[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52667-52672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. RST-94-3, Notice No. 2]


Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges

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

ACTION: Final Statement of Agency Policy.

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

SUMMARY: FRA issues a final statement of policy for the safety of 
railroad bridges. FRA establishes suggested criteria for railroads to 
use to ensure the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad 
tracks. This final statement of policy reflects minor changes following 
public comment on the interim statement of policy published April 27, 
1995, at 60 FR 20654.

DATES: Effective Date: The final statement of policy is effective 
September 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge 
Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 
20590, (Telephone: 202-493-6320), or Nancy Lummen Lewis, Trial 
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 
1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590, 
(Telephone 202-493-6047).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. The interim statement detailed the reasons which 
prompted FRA to adopt this policy, as well as the background 
information behind its adoption. The notice stated that FRA intended to 
incorporate the policy statement as an appendix to 49 CFR part 213, 
reflecting any changes warranted by comments submitted during the 
comment period. FRA's original intent was to publish the final 
statement of policy at the same time it issued a final rule to revise 
the Federal Track Safety Standards found at 49 CFR Part 213. However, 
because the final statement of policy addresses certain unique issues 
not shared by the final rule to revise the track standards, FRA decided 
to publish this final statement of policy separately.

[[Page 52668]]

Statutory Authority

    The Secretary of Transportation has authority to ``prescribe 
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.'' 49 
U.S.C. 20101. The Secretary has delegated his authority to FRA. 49 CFR 
1.49(m).

Reasons for Adoption of the Bridge Safety Policy

    The severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a 
bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the accident. FRA must 
be able to deal effectively with any safety problems involving the 
structural integrity of railroad bridges. At the same time, FRA must 
assure that private and public resources are not diverted unnecessarily 
from railroad inspection and maintenance programs that are also 
critical to railroad safety.
    At one extreme, FRA could respond to bridge safety issues only when 
accidents occur or when someone contacts the agency about particular 
concerns. However, such a reactive policy would inhibit FRA's ability 
to detect impending problems with railroad bridges. At the other 
extreme, FRA could regulate all aspects of railroad bridge management, 
including inspection, rating, construction and maintenance. The expense 
of such an action to the railroad industry and to the Federal 
government is not justified.
    To promote bridge safety, this policy statement includes non-
regulatory guidelines to inform railroad managers and all concerned 
about current good practices related to bridge inspection and 
management. The guidelines accommodate a wide variety of effective 
bridge inspection and management methods. Therefore, FRA does not 
expect that its policy will force railroads to change effective bridge 
management programs and thus unnecessarily divert resources needed for 
the functional work of bridge management.
    Because FRA believes that a national bridge safety policy is most 
effective when it is administered consistently throughout the United 
States, the agency will, upon request, cooperate with states to the 
fullest extent feasible to resolve railroad bridge safety problems. 
This cooperation will extend to training of inspectors of state 
railroad safety agencies, joint investigations and evaluations of 
bridge conditions, and where necessary, invocation of FRA's enforcement 
authority.
    FRA will revise the guidelines as necessary to accomplish the 
objectives of the bridge safety program. To that end, FRA will continue 
to monitor and evaluate the railroads' bridge inspection and management 
programs to guarantee that those responsible for the safety of bridges 
continue to meet their obligations. FRA will make its findings 
available to the public upon request, excluding any proprietary 
information received and identified as such. Should FRA find through 
its monitoring that widespread bridge structural problems have 
developed, it may use the information it has gathered to commence a 
rulemaking proceeding to further address railroad bridge safety.

Effect of this Statement of Policy

    This statement of policy containing guidelines for the proper 
maintenance of bridge structures is meant to be advisory in nature; it 
does not have the force of regulations under which FRA ordinarily 
issues violations and assesses civil penalties.
    Even without specific bridge safety regulations, FRA maintains 
authority to perform safety inspections of any railroad facility and to 
issue emergency orders under 49 U.S.C. 20104, 49 U.S.C. 20107, and 49 
CFR part 209. This authority permits FRA, if necessary, to remove from 
service or otherwise impose conditions on any railroad operation which, 
in the judgment of the agency, poses an emergency situation involving a 
hazard of death or personal injury. For example, on February 12, 1996, 
FRA issued Emergency Order No. 19, which removed from service a 
railroad bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad near North Tonawanda, 
New York, after FRA found that the bridge posed an unacceptable risk to 
the safety of train operations. Likewise, FRA issued Emergency Order 
No. 22 on December 16, 1999, which removed from service a railroad 
bridge on the Oregon Pacific Railroad in Milwaukie, Oregon. The bridge 
in Oregon was satisfactorily repaired, and FRA lifted Emergency Order 
No. 22 on January 20, 2000.
    This final statement of agency policy does not change FRA's 
statutory emergency order authority with respect to railroad bridge 
safety. Rather, the guidelines contained herein represent the general 
criteria against which FRA will evaluate each railroad's bridge 
inspection and management program.

Public Response to the Interim Policy

    A 60-day comment period followed the publication of the Interim 
Statement of Policy, and FRA received comments from five parties. Those 
comments were considered in the development of this final policy and 
are addressed here.
    The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association 
(AREMA), in conveying its support of the policy and its associated 
guidelines, expressed a concern that the policy's reference to AREMA's 
Manual for Railway Engineering in Guideline 5 may lead some to believe 
that the specifications contained therein represent minimum safety 
standards. That interpretation was not intended by FRA, and Guideline 5 
has been modified to reflect that concern.
    The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the Norfolk 
Southern Corporation expressed support for the policy, as well as 
support for AREMA's comments. The AAR also requested clarification of 
the provisions in Guideline 1 regarding the responsibility for the 
safety of bridges.
    The Federal Track Safety Standards prescribe the track owner as the 
party responsible for proper maintenance of the tracks. It follows, 
therefore, that compliance with the track standards necessitates that 
the track owner also maintain any structure supporting the track, be it 
a bridge or an earth structure. Where a bridge owner is not the track 
owner, the bridge owner is responsible to the track owner for the 
integrity of the bridge. Likewise, the track owner is responsible to 
other railroads operating over its track for the integrity of both the 
track and the bridges which support it.
    FRA does not consider it necessary that one railroad operating with 
trackage rights over another should duplicate the bridge management 
work of the track owner. An operator under trackage rights should be 
able to accept a general assurance that the owner is maintaining the 
integrity of its bridges. However, effective communication of load 
restrictions between the owner and other operating railroads is 
essential to prevent overloading bridges.
    The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) had earlier 
petitioned FRA to issue regulations governing bridge safety, including 
a requirement for displacement and damage detectors. The BMWE cited the 
specifications of the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as examples of standards that govern 
the design, construction, inspection and maintenance of highway 
bridges. The BMWE recommended that the same type of standards should be 
applied to railroad bridges.
    AASHTO specifications generally have been adopted by highway bridge 
owners, as the bridge chapters in the AREMA Manual for Railway 
Engineering have been adopted by railroad bridge owners. In fact, 
railroads frequently use AASHTO specifications for highway bridges 
which they own, and highway agencies use the AREMA

[[Page 52669]]

manual in their projects involving railroad bridges. AASHTO 
specifications are not regulations, unless they have been adopted as 
such by a government agency that actually owns and maintains highway 
bridges. FRA believes that this policy statement, with its reference to 
the AREMA manual, effectively points interested parties toward 
standards that are the railroad equivalent of the AASHTO specifications 
and, in so doing, accomplishes the objective of BMWE's recommendation.
    The BMWE also commented that it agreed with FRA's plan to make this 
policy a part of the Federal Track Safety Standards contained in 49 CFR 
part 213.

Comments From NYSDOT

    The Department of Transportation of the State of New York (NYSDOT) 
submitted several comments generally calling for more stringent 
regulations than the guidelines in the present policy. NYSDOT 
questioned the reliability of the results of the 1992-1993 FRA bridge 
survey because the FRA track inspectors who conducted the survey are 
not licensed structural engineers. FRA personnel did not themselves 
inspect or evaluate the bridges included in the survey. Rather, they 
observed the railroads' inspectors and engineers conducting the 
inspections and making the evaluations. They reported their findings in 
the manner which FRA trained them to use for this project, and an FRA 
professional bridge engineer, who is licensed and registered in the 
State of New York, analyzed the data. The FRA track inspectors did not 
engage in formulating any engineering decisions.
    In response to FRA's statement that its bridge survey showed that 
there have been no fatalities caused by the structural failure of a 
railroad bridge, NYSDOT stated that it had information concerning a 
fatality that occurred when a railroad bridge failed in 1976. In a 
review of the accident records for 1976, FRA found one instance in 
which a locomotive engineer in Iowa was fatally injured when a railroad 
trestle was washed out in a flood. The accident was reported to FRA as 
having been caused by a flood or washout, and not a bridge failure. 
Upon review of the record, FRA finds that the accident was caused by 
damage to the bridge by outside sources and not by the structural 
failure of the bridge.
    NYSDOT also responded to FRA's report that 11 of 19 train accidents 
on bridges occurring since 1983 were caused by external damage to the 
bridges from wash-outs or from collisions of marine vessels. According 
to NYSDOT, these accidents should be counted as accidents caused by 
bridge failure. FRA disagrees. FRA believes that it could perform a 
more precise analysis of the data by distinguishing between accidents 
caused by external damage to bridges and accidents resulting from 
failure of bridges to withstand normal service loads. The Federal Track 
Safety Standards already address floods and wash-outs by requiring 
railroads to properly maintain drainage facilities under and adjacent 
to roadbeds, including bridges. See 49 CFR 213.33. The Track Safety 
Standards also require in 49 CFR 213.239 that railroads perform special 
inspections following floods, fire, severe storms, or other occurrences 
that might have damaged track structure. FRA considers any damage to 
the track or its supporting structures, including bridges, that renders 
the track incapable of safely carrying its traffic loads, to come under 
the provisions of this section of the Track Safety Standards.
    NYSDOT commented that railroad bridges, many of which were designed 
to carry heavy steam locomotives, are now severely loaded by modern 
100-ton capacity cars. FRA has found that the railroads understand the 
phenomenon of structural fatigue and its effect on the longevity of 
steel structures. Railroads have the advantage of controlling the loads 
they operate over their bridges, and in most cases, they can determine 
the loading history of a bridge with sufficient accuracy to permit a 
valid fatigue evaluation.
    NYSDOT commented that FRA does not maintain quantitative data on 
the nation's railroad bridges, unlike highway agencies which keep 
detailed quantitative data on highway bridges. Highway agencies need to 
gather detailed information on those bridges because they are fully 
responsible for their construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, 
and safety. However, in the railroad industry, the railroads are 
responsible for the bridges they own or operate, and they maintain the 
information necessary for the fulfillment of that responsibility. FRA 
owns no bridges, and generally does not fund bridge maintenance or 
construction. The agency therefore does not have the need to expend 
resources to collect and maintain detailed quantitative data that would 
duplicate information held by the railroads themselves.
    NYSDOT commented that FRA should issue regulations mandating 
certain requirements for bridge inspection programs. These requirements 
would include specifications for (1) Diving inspections at set periods, 
(2) levels of inspection for various types of bridges and bridge 
components, (3) qualifications and training of inspection personnel, 
and (4) historical information to be provided to bridge inspectors. FRA 
does not believe that such regulations are warranted. Rather, these 
points of concern should be addressed in the guidelines, with the 
manner of execution left to the determination of the engineer engaged 
by the bridge owner. FRA believes that specific inspection criteria are 
best determined on a bridge-by-bridge basis. FRA further believes that 
it can adequately address individual bridge problems as they arise by 
exercising its existing safety authority. An example is FRA Emergency 
Order No. 19 against the Tonawanda Island Railroad bridge in which 
NYSDOT assisted FRA in collecting information to address specific 
problems on one particular railroad bridge that was in very poor 
condition and under highly unusual circumstances. Another example is 
FRA Emergency Order No. 22 against the Oregon Pacific Railroad. Before 
issuing that emergency order, FRA, with the help of the Oregon 
Department of Transportation, gathered information about serious 
defects in the bridge structure and well as the inadequate repairs the 
railroad had already made to the bridge.

Differences Between Interim and Final Policies

    In addition to the editorial modifications described under the 
section ``Public Participation,'' as well as other slight editorial 
modifications, FRA has added three references to earthquakes and 
seismic activity to reflect recent advances in railroad bridge 
engineering related to seismic design. This addition is intended to 
call attention to potential risks to railroad bridges posed by seismic 
activity in the United States. FRA also has clarified in paragraph (b) 
of Section 1, ``Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges,'' who is 
responsible for railroad bridge safety when the owner of the track on a 
bridge is not the owner of the bridge itself.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies

    This statement of policy has been evaluated in accordance with 
existing regulatory policies. It is considered to be a nonsignificant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is a nonsignificant rule under 
5(a)(4) of DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 
February 26, 1979) because it is advisory only and

[[Page 52670]]

does not carry with it the force of law or regulation. For 
nonsignificant rules, the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
ordinarily require an economic evaluation to be placed in the public 
docket. This evaluation should include an analysis of the economic 
consequences of the rule, including (if possible) an estimation of the 
cost and benefits of the rule to the private sector, consumers, and all 
levels of government. However, such an evaluation is not required if 
the expected impact of a rule is deemed minimal. Because this statement 
of policy offers only guidelines to be followed and does not mandate 
any actions or establish any record keeping requirements, the need for 
further cost/benefit analysis is not indicated.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this statement of policy is advisory in nature and does not 
carry with it the force of law or regulation, analysis of it under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) is not required. 
Nevertheless, in reviewing the economic impact of this statement of 
policy, FRA concluded that it will not have any measurable impact on 
small entities. There are no direct or indirect economic impacts for 
small units of government, businesses, or other organizations. 
Therefore, it is certified that this policy statement will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    Because an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 
required for the final statement of policy, FRA is likewise not 
required to issue a Small Entity Compliance Guide to summarize the 
requirements of this rule, pursuant to section 212 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements contained in this 
statement of policy.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this statement of policy in accordance with its 
procedures for ensuring full consideration of the potential 
environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and related 
directives. This notice meets the criteria that establish this as a 
non-major action for environmental purposes.

Federalism Implications

    FRA undertook the survey of railroad bridges because of a 
perception that the nation's railroad bridges are aging and may pose a 
significant hazard to public safety. Following the survey, FRA 
concluded that the vast majority of such bridges across the nation are 
adequately maintained and do not present a threat to safety. This 
conclusion is not based upon an assessment of railroad bridge safety 
for any particular location, nor does it imply that every railroad 
bridge in every state meets the minimum guidelines. Therefore, it is 
FRA's intent that this statement of policy should not preclude any 
state from addressing safety issues concerning railroad bridges within 
that state.
    In stating its intent that this policy statement should not preempt 
regulatory actions by states, FRA is adhering to the principles of 
Executive Order 13132 issued on August 4, 1999, which directs Federal 
agencies to exercise great care in establishing policies that have 
federalism implications. See 64 FR 43,255. Section 3(a) of the 
Executive Order requires Federal agencies to ``closely examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of States and * * * carefully assess 
the necessity for such action.'' In Section 3(b), the Executive Order 
continues, ``National action limiting the policymaking discretion of 
the States shall be taken only where there is constitutional and 
statutory authority for the action and the national activity is 
appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national 
significance.'' Of course, FRA has the constitutional and statutory 
authority to issue guidelines addressing railroad bridge safety, but 
the agency has not found a ``problem of national significance'' of such 
a dimension to warrant limiting state policymaking discretion in 
addressing the same subject matter. In light of this conclusion, a 
Federalism Assessment pursuant to Executive Order 13132 is not 
required. Nevertheless, FRA has prepared a short Federalism analysis 
which resides in the docket reserved for this proceeding.
    For railroad operations to be conducted safely, the structural 
integrity of bridges that carry railroad track must be properly 
maintained. FRA's research reveals that the railroad industry does not 
have a systemic bridge safety problem. For that reason, FRA adopts a 
safety policy, rather than regulations, to effect and maintain railroad 
bridge safety.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad Safety, Railroads
    Amend Part 213 to read as follows:

PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and 
49 CFR1.49(m).

    2. A new Appendix C is added to part 213 to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 213--Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of 
Railroad Bridges

    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 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.
    2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be 
determined only by intelligent application of engineering principles 
and the laws of physics. Bridge owners should use, as FRA does, 
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 
and to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety 
of the public or railroad employees. When the evaluation discloses 
problems, FRA seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is 
jeopardized by a bridge owner's failure to resolve a bridge problem, 
FRA will use available legal means, including 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 or bridges 
carrying highways) or other features over railroads (i.e., highway 
overpasses).
    6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory, 
rather than regulatory, in nature. They indicate those elements FRA 
deems essential to successful bridge management programs. FRA uses 
the guidelines when evaluating bridge inspection and management 
practices.

Guidelines

    1. Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges
    (a) Track owner. The owner of the track on a bridge, or another 
person assuming

[[Page 52671]]

responsibility for the compliance of that track with this Part under 
provisions of Sec. 213.5, is responsible for ensuring that the 
bridge is capable of safely carrying all railroad traffic operated 
on that track, and for specifying the maximum loads that may be 
operated over the bridge.
    (b) Divided ownership. Where the owner of the track on a bridge 
does not own the bridge, the track owner should ensure that the 
bridge owner is following a program that will maintain the integrity 
of the bridge. The track owner either should participate in the 
inspection of the bridge, or should obtain and review reports of 
inspections performed by the bridge owner. The track owner should 
maintain current information regarding loads that may be operated 
over the bridge, either from its own engineering evaluations or as 
provided by a competent engineer representing the bridge owner. 
Information on permissible loads may be communicated by the bridge 
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) Other railroads. 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) Determination. The safe capacity of bridges should be 
determined by competent engineers using accepted principles of 
structural design and analysis.
    (b) Analysis. Proper analysis of a bridge means 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) Rating. 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. The operating instructions for each 
railroad operating over bridges should include provisions to 
restrict the movement of cars and locomotives whose weight or 
configuration exceed the nominal capacity of the bridges.
    (b) Authority for exceptions. Equipment exceeding the nominal 
weight restriction on a bridge should be operated only under 
conditions determined by a competent engineer who has properly 
analyzed the stresses resulting from the proposed loads.
    (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.
    (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.
    (b) The prevailing practice throughout the railroad industry is 
to inspect railroad bridges at least annually. Inspections at more 
frequent intervals may be indicated 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 those cases. A series of records of those 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

    (a) A special bridge inspection should be performed after an 
occurrence that might have reduced the capacity of the bridge, such 
as a flood, an earthquake, a derailment, or an unusual impact.
    (b) When a railroad learns that a bridge might have suffered 
damage through an unusual occurrence, it should restrict train 
operations over the bridge until the bridge is inspected and 
evaluated.

10. Railroad Bridge Inspection Records

    (a) Bridge inspections should be recorded. Records should 
identify the structure inspected, the date of the inspection, the 
name of the inspector, the components inspected, and their 
condition.
    (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

[[Page 52672]]

bridge in enough detail so that an engineer can make a proper 
evaluation of the safety of the bridge.
    (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. The quality of the bridge evaluation 
depends on the quality of the communication between them.

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.
    (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 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 the bridge nor its 
accessibility for periodic or special inspection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 22, 2000.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-22152 Filed 8-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P