by the nature of their operations, shortlines will probably
have smaller and less complex bridge populations.
(5) A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Adverse Economic Impact On Small Entities Consistent With
the Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule, and Why Each of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Was Rejected
In Sec. 237.31, FRA sets the schedule for railroads to adopt
bridge safety management programs. In consideration of the impact on
small railroads that may not already have such programs, this schedule
generally provides small railroads with an additional 18 months more
than Class I carriers, and an additional 12 months more than Class II
carriers, to adopt these programs.
FRA has identified no additional, significant alternative to this
final rule that satisfies the mandate of the RSIA or meets the agency's
objective in promulgating this rule, and that would minimize the
economic impact of the rulemaking on small entities. As in all aspects
of this rulemaking, FRA requested comments on this finding of no
significant alternative related to small entities. No comments were
received relative to the question of what alternatives could be
provided to small entities.
The process by which this final rule was developed provided
outreach to small entities. As noted in Section III of this final rule,
this rule was developed in consultation with industry representatives
through RSAC, which includes small railroad representatives. On
December 10, 2008, RSAC referred to the Working Group, established in
March 2008, the task of developing a draft rule requiring the owners of
track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a bridge safety
management program to reduce the risk of human casualties,
environmental damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad
transportation system resulting from catastrophic bridge failure. The
Working Group met twice, on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24,
2009. Small railroad representatives participated in both meetings and
raised issues of concern to small railroads. Of specific concern to
small railroads that own several bridges and contract out the
inspection of these bridges, was the ability to continue to enter into
such contractual agreements structured such that final inspection
reports are submitted as part of a single report at the completion of
the contract, which could span several months. After the comment period
for the NPRM closed, FRA held a 1-day meeting for the Working Group to
review the comments to the docket. This meeting was held in Washington,
DC, on December 15, 2009. At this meeting all comments were reviewed
and the Working Group provided FRA with pertinent input on potential
issues. This final rule takes into account the comments and input
provided by the Working Group.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain the new information collection requirements
and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total annual Average time per annual
CFR Section Respondent universe responses response burden
hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.3:
Notifications to FRA of 693 Railroads........ 15 notifications.... 90 minutes.......... 22.5
Assignment of Bridge
Responsibility.
Signed Statement by Assignee 693 Railroads........ 15 signed statements 30 minutes.......... 7.5
Concerning Bridge
Responsibility.
237.9: Waivers--Petitions......... 693 Railroads........ 12 petitions........ 4 hours............. 48
237.31 and 237.33: Development/ 693 Railroads........ 693 plans........... Varies.............. 20,100
Adoption of Bridge Management
Program.
237.57: Designation of Qualified 693 Railroads........ 200 designations.... 30 minutes.......... 100
Individuals.
237.71: Determination of Bridge 693 Railroads........ 2,000 determinations 8 hours............. 16,000
Load Capacities.
237.73: Issuance of Instructions 693 Railroads........ 2,000 instructions.. 2 hours............. 4,000
to Railroad Personnel by Track
Owner.
237.105:
Special Bridge Inspections and 693 Railroads........ 7,500 inspections 12.50 hours......... 93,750
Reports/Records. and reports/records.
Special Underwater Inspections 693 Railroads........ 50 inspections and 40 hours............ 2,000
reports/records.
237.107 and 237.109:
Nationwide Annual Bridge 693 Railroads........ 18,000 inspections 4 hours............. 72,000
Inspections--Reports. and reports.
Records....................... 693 Railroads........ 18,000 records...... 1 hour.............. 18,000
[[Page 41301]]
Report of Deficient Condition 693 Railroads........ 50 reports.......... 30 minutes.......... 25
on a Bridge (New from NPRM).
237.111:
Review of Bridge Inspection 693 Railroads........ 2,000 inspection 30 minutes.......... 1,000
Reports by Railroad Bridge report reviews.
Engineers.
Prescription of Bridge 693 Railroads........ 200 inspection 30 minutes.......... 100
Inspection Procedure procedure
Modifications After Review. modifications.
237.131:
Design of Bridge Modifications 693 Railroads........ 1,250 designs....... 16 hours............ 20,000
or Bridge Repairs.
Bridge Modification Repair 693 Railroads........ 1,250 bridge 1.50 hours.......... 1,875
Reviews/Supervisory Efforts. modification repair
reviews.
Common Standard Designed by 693 Railroads........ 50 standards........ 24 hours............ 1,200
Railroad Bridge Engineer (New
from NPRM).
237.153: Audits of Inspections.... 693 Railroads........ 693 inspection 80 hours/24 hours/6 5,470
audits. hours.
237.155--Documents and Records:
Establishment of Railroad 693 Railroads........ 5 systems........... 80 hours............ 400
Monitoring and Information
Technology Security Systems
for Electronic Recordkeeping.
Employees Trained in System... 693 Railroads........ 100 employees....... 8 hours............. 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan at 202-
493-6292 or Ms. Kimberly Toone at 202-493-6132, or via e-mail at the
following respective addresses: [email protected]; or
[email protected].
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be
sent via e-mail to the Office of Management and Budget at the following
address: [email protected].
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information
collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control
number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers
for any new information collection requirements resulting from this
rulemaking action prior to the effective date of this final rule. The
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice
in the Federal Register.
D. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this action is not a major FRA action (requiring the
preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of
FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no
extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this final rule that
might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a
result, FRA finds that this final rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
E. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule will
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
FRA has also determined that this final rule will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments.
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order
13132 do not apply.
Moreover, FRA notes that RSAC, which provided advice regarding this
final rule, has as permanent members, two organizations representing
State and local interests: AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these State
organizations concurred with the RSAC
[[Page 41302]]
recommendation made in this rulemaking. RSAC regularly provides
recommendations to the Administrator of FRA for solutions to regulatory
issues that reflect significant input from its State members. To date,
FRA has received no indication of concerns about the federalism
implications of this rulemaking from these representatives or from any
other representatives of State government.
However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by operation
of law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970 (former FRSA), 49 U.S.C 20106 (Sec. 20106). The former FRSA
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law,
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters)
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order
qualifies under the ``local safety or security hazard'' exception to
Section 20106.
In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this final rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws under the former FRSA. Accordingly, FRA has determined that
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this final
rule is not required.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) (currently $140,800,000) in any 1
year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice
of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a
written statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This final rule will not result in
the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $140,800,000 or more in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
G. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See
66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has evaluated
this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211. FRA has
determined that this final rule is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Consequently, FRA has determined that this final rule is not a
``significant energy action'' within the meaning of the Executive
Order.
H. Privacy Act Statement
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 237
Penalties, Railroad safety, Bridge safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Rule
0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends chapter II, subtitle B,
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by removing appendix C to part
213 and adding part 237 as follows:
PART 213--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
Appendix C to Part 213--[Removed]
0
2. In part 213, remove appendix C.
0
3. Add part 237 to read as follows:
PART 237--BRIDGE SAFETY STANDARDS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
237.1 Application.
237.3 Responsibility for compliance.
237.5 Definitions.
237.7 Penalties.
237.9 Waivers.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs.
237.33 Content of bridge management programs.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
237.51 Railroad bridge engineers.
237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors.
237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors.
237.57 Designation of individuals.
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities.
237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension
loads.
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections.
237.103 Bridge inspection procedures.
237.105 Special inspections.
237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections.
237.109 Bridge inspection records.
237.111 Review of bridge inspection reports.
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
237.131 Design.
237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications.
Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management
Programs
237.151 Audits; general.
237.153 Audits of inspections.
237.155 Documents and records.
Appendix A--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of
Railroad Bridges
Appendix B--Schedule of Civil Penalties
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114; P.L. 110-432, division A,
section 417; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
[[Page 41303]]
Subpart A--General
Sec. 237.1 Application.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section,
this part applies to all owners of railroad track with a gage of two
feet or more and which is supported by a bridge.
(b) This part does not apply to bridges on track used exclusively
for rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected
with the general railroad system of transportation.
(c) This part does not apply to bridges located within an
installation which is not part of the general railroad system of
transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.
Sec. 237.3 Responsibility for compliance.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an owner
of track to which this part applies is responsible for compliance.
(b) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns
responsibility for the bridges that carry the track to another person
(by lease or otherwise), written notification of the assignment shall
be provided to the appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 30 days in
advance of the assignment. The notification may be made by any party to
that assignment, but shall be in writing and include the following--
(1) The name and address of the track owner;
(2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is
assigned (assignee);
(3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner
and the assignee;
(4) A precise identification of the track segment and the
individual bridges in the assignment;
(5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to
carry out the bridge safety duties of the track owner under this part;
and
(6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment
to him of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this part.
(c) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee, or
both, responsible for compliance with this part and subject to
penalties under Sec. 237.7.
(d) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface
Transportation Board to provide service over the track of another
railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner of that track
for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the
directed service order remains in effect.
(e) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track
owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is
required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
(f) Where an owner of track to which this part applies has
previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to another
person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification to FRA
is not required.
(g) FRA reserves the right to reject an assignment of
responsibility under Sec. 237.3(b) for cause shown.
Sec. 237.5 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part--
Bridge modification means a change to the configuration of a
railroad bridge that affects the load capacity of the bridge.
Bridge repair means remediation of damage or deterioration which
has affected the structural integrity of a railroad bridge.
Railroad bridge means any structure with a deck, regardless of
length, which supports one or more railroad tracks, or any other
undergrade structure with an individual span length of 10 feet or more
located at such a depth that it is affected by live loads.
Track owner means a person responsible for compliance in accordance
with Sec. 237.3.
Sec. 237.7 Penalties.
(a) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes
the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of
at least $650 and not more than $25,000 per violation, except that:
Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful
violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of
repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury
to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation may be assessed. ``Person'' means an entity of
any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the
following: A railroad; a manager, supervisor, official, or other
employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or
lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent
contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; any employee of
such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor;
and anyone held by the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration to be responsible under Sec. 237.3(d). Each day a
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See Appendix B
to this part for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.
(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or
report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under
49 U.S.C. 21311.
Sec. 237.9 Waivers.
(a) Any person subject to a requirement of this part may petition
the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with such requirement. The
filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility
for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being
considered.
(b) Each petition for waiver must be filed in the manner and
contain the information required by part 211 of this chapter.
(c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in
the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the
Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the
Administrator deems necessary. If a waiver is granted, the
Administrator publishes a notice in the Federal Register containing the
reasons for granting the waiver.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
Sec. 237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs.
Each track owner shall adopt a bridge safety management program to
prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges by preserving their
capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated over them, and
reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and
disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system that would
result from a catastrophic bridge failure, not later than the dates in
the following schedule:
(a) March 14, 2011: Class I carriers;
(b) March 14, 2011: Owners of track segments which are part of the
general railroad system of transportation and which carry more than ten
scheduled passenger trains per week;
(c) September 13, 2011: Class II carriers to which paragraph (b) of
this section does not apply; and
(d) September 13, 2012: All other track owners subject to this part
and not described paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
Sec. 237.33 Content of bridge management programs.
Each bridge management program adopted in compliance with this part
shall include, as a minimum, the following:
(a) An accurate inventory of railroad bridges, which shall include
a unique identifier for each bridge, its location,
[[Page 41304]]
configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span lengths, and
all other information necessary to provide for the management of bridge
safety;
(b) A record of the safe load capacity of each bridge;
(c) A provision to obtain and maintain the design documents of each
bridge if available, and to document all repairs, modifications, and
inspections of each bridge; and
(d) A bridge inspection program covering as a minimum:
(1) Inspection personnel safety considerations;
(2) Types of inspection including required detail;
(3) Definitions of defect levels along with associated condition
codes if condition codes are used;
(4) The method of documenting inspections including standard forms
or formats;
(5) Structure type and component nomenclature; and
(6) Numbering or identification protocol for substructure units,
spans, and individual components.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
Sec. 237.51 Railroad bridge engineers.
(a) A railroad bridge engineer shall be a person who is determined
by the track owner to be competent to perform the following functions
as they apply to the particular engineering work to be performed:
(1) Determine the forces and stresses in railroad bridges and
bridge components;
(2) Prescribe safe loading conditions for railroad bridges;
(3) Prescribe inspection and maintenance procedures for railroad
bridges; and
(4) Design repairs and modifications to railroad bridges.
(b) The educational qualifications of a railroad bridge engineer
shall include either:
(1) A degree in engineering granted by a school of engineering with
at least one program accredited by ABET, Inc. or its successor
organization as a professional engineering curriculum, or a degree from
a program accredited as a professional engineering curriculum by a
foreign organization recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor; or
(2) Current registration as a professional engineer.
(c) Nothing in this part affects the States' authority to regulate
the professional practice of engineering.
Sec. 237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors.
A railroad bridge inspector shall be a person who is determined by
the track owner to be technically competent to view, measure, report
and record the condition of a railroad bridge and its individual
components which that person is designated to inspect. An inspector
shall be designated to authorize or restrict the operation of railroad
traffic over a bridge according to its immediate condition or state of
repair.
Sec. 237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors.
A railroad bridge supervisor shall be a person, regardless of
position title, who is determined by the track owner to be technically
competent to supervise the construction, modification or repair of a
railroad bridge in conformance with common or particular
specifications, plans and instructions applicable to the work to be
performed, and to authorize or restrict the operation of railroad
traffic over a bridge according to its immediate condition or state of
repair.
Sec. 237.57 Designations of individuals.
Each track owner shall designate those individuals qualified as
railroad bridge engineers, railroad bridge inspectors and railroad
bridge supervisors. Each individual designation shall include the basis
for the designation in effect and shall be recorded.
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
Sec. 237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities.
(a) Each track owner shall determine the load capacity of each of
its railroad bridges. The load capacity need not be the ultimate or
maximum load capacity, but must be a safe load capacity.
(b) The load capacity of each bridge shall be documented in the
track owner's bridge management program, together with the method by
which the capacity was determined.
(c) The determination of load capacity shall be made by a railroad
bridge engineer using appropriate engineering methods and standards
that are particularly applicable to railroad bridges.
(d) Bridge load capacity may be determined from existing design and
modification records of a bridge, provided that the bridge
substantially conforms to its recorded configuration. Otherwise, the
load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and
calculation of the properties of its individual components, or other
methods as determined by a railroad bridge engineer.
(e) If a track owner has a group of bridges for which the load
capacity has not already been determined, the owner shall schedule the
evaluation of those bridges according to their relative priority, as
established by a railroad bridge engineer. The initial determination of
load capacity shall be completed not later than five years following
the required date for adoption of the track owner's bridge management
program in conformance with Sec. 237.31.
(f) Where a bridge inspection reveals that, in the determination of
the railroad bridge engineer, the condition of a bridge or a bridge
component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to carry the
traffic being operated, a new capacity shall be determined.
(g) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical
values related to a standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any
case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual or combined
cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.
(h) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of both normal
and maximum load conditions. Operation of equipment that produces
forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any
restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge
engineer.
Sec. 237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension
loads.
(a) Each track owner shall issue instructions to the personnel who
are responsible for the configuration and operation of trains over its
bridges to prevent the operation of cars, locomotives and other
equipment that would exceed the capacity or dimensions of its bridges.
(b) The instructions regarding weight shall be expressed in terms
of maximum equipment weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or
axle spacing.
(c) The instructions regarding dimensions shall be expressed in
terms of feet and inches of cross section and equipment length, in
conformance with common railroad industry practice for reporting
dimensions of exceptional equipment in interchange in which height
above top-of-rail is shown for each cross section measurement, followed
by the width of the car of the shipment at that height.
(d) The instructions may apply to individual structures, or to a
defined line segment or group(s) of line segments where the published
capacities and dimensions are within the limits of all structures on
the subject line segments.
[[Page 41305]]
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
Sec. 237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections.
(a) Each bridge management program shall include a provision for
scheduling an inspection for each bridge in railroad service at least
once in each calendar year, with not more than 540 days between any
successive inspections.
(b) A bridge shall be inspected more frequently than provided for
in the bridge management program when a railroad bridge engineer
determines that such inspection frequency is necessary considering
conditions noted on prior inspections, the type and configuration of
the bridge, and the weight and frequency of traffic carried on the
bridge.
(c) Each bridge management program shall define requirements for
the special inspection of a bridge to be performed whenever the bridge
is involved in an event which might have compromised the integrity of
the bridge, including but not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake,
derailment or vehicular or vessel impact.
(d) Any railroad bridge that has not been in railroad service and
has not been inspected in accordance with this section within the
previous 540 days shall be inspected and the inspection report reviewed
by a railroad bridge engineer prior to the resumption of railroad
service.
Sec. 237.103 Bridge inspection procedures.
(a) Each bridge management program shall specify the procedure to
be used for inspection of individual bridges or classes and types of
bridges.
(b) The bridge inspection procedures shall be as specified by a
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the
conduct and review of the inspections. The inspection procedures shall
incorporate the methods, means of access, and level of detail to be
recorded for the various components of that bridge or class of bridges.
(c) The bridge inspection procedures shall ensure that the level of
detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate to: the
configuration of the bridge; conditions found during previous
inspections; the nature of the railroad traffic moved over the bridge
(including equipment weights, train frequency and length, levels of
passenger and hazardous materials traffic); and vulnerability of the
bridge to damage.
(d) The bridge inspection procedures shall be designed to detect,
report and protect deterioration and deficiencies before they present a
hazard to safe train operation.
Sec. 237.105 Special inspections.
(a) Each bridge management program shall prescribe a procedure for
protection of train operations and for inspection of any bridge that
might have been damaged by a natural or accidental event, including but
not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake, derailment or vehicular or
vessel impact.
(b) Each bridge management program shall provide for the detection
of scour or deterioration of bridge components that are submerged, or
that are subject to water flow.
Sec. 237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections.
Bridge inspections shall be conducted under the direct supervision
of a designated railroad bridge inspector, who shall be responsible for
the accuracy of the results and the conformity of the inspection to the
bridge management program.
Sec. 237.109 Bridge inspection records.
(a) Each track owner to which this part applies shall keep a record
of each inspection required to be performed on those bridges under this
part.
(b) Each record of an inspection under the bridge management
program prescribed in this part shall be prepared from notes taken on
the day(s) the inspection is made, supplemented with sketches and
photographs as needed. Such record will be dated with the date(s) the
physical inspection takes place and the date the record is created, and
it will be signed or otherwise certified by the person making the
inspection.
(c) Each bridge management program shall specify that every bridge
inspection report shall include, as a minimum, the following
information:
(1) A precise identification of the bridge inspected;
(2) The date on which the physical inspection was completed;
(3) The identification and written or electronic signature of the
inspector;
(4) The type of inspection performed, in conformance with the
definitions of inspection types in the bridge management program;
(5) An indication on the report as to whether any item noted
thereon requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge
engineer, and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection;
(6) The condition of components inspected, which may be in a
condition reporting format prescribed in the bridge management program,
together with any narrative descriptions necessary for the correct
interpretation of the report; and
(7) When an inspection does not encompass the entire bridge, the
portions of the bridge which were inspected shall be identified in the
report.
(d) An initial report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in
the location designated in the bridge management program within 30
calendar days of the completion of the inspection unless the complete
inspection report is filed first. The initial report shall include the
information required by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this
section.
(e) A complete report of each bridge inspection, including as a
minimum the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of
this section, shall be placed in the location designated in the bridge
management program within 120 calendar days of the completion of the
inspection.
(f) Each bridge inspection program shall specify the retention
period and location for bridge inspection records. The retention period
shall be no less than two years following the completion of the
inspection. Records of underwater inspections shall be retained until
the completion and review of the next underwater inspection of the
bridge.
(g) If a bridge inspector, supervisor, or engineer discovers a
deficient condition on a bridge that affects the immediate safety of
train operations, that person shall report the condition as promptly as
possible to the person who controls the operation of trains on the
bridge in order to protect the safety of train operations.
Sec. 237.111 Review of bridge inspection reports.
Bridge inspection reports shall be reviewed by railroad bridge
supervisors and railroad bridge engineers to:
(a) Determine whether inspections have been performed in accordance
with the prescribed schedule and specified procedures;
(b) Evaluate whether any items on the report represent a present or
potential hazard to safety;
(c) Prescribe any modifications to the inspection procedures or
frequency for that particular bridge;
(d) Schedule any repairs or modifications to the bridge required to
maintain its structural integrity; and
(e) Determine the need for further higher-level review.
[[Page 41306]]
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
Sec. 237.131 Design.
Each repair or modification which materially modifies the capacity
of a bridge or the stresses in any primary load-carrying component of a
bridge shall be designed by a railroad bridge engineer. The design
shall specify the manner in which railroad traffic or other live loads
may be permitted on the bridge while it is being modified or repaired.
Designs and procedures for repair or modification of bridges of a
common configuration, such as timber trestles, or instructions for in-
kind replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common
standard. Where the common standard addresses procedures and methods
that could materially modify the capacity of a bridge or the stresses
in any primary load-carrying component of a bridge, the standard shall
be designed and issued by a qualified railroad bridge engineer.
Sec. 237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications.
Each repair or modification pursuant to this part shall be
performed under the immediate supervision of a railroad bridge
supervisor as defined in Sec. 237.55 of this part who is designated
and authorized by the track owner to supervise the particular work to
be performed. The railroad bridge supervisor shall ensure that railroad
traffic or other live loads permitted on the bridge under repair or
modification are in conformity with the specifications in the design.
Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management
Programs
Sec. 237.151 Audits; general.
Each program adopted to comply with this part shall include
provisions for auditing the effectiveness of the several provisions of
that program, including the validity of bridge inspection reports and
bridge inventory data, and the correct application of movement
restrictions to railroad equipment of exceptional weight or
configuration.
Sec. 237.153 Audits of inspections.
(a) Each bridge management program shall incorporate provisions for
an internal audit to determine whether the inspection provisions of the
program are being followed, and whether the program itself is
effectively providing for the continued safety of the subject bridges.
(b) The inspection audit shall include an evaluation of a
representative sampling of bridge inspection reports at the bridges
noted on the reports to determine whether the reports accurately
describe the condition of the bridge.
Sec. 237.155 Documents and records.
Each track owner required to implement a bridge management program
and keep records under this part shall make those program documents and
records available for inspection and reproduction by the Federal
Railroad Administration.
(a) Electronic recordkeeping; general. For purposes of compliance
with the recordkeeping requirements of this part, a track owner may
create and maintain any of the records required by this part through
electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval provided that all of
the following conditions are met:
(1) The system used to generate the electronic record meets all
requirements of this subpart;
(2) The electronically generated record contains the information
required by this part;
(3) The track owner monitors its electronic records database
through sufficient number of monitoring indicators to ensure a high
degree of accuracy of these records;
(4) The track owner shall train its employees who use the system on
the proper use of the electronic recordkeeping system; and
(5) The track owner maintains an information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity of the system, including the
prevention of unauthorized access to the program logic or individual
records.
(b) System security. The integrity of the bridge inspection records
must be protected by a security system that incorporates a user
identity and password, or a comparable method, to establish appropriate
levels of program and record data access meeting all of the following
standards:
(1) No two individuals have the same electronic identity;
(2) A record cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after
the record is certified by the employee who created the record;
(3) Any amendment to a record is either--
(i) Electronically stored apart from the record that it amends; or
(ii) Electronically attached to the record as information without
changing the original record;
(4) Each amendment to a record uniquely identifies the person
making the amendment; and
(5) The electronic system provides for the maintenance of
inspection records as originally submitted without corruption or loss
of data.
Appendix A to Part 237--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the
Safety of Railroad Bridges
A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges
was originally published by FRA in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal
Track Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 213. With the promulgation of 49
CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards, many of the non-regulatory
provisions in that Policy Statement have been incorporated into the
bridge safety standards in this part.
However, FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items are
still useful as information and guidance for track owners. Those
provisions of the Policy Statement are therefore retained and placed
in this Appendix in lieu of their former location in the Track
Safety Standards.
General
1. The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad
tracks is important to the safety of railroad employees and to the
public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is
specified in Sec. 237.3, ``Responsibility for compliance.''
2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be
determined only by intelligent application of engineering principles
and the law of physics. Track owners should use those principles to
assess the integrity of railroad bridges.
3. The long term ability of a structure to perform its function
is an economic issue beyond the intent of this policy. In assessing
a bridge's structural condition, FRA focuses on the present safety
of the structure, rather than its appearance or long term
usefulness.
4. FRA inspectors conduct regular evaluations of railroad bridge
inspection and management practices. The objective of these
evaluations is to document the practices of the evaluated railroad,
to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety of
the public or railroad employees, and to assure compliance with the
terms of this regulation. If the evaluation discloses problems, FRA
seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is jeopardized by a track
owner's failure to resolve a bridge problem, FRA will use
appropriate measures, including assessing civil penalties and
issuance of emergency orders, to protect the safety of railroad
employees and the public.
5. This policy statement addresses the integrity of bridges that
carry railroad tracks. It does not address the integrity of other
types of structures on railroad property (i.e., tunnels, highway
bridges over railroads, or other structures on or over the right-of-
way).
6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory. They
do not have the force of regulations or orders, which FRA may
enforce using civil penalties or other means. The guidelines
supplement the requirements of part 237 and are retained for
information and guidance.
Guidelines
1. Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges.
(a) The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is
specified in Sec. 237.3.
(b) The track owner should maintain current information
regarding loads that may
[[Page 41307]]
be operated over the bridge, either from its own engineering
evaluations or as provided by a competent engineer representing the
track owner. Information on permissible loads may be communicated by
the track owner either in terms of specific car and locomotive
configurations and weights, or as values representing a standard
railroad bridge rating reference system. The most common standard
bridge rating reference system incorporated in the Manual for
Railway Engineering of the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association is the dimensional and proportional
load configuration devised by Theodore Cooper. Other reference
systems may be used where convenient, provided their effects can be
defined in terms of shear, bending and pier reactions as necessary
for a comprehensive evaluation and statement of the capacity of a
bridge.
(c) The owner of the track on a bridge should advise other
railroads operating on that track of the maximum loads permitted on
the bridge stated in terms of car and locomotive configurations and
weights. No railroad should operate a load which exceeds those
limits without specific authority from, and in accordance with
restrictions placed by, the track owner.
2. Capacity of railroad bridges.
(a) The safe capacity of bridges should be determined pursuant
to Sec. 237.71.
(b) Proper analysis of a bridge requires knowledge of the actual
dimensions, materials and properties of the structural members of
the bridge, their condition, and the stresses imposed in those
members by the service loads.
(c) The factors which were used for the design of a bridge can
generally be used to determine and rate the load capacity of a
bridge provided:
(i) The condition of the bridge has not changed significantly;
and
(ii) The stresses resulting from the service loads can be
correlated to the stresses for which the bridge was designed or
rated.
3. Railroad bridge loads.
(a) Control of loads is governed by Sec. 237.73.
(b) Authority for exceptions. Equipment exceeding the nominal
weight restriction on a bridge should be operated only under
conditions determined by a competent railroad bridge engineer who
has properly analyzed the stresses resulting from the proposed loads
and has determined that the proposed operation can be conducted
safely without damaging the bridge.
(c) Operating conditions. Operating conditions for exceptional
loads may include speed restrictions, restriction of traffic from
adjacent multiple tracks, and weight limitations on adjacent cars in
the same train.
4. Railroad bridge records.
(a) The organization responsible for the safety of a bridge
should keep design, construction, maintenance and repair records
readily accessible to permit the determination of safe loads. Having
design or rating drawings and calculations that conform to the
actual structure greatly simplifies the process of making accurate
determinations of safe bridge loads. This provision is governed by
Sec. 237.33.
(b) Organizations acquiring railroad property should obtain
original or usable copies of all bridge records and drawings, and
protect or maintain knowledge of the location of the original
records.
5. Specifications for design and rating of railroad bridges.
(a) The recommended specifications for the design and rating of
bridges are those found in the Manual for Railway Engineering
published by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association. These specifications incorporate recognized principles
of structural design and analysis to provide for the safe and
economic utilization of railroad bridges during their expected
useful lives. These specifications are continually reviewed and
revised by committees of competent engineers. Other specifications
for design and rating, however, have been successfully used by some
railroads and may continue to be suitable.
(b) A bridge can be rated for capacity according to current
specifications regardless of the specification to which it was
originally designed.
6. Periodic inspections of railroad bridges.
(a) Periodic bridge inspections by competent inspectors are
necessary to determine whether a structure conforms to its design or
rating condition and, if not, the degree of nonconformity. See Sec.
237.101. Section 237.101(a) calls for every railroad bridge to be
inspected at least once in each calendar year. Deterioration or
damage may occur during the course of a year regardless of the level
of traffic that passes over a bridge. Inspections at more frequent
intervals may be required by the nature or condition of a structure
or intensive traffic levels.
7. Underwater inspections of railroad bridges.
(a) Inspections of bridges should include measuring and
recording the condition of substructure support at locations subject
to erosion from moving water.
(b) Stream beds often are not visible to the inspector. Indirect
measurements by sounding, probing, or any other appropriate means
are necessary in these cases. A series of records of these readings
will provide the best information in the event unexpected changes
suddenly occur. Where such indirect measurements do not provide the
necessary assurance of foundation integrity, diving inspections
should be performed as prescribed by a competent engineer.
8. Seismic considerations.
(a) Owners of bridges should be aware of the risks posed by
earthquakes in the areas in which their bridges are located.
Precautions should be taken to protect the safety of trains and the
public following an earthquake.
(b) Contingency plans for seismic events should be prepared in
advance, taking into account the potential for seismic activity in
an area.
(c) The predicted attenuation of ground motion varies
considerably within the United States. Local ground motion
attenuation values and the magnitude of an earthquake both influence
the extent of the area affected by an earthquake. Regions with low
frequency of seismic events produce less data from which to predict
attenuation factors. That uncertainty should be considered when
designating the area in which precautions should be taken following
the first notice of an earthquake. In fact, earthquakes in such
regions might propagate their effects over much wider areas than
earthquakes of the same magnitude occurring in regions with frequent
seismic activity.
9. Special inspections of railroad bridges.
Requirements for special inspections of railroad bridges are
found in Sec. 237.105.
10. Railroad bridge inspection records.
(a) The requirements for recording and reporting bridge
inspections are found in Sec. 237.109.
(b) Information from bridge inspection reports should be
incorporated into a bridge management program to ensure that
exceptions on the reports are corrected or accounted for. A series
of inspection reports prepared over time should be maintained so as
to provide a valuable record of trends and rates of degradation of
bridge components. The reports should be structured to promote
comprehensive inspections and effective communication between an
inspector and an engineer who performs an analysis of a bridge.
(c) An inspection report should be comprehensible to a competent
person without interpretation by the reporting inspector.
11. Railroad bridge inspectors and engineers.
(a) Bridge inspections should be performed by technicians whose
training and experience enable them to detect and record indications
of distress on a bridge. Inspectors should provide accurate
measurements and other information about the condition of the bridge
in enough detail so that an engineer can make a proper evaluation of
the safety of the bridge. Qualifications of personnel are addressed
in subpart C to part 237.
(b) Accurate information about the condition of a bridge should
be evaluated by an engineer who is competent to determine the
capacity of the bridge. The inspector and the evaluator often are
not the same individual; therefore, the quality of the bridge
evaluation depends on the quality of the communication between them.
Review of inspection reports is addressed in Sec. 237.111.
12. Scheduling inspections.
(a) A bridge management program should include a means to ensure
that each bridge under the program is inspected at the frequency
prescribed for that bridge by a competent engineer. Scheduling of
bridge inspections is addressed in Sec. 237.101.
(b) Bridge inspections should be scheduled from an accurate
bridge inventory list that includes the due date of the next
inspection.
13. Special considerations for railroad bridges.
Railroad bridges differ from other types of bridges in the types
of loads they carry, in their modes of failure and indications of
distress, and in their construction details and components. Proper
inspection and analysis of railroad bridges require familiarity with
the loads, details and indications of distress that are unique to
this class of structure. Particular care should be taken that
modifications to railroad bridges, including
[[Page 41308]]
retrofits for protection against the effects of earthquakes, are
suitable for the structure to which they are to be applied.
Modifications should not adversely affect the serviceability of
neither the bridge nor its accessibility for periodic or special
inspection.
14. Railroad implementation of bridge safety programs.
FRA recommends that each track owner or other entity which is
responsible for the integrity of bridges which support its track
should comply with the intent of this regulation by adopting and
implementing an effective and comprehensive program to ensure the
safety of its bridges. The bridge safety program should incorporate
the following essential elements, applied according to the
configuration of the railroad and its bridges. The basis of the
program should be in one comprehensive and coherent document which
is available to all railroad personnel and other persons who are
responsible for the application of any portion of the program. The
program should include:
(a) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all persons
who are designated or authorized to make determinations regarding
the integrity of the track owner's bridges. The designations may be
made by position or by individual;
(b) Provisions for a complete inventory of bridges that carry
the owner's track, to include the following information on each
bridge:
(1) A unique identifier, such as milepost location and a
subdivision code;
(2) The location of the bridge by nearest town or station, and
geographic coordinates;
(3) The name of the geographic features crossed by the bridge;
(4) The number of tracks on the bridge;
(5) The number of spans in the bridge;
(6) The lengths of the spans;
(7) Types of construction of:
(i) Substructure;
(ii) Superstructure; and
(iii) Deck;
(8) Overall length of the bridge;
(9) Dates of:
(i) Construction;
(ii) Major renovation; and
(iii) Strengthening; and
(10) Identification of entities responsible for maintenance of
the bridge or its different components.
(c) Known capacity of its bridges as determined by rating by
competent railroad bridge engineer or by design documents;
(d) Procedures for the control of movement of high, wide or
heavy loads exceeding the nominal capacity of bridges;
(e) Instructions for the maintenance of permanent records of
design, construction, modification, and repair;
(f) Railroad-specific procedures and standards for design and
rating of bridges;
(g) Detailed bridge inspection policy, including:
(1) Inspector qualifications; including:
(i) Bridge experience or appropriate educational training;
(ii) Training on bridge inspection procedures; and
(iii) Training on Railroad Workplace Safety; and
(2) Type and frequency of inspection; including:
(i) Periodic (at least annually);
(ii) Underwater;
(iii) Special;
(iv) Seismic; and
(v) Cursory inspections of overhead bridges that are not the
responsibility of the railroad;
(3) Inspection schedule for each bridge;
(4) Documentation of inspections; including:
(i) Date;
(ii) Name of inspector;
(iii) Reporting Format; and
(iv) Coherence of information;
(5) Inspection Report Review Process;
(6) Record retention; and
(7) Tracking of critical deficiencies to resolution; and
(h) Provide for the protection of train operations following an
inspection, noting a critical deficiency, repair, modification or
adverse event and should include:
(1) A listing of qualifications of personnel permitted to
authorize train operations following an adverse event; and
(2) Detailed internal program audit procedures to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the program.
Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties
Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful
Section \2\ Violation violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.31 Adoption of bridge management $9,500 $17,000
program................................
237.33 Content of bridge management
program:
(a) Inventory of railroad bridges.. 2,500 5,000
(b) Record of safe load capacity... 5,500 10,000
(c) Provision to obtain and
maintain:
(i) Design documents........... 5,500 10,000
(ii) Documentation of repairs 2,500 5,000
and modifications..............
(iii) Inspection reports....... 2,500 5,000
(d) Bridge inspection program 2,500 5,000
content............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart C--Qualification and Designation of Responsible Persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.51 Railroad bridge engineers:
(a) Competency..................... 5,500 10,000
(b) Educational qualification...... 2,500 5,000
237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors....... 5,500 10,000
237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors...... 5,500 10,000
237.57 Designation of individuals....... 2,500 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
========================================================================
237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities:
(a) Safe load capacity.............................................
(b) Load capacity documented.......................................
(c) Load capacity determined by a railroad bridge engineer.........
(d) Method of load capacity determination..........................
(e) Prioritization of load capacity determination..................
(f) New load capacity determined due to change in condition........
(g) Load capacity stated in terms of weight and length of equipment
(h) Restriction on operations by railroad bridge engineer..........
237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension
equipment:
(a) Instructions issued............................................
(b) Weight instructions............................................
[[Page 41309]]
(c) Dimensional instructions.......................................
(d) Incorrect instructions issued..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.101 Scheduling of bridge
inspections:
(a) Scheduling:
(i) Failure to inspect......... 9,500 17,000
(ii) Inspection within calendar 2,500 5,000
year...........................
(iii) Inspection frequency 2,500 5,000
exceeding 540 days.............
(b) Increased inspection frequency. 5,500 10,000
(c) Special inspections............ 2,500 5,000
(d) Resumption of railroad 9,500 17,000
operations prior to inspection &
review.............................
237.103 Bridge inspection procedures.... 2,500 5,000
237.105 Special inspections:
(a) Procedures to protect train 2,500 5,000
operations and requiring special
inspections........................
(b) Provision for the detection of 2,500 5,000
scour or underwater deterioration..
237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections... 5,500 10,000
237.109 Bridge inspection records:
(a) Record of inspection........... 2,500 5,000
(b) Inspection record:
(i) Certification and date..... 2,500 5,000
(ii) Falsification............. .............. 17,000
(c) Inspection record information.. 2,500 5,000
(d) Initial report within 30 days.. 2,500 5,000
(e) Final inspection report within 2,500 5,000
120 calendar days..................
(f) Retention...................... 2,500 5,000
(g) Prompt reporting of dangerous 5,500 10,000
conditions.........................
237.111 Review of bridge inspection
reports.
(a) Review by railroad bridge 2,500 5,000
engineers and supervisors..........
(b) Appropriate action concerning 5,500 10,000
present or potential safety hazards
(c) Modification of inspection 2,500 5,000
frequency or procedures............
(d) Scheduling remedial action..... 2,500 5,000
(e) Higher-level review............ 2,500 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.131 Design.......................... 5,500 10,000
237.133 Supervision of repairs and 5,500 10,000
modifications..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart G--Documentation, Records and Audits of Bridge Management
Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.151 Audits; general................. 2,500 5,000
237.153 Audits of inspections........... 2,500 5,000
237.155 Documents and records:
(a) Electronic recordkeeping, 2,500 5,000
general............................
(b) System security................ 2,500 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
CFR part 209, appendix A.
\2\ The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR part 237. If
more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given
section, each item is also designated by a ``penalty code,'' which is
used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may
not correspond to any subsection designation(s). For convenience,
penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if
any. FRA reserves the right, should litigation become necessary, to
substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined
CFR and penalty code citation, should they differ.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-16929 Filed 7-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P