[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49154-49158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 650

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-8954]
RIN 2125-AE86


National Bridge Inspection Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is soliciting comments on whether to revise its 
regulation on National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) to 
incorporate current, state-of-the-art bridge inspection practices that 
public authorities may be using. It has been 14 years since the NBIS 
regulations were updated. The experience, material, and technology 
changes over time dictate that the FHWA take a fresh look at these 
regulations. The FHWA has received some unsolicited comments from 
engineers, inspectors, transportation planners, and others recommending 
a number of changes to the FHWA's NBIS regulations. In revising these 
regulations the FHWA is considering incorporating a number of the FHWA 
policy memorandums and technical advisories into the regulation. In 
this ANPRM, the FHWA is soliciting comments on whether to amend its 
NBIS regulations to incorporate changes in technology and enforcement 
mechanisms. Additionally, the FHWA intends to update the rule to comply 
with current state-of-the-art bridge inspection techniques.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number 
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received 
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page 
that appears after submitting comments electronically.

[[Page 49155]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wade F. Casey, P.E., Federal Lands 
Highway, HFPD-9, (202) 366-9486, or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, HHC-30, (202) 366-1359, Federal Highway Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information 
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and 
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and 
guidelines are available under the help section of the web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using 
a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal 
Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The FHWA bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a 
result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (sec. 26, Pub. L. 90-495, 
82 Stat. 815, at 829) that required the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish national bridge inspection standards (NBIS). The NBIS was 
authorized after the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge, at Point 
Pleasant, West Virginia, that resulted in the death of 46 people. The 
primary purpose of the NBIS is to locate, evaluate, and act on existing 
bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the traveling public (23 
U.S.C. 151).
    The 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act directed the States to maintain an 
inventory of Federal-aid highway system bridges. The Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1970 (sec. 204, Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713, at 1741) 
limited the NBIS to bridges on the Federal-aid highway system. In the 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (STAA) (sec. 124, Pub. L. 
95-599, 92 Stat. 2689, at 2702), NBIS requirements were extended to 
bridges greater than 20 feet on all public roads. The Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURRA) 
(sec.125, Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132, at 166) expanded bridge 
inspection programs to include special inspection procedures for 
fracture critical members and underwater inspection.
    The condition of our nation's bridges is of paramount importance to 
the FHWA. In revising the NBIS regulations, the FHWA will ensure the 
``proper safety inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges'' for 
the safety of the traveling public. Highway bridges play an important 
role in achieving the FHWA's strategic goals of safety, mobility, 
productivity, human and natural environment as well as national 
security.

Application of Standards

    The current FHWA regulation requires that the American Association 
of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) definition of a 
bridge be used when determining which structures are to be inspected 
and reported. Should the FHWA develop its own definition of a bridge 
for the purpose of inspection and reporting? Should the FHWA definition 
change the way the bridge length is determined or what the minimum 
bridge length should be for reporting purposes? Current AASHTO policy 
measures bridges from undercopings of the abutments or spring lines of 
arches, or between extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes. The 
span opening then must be greater than 20 feet for reporting. What 
impact will the possible inclusion of more bridges be (1) on public 
authorities complying with this as an NBIS requirement, (2) or on the 
FHWA which maintains the inventory, (3) or on the HBRRP funds? A public 
authority means a Federal, State, county, town, or township, Indian 
tribe, municipal or other local government instrumentality with the 
authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-free 
facilities.

Inspection Procedures

    The current FHWA regulation includes the following:
     The AASHTO ``Manual for Maintenance Inspection of 
Bridges'' \1\ will be used for determining load ratings for each 
bridge;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The AASHTO Manual referred to in this part as the Manual for 
Maintenance Inspection of Bridges 1983 has been updated and is now 
entitled Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 1994 Second 
Edition and is available through AASHTO, 444 North Capitol Street, 
N.W. Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the States' maximum legal load exceeds the load 
permitted under the operating rating then the bridge must be posted;
     A listing of bridges with fracture critical members along 
with information on location, description and inspection frequency must 
be maintained;
     Underwater members must be identified and special 
inspection performed no longer than every 5 years; and
     Bridges with other unique features must be identified and 
special safety inspections performed.
    The results of underwater inspection of bridge piers since 1978 
reveal that both construction materials used and the environment where 
the bridge is located impact inspection frequency. Also, the results of 
underwater inspections of bridge pier piling in concrete lined 
irrigation channels suggest that little, if any, deterioration occurs 
in the 5 years between inspections. Bridge engineers have commented 
that it may be more economical to increase the time between 
inspections, while not impacting safety. Based on comments from bridge 
engineers, the FHWA is considering changing the 5 year underwater 
inspection intervals and developing intervals which are tied to pile or 
foundation materials as well as the environment where the bridge is 
located. What impact will changing the underwater inspection intervals 
have on public authorities complying with this as an NBIS requirement?
    Scour, the leading cause of bridge failure in the United States, is 
not addressed directly in the current NBIS regulations, but is covered 
in a FHWA technical advisory.\2\ The FHWA is considering providing 
guidance within the regulations to address this. Also, the FHWA is 
seeking comment on whether it should provide guidance for what public 
authorities should do after major storm events. These storm events can, 
in some cases, severely undermine bridge piers that may have lost 
bearing capacity because of localized scour. The FHWA is considering 
inclusion of the FHWA Technical Advisory T 5140.23 within the NBIS 
regulations. What, if any, would be the impact on public authorities 
complying with evaluation of scour at bridges criteria within the NBIS 
regulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FHWA Technical Advisory T 5140.23, October 28, 1991, 
``Evaluating Scour at Bridges,'' is available at web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives. Also, it is available from the 
docket file for this document at: http://dms.dot.gov. Internal 
directives are available for inspection and copying as provided in 
49 CFR part 7.

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

[[Page 49156]]

Frequency of Inspections

    The current FHWA regulation requires that bridges be inspected 
every 2 years. The maximum interval can be increased to 4 years with 
FHWA approval after meeting certain conditions. Should the 4-year 
interval be increased so that more bridges would be eligible for the 
extended inspection cycle? What would be a reasonable interval? What 
impact would this have on the safety of bridges?

Qualification of Personnel

    The current FHWA regulation requires that the individual in charge 
of the inspection and reporting be a registered professional engineer 
(PE); or be qualified for registration as a PE; or have a minimum of 10 
years experience in bridge inspection in a responsible capacity and 
have completed certain training requirements. The individual in charge 
of the inspection team shall either meet the above qualifications or 
have a minimum of 5 years experience in bridge inspection assignments 
in a responsible capacity and have completed certain training 
requirements. Should the individual in charge of the inspection and 
reporting who is a PE be required to have the same training as bridge 
inspectors and have additional experience in bridge inspection?
    In the current regulations, the registered professional engineer is 
not required to have specific bridge inspection training. Also, the 
discipline of the registered professional engineer is not specified. 
The FHWA is considering requiring that bridge inspections be performed 
by either a civil or structural engineer who is also a licensed 
professional engineer. Currently, the regulation permits professional 
engineers within other engineering disciplines to inspect highway 
bridges. Experience shows that only those engineers specifically 
trained to provide bridge inspection services are best equipped to 
conduct bridge inspections. Should the NBIS regulation be more specific 
as to the discipline of the professional engineer responsible for these 
bridge inspections and what impact would this change have on public 
authorities complying with this?
    Bridge engineers have indicated that inspection programs need to 
include an engineer in training (EIT) component. Bridge engineers feel 
that a graduate EIT engineer should qualify as a field team leader with 
appropriate bridge inspector's training and a minimum of 2 years bridge 
design, inspection or construction experience.
    According to the NBIS, a bridge inspector must have a minimum of 10 
years experience in bridge inspection assignments in a responsible 
capacity. Bridge engineers would like clarification of the phrase ``in 
a responsible capacity.''
    Section 151 of title 23, U.S. Code, indicates that a training 
program for bridge inspectors shall be revised from time to time to 
take into account new and improved techniques. Bridge engineers have 
indicated that qualifications for inspectors should be modified to 
provide more training or experience in proportion to the complexity of 
the structure being inspected. The FHWA is considering requiring 
certification training in proportion to the complexity of the bridge 
structure being inspected, and making this a part of a requirement for 
inspectors under the national bridge inspection program. What impact 
would this change have on public authorities complying with this as an 
NBIS requirement?
    Bridge engineers have indicated that the NBIS does not adequately 
address qualification requirements for those performing underwater 
inspections. Should those performing underwater inspections be 
qualified licensed professional engineers? Current regulations do not 
stipulate that the inspector in the water must also be an engineer. 
What impact would these proposed changes have on public authorities 
complying with this?

Inspection Report

    The current FHWA regulation states that AASHTO's ``Manual for 
Maintenance Inspection of Bridges'' be used (see footnote 1). This 
manual describes the guidelines for organizing the reports, written 
report requirements, and documentation of defects using photos and 
sketches.
    Bridge inspectors have indicated that those in management have made 
changes to their reports without having been in the field to view, 
first hand, the conditions of a particular bridge. The FHWA does not 
support this practice and believes any change to an inspection report 
should be made by the inspector who was out in the field. This 
procedure should be clearly covered in the NBIS. What if any would the 
impact be on public authorities complying with only allowing the 
inspector who was out in the field to change the inspection report as 
an NBIS requirement?

Inventory

    The current FHWA regulation requires each State to maintain an 
inventory of all bridges in its State and submit the inventory to the 
FHWA annually. The data to be collected is outlined in the ``Recording 
and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the 
Nation's Bridges.'' \3\ Requirements for entering new or updated data 
into the State's inventory or placing load restriction signs is set to 
90 days for bridges under the States jurisdiction and 180 days for all 
other bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' December 1995, FHWA, Report No. 
FHWA-PD-96-001, is available at URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/////bridge/mtguide.pdf and may be inspected and copied as prescribed at 
49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA believes that the procedures for bridge inventory are 
adequately written and require no modification. Should the reporting 
requirements for the NBIS be changed and what, if any, would the impact 
be on public authorities complying with this?

Additional General Questions

    In our effort to facilitate review of this NBIS regulation, the 
FHWA seeks comments on the following additional questions:
    1. Does the current regulation at 23 CFR part 650, subpart C, 
correctly address the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 151, national bridge 
inspection program?
    2. What improvements would you recommend to the bridge inspection 
procedures?
    3. What specific procedures would you recommend to enhance the NBIS 
regulations?

Related Rulemakings and Notices

    The FHWA is also in the process of reviewing 23 CFR part 650, 
subpart D, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 
(HBRRP). The FHWA will soon publish an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the HBRRP. Additionally, the FHWA will soon publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, for 23 CFR part 650, subpart G, 
Discretionary Bridge Candidate Rating Factor.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received 
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be 
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the 
FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as 
it becomes available after

[[Page 49157]]

the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue 
to examine the docket for new material. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
may be issued at any time after close of the comment period.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedure

    The FHWA has preliminarily determined that this action would be a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 and within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures because the proposed action concerns 
a matter on which there is substantial public interest. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) designated this proposed regulation as a 
significant regulatory action and has reviewed it under E.O. 12866. 
Because of the preliminary nature of this document and lack of 
necessary information on costs as well as benefits, the FHWA is unable 
to evaluate the impact of potential changes to the NBIS.
    Based upon the information received in response to this notice, the 
FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information, and data are 
solicited on the economic impact of any proposed recommendation for 
change to the NBIS.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), and based upon the information received in response 
to this ANPRM, the FHWA will evaluate the effects on small entities of 
any action proposed. This action merely seeks information regarding 
potential changes to the NBIS. Therefore, the FHWA is unable to certify 
at this time whether or not any proposed changes to the NBIS will have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Because of the preliminary nature of this document and lack of 
necessary information on costs, the FHWA is unable to evaluate the 
effects of the potential regulatory changes in regards to imposing a 
Federal mandate involving expenditure by State, local and Indian tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Nevertheless, the FHWA 
will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in 
subsequent stages of this rulemaking to assess the affects on State, 
local, and Indian tribal governments and the private sector.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The FHWA will evaluate any action that may be proposed in response 
to comments received to ensure that such action meets applicable 
standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 
burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA will evaluate any rule that may be proposed in response to 
comments received under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We do not, however, 
anticipate that any such rule would be economically significant or 
would present an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA will evaluate any rule that may be proposed in response to 
comments received to ensure that any such rule will not effect a taking 
of private property or otherwise have taking implications under 
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Any action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of this 
proceeding will be analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA anticipates 
that any action contemplated will not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The 
FHWA will consult extensively with public authorities regarding any 
changes to the NBIS regulations. The FHWA also anticipates that any 
action taken will not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions. We encourage commenters to consider these issues.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA will analyze any proposal under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA preliminarily believes that any 
proposal will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian 
tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a 
tribal summary impact statement may not be required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, 
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The currently-
approved information collection entitled Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal (SI&A) sheet is covered by OMB Approval Number 2125-0501. The 
current expiration date is April 30, 2004. The SI&A sheets are used by 
the States to provide the FHWA required information on bridge 
inspections. The FHWA estimates that a total of 540,000 burden hours 
are utilized by all of the States to fulfill their current reporting 
obligations. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases 
of this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its 
impact to this current information collection. The FHWA would be 
required to submit any proposed collections of information to OMB for 
review and approval at the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, 
seeks public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments 
regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements, 
including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of 
information would be necessary for the performance of the functions of 
the FHWA, including whether the information would have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the collection of information; and 
(4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality 
of the information collected.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency will analyze any action that might be proposed for the 
purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4347) to assess whether there would be any effect on the quality 
of the environment.

[[Page 49158]]

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650

    Bridges, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 151 and 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on: September 19, 2001.
Vincent F. Schimmoller,
Deputy Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-24092 Filed 9-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P