[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53063-53079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22807]


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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting comments on proposed revisions to its 
National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). This proposed action is 
necessary to address perceived ambiguities in the NBIS that have been 
identified since the last update to the regulation fourteen years ago. 
The proposed changes would clarify the NBIS language that is vague or 
ambiguous; reorganize the NBIS into a more logical sequence; and make 
the regulation easier to read and understand, not only by the inspector 
in the field, but also by those administering the highway bridge 
inspection programs at the State and Federal agency level.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2003.

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. Anyone is able 
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our 
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 in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access 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.archives.gov and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The FHWA bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a 
result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (sec. 26, Public Law 90-
495, 82 Stat. 815, at 829) that required the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish national bridge inspection standards 
(NBIS). The primary purpose of the NBIS is to locate and evaluate 
existing bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the traveling 
public.
    The 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act directed the States to maintain an 
inventory of Federal-aid highway system bridges. The Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1970 (sec. 204, Public Law 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713, at 
1741) limited the NBIS to bridges on the Federal-aid highway system. 
After the Surface Transportation Assistance Act

[[Page 53064]]

of 1978 (STAA) (sec. 124, Public Law 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689, at 2702) 
was passed, 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, Public Law 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 proposing revisions to the NBIS regulations, the FHWA will 
continue to ensure the ``proper safety inspection and evaluation of all 
highway bridges'' for the safety of the traveling public.
    Accordingly, a seven-member FHWA team was formed to examine and 
analyze comments to the ANPRM and write the proposed rule. This team 
has over 92 years of combined experience working with the NBIS 
regulations and over 140 years of combined experience working with 
bridges and structures. Six of the team members are licensed 
professional engineers (PE).

Discussion of Comments Received to the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM)

    The FHWA issued an ANPRM on September 26, 2001, at 66 FR 49154, to 
solicit comments on whether to revise the NBIS to incorporate current, 
state-of-the-art bridge inspection practices. The FHWA received 51 sets 
of comments to the docket. Comments to the ANPRM were submitted by 
representatives from 30 States, 3 Federal agencies, 2 counties, 5 
consulting firms, 7 private citizens, 3 trade associations and 1 public 
interest group. In summary, the majority of the commenters believed the 
NBIS should be revised.

Application of Standards

    Most commenters believed the present definition of bridge should 
not be modified and has generally been accepted by most public 
authorities. In general, commenters felt that the existing bridge 
definition is well understood and recognized within the bridge 
community. The New York DOT indicated that its State law defines a 
bridge the same way and therefore, the current definition should not be 
changed.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety commented that it would 
be appropriate for the FHWA to revisit the definition and consider 
expanding the national bridge inventory (NBI) to include all structures 
that can reasonably be said to perform bridge functions.
    The New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, Florida, and Connecticut 
DOT's and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association 
(ARTBA) indicated a preference to maintain the current method of 
determining bridge length and what minimum length should be used for 
reporting purposes. The South Dakota DOT and five private citizens 
indicated that they have concern regarding the definition as it applies 
to highly skewed, short-span reinforced concrete box culverts. The 
Minnesota DOT indicated that the State has changed their bridge length 
definition from 20 to 10 feet. The Maryland DOT recommended an 
alternative way to measure bridge length from ``back of back wall'' to 
``back of back wall'' for beam type structures. The Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that there are many 
bridges that are in all respects similar to bridges that are included 
in the NBI but are not counted since they are less than 20 feet. Also, 
the Advocates commented that the FHWA adopted the American Association 
of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge definition 
without serious discussion or debate and without the agency compiling 
an independent record to support the AASHTO bridge definition.
    On the question we posed in the ANPRM regarding the ``impact of the 
possible inclusion of more bridges on public authorities, or on the 
FHWA that maintains the inventory, or on the highway bridge replacement 
and rehabilitation program (HBRRP) funds,'' many commenters felt that 
doing this would add additional bridges to the inventory, require 
additional resources to inspect those bridges and place a burden on 
existing HBRRP funds. The Florida DOT thought the increase in bridges 
to be inspected would be minimal. The Iowa DOT felt public authorities 
should use their own expertise and experience in deciding how and when 
to inspect structures that do not meet the NBIS bridge definition. The 
Wyoming DOT felt public authorities can elect to inspect structures 20 
feet or less in length if they feel it is warranted. The Advocates 
commented that under an expanded definition there would be improved 
public safety, the NBI would be an even more comprehensive bridge 
inventory and it would focus more attention and Federal resources, 
(i.e., HBRRP funds) on deficient structures.

Inspection Procedures

    Most commenters did not want to see the current five-year 
underwater inspection interval changed. Three private citizens, David 
Stevens, Mark Bostick and William Hovell commented that they wanted to 
see the interval reduced to coincide with the two-year biennial above 
water inspections. The Advocates commented that it felt that the FHWA 
considers the bridge support above water as separate and distinct from 
portions of the bridge support below the waterline; it asked the FHWA 
to include underwater elements of bridge supports in the definition 
``bridges.'' The Advocates also commented that until there is a valid 
basis (i.e., collected information, studies, scientific data) for 
evaluation of the 5-year cycle, the FHWA should not entertain extending 
that interval beyond 5 years. The Connecticut DOT indicated that it 
inspects at a two-year interval. Collins Engineers, Inc. indicated that 
many agencies schedule underwater inspections to coincide with biennial 
inspections. The New Jersey DOT and Department of the U.S. Navy 
recommended a four-year interval to correlate with the regular NBIS 
inspection. A number of State transportation departments, consulting 
firms and private citizens wanted the inspection interval tied to 
materials of the bridge and its environment.
    A majority of commenters did not feel that those performing 
underwater inspections must be qualified licensed professional 
engineers. Four State transportation departments and the American Road 
and Transportation Builders Association felt that qualifications should 
be the same as those performing above water inspections. The California 
DOT felt that the team leader must be a licensed professional engineer 
and a qualified diver. The South Dakota DOT, Department of the U.S. 
Navy, and Collins Engineers, Inc. supported the concept of professional 
engineer-diver.
    Most commenters felt that incorporating the evaluation of scour at 
bridges criteria within the NBIS regulation would have little impact 
since most States have scour programs. Regarding incorporation of the 
scour technical advisory within the NBIS some State transportation 
departments were in favor and some were not. The North Dakota DOT 
indicated that local authorities should be performing post storm event 
inspections and therefore post storm event inspections did not need to 
be addressed in the regulations. The North Carolina DOT felt that 
requiring States to have a major storm

[[Page 53065]]

event plan of action would be acceptable. The Advocates commented that 
the FHWA should affirmatively review the need for separate inspections 
specifically to determine if scour has occurred following floods, 
storms, earthquakes, etc. and whether scour inspections on certain 
bridges should be automatically required within a specified period of 
time.

Frequency of Inspection

    Most commenters were not in favor of increasing the maximum 
inspection interval beyond the current four-year interval. New Jersey, 
North Carolina, Oregon, Florida and New Hampshire DOT's indicated that 
they do not use an extended inspection cycle and see no benefit in 
extending the inspection interval. Florida and New Hampshire DOT's 
indicated that State statute required a two-year inspection frequency. 
The Advocates commented that short inspection intervals should be 
maintained at two years, and that longer inspection intervals (not (to) 
exceed four years) are permissible as long as decisions for longer 
inspections are supported by engineering data.

Qualifications of Personnel

    Most commenters indicated that the individual in charge of 
inspection and reporting, who is a Professional Engineer (PE), should 
be required to have the same training as a bridge inspector and have 
additional experience in bridge inspection. Three private citizens, 
Craig Fink, Mathew Farrar, and Gary Doerr along with the Wyoming, Iowa, 
Tennessee, Illinois, Minnesota, Maine, California and Utah DOT's 
indicated that having the same training as bridge inspectors was not 
necessary. Two private citizens, Craig Fink and Gary Doerr, and the 
Minnesota, Maine, and California DOT's mentioned that the rules and 
regulations governing professional registration would ensure that the 
professional engineer be competent in the area of practice. The 
Michigan DOT indicated that in addition to initial training the 
individual in charge should have refresher training. The Advocates 
commented that those overseeing and conducting bridge inspections have 
adequate experience and appropriate and relevant education.
    Commenters were evenly divided as to the need for certification 
training in proportion to the complexity of the bridge being inspected. 
The Wyoming and Wisconsin DOT's and 3 private citizens felt that 
adequate training is fine; however, it should be combined with relevant 
and verifiable experience. The New Jersey, California and Florida DOT's 
were strongly opposed to the idea of multi-level certifications and the 
New Jersey DOT thought that it would be difficult to administer. The 
Washington, Iowa and New York DOTs thought certification should be 
established by each agency or State. The Advocates commented that the 
NBIS should require levels of training appropriate for the complexity 
of the bridge structure to be inspected.
    In the current regulation, the discipline of a professional 
engineer who is in charge of inspection and reporting is not specified. 
The majority of commenters thought the professional engineering 
discipline (i.e., civil, structural, etc) should be specified within 
the regulation. A private citizen, Gary Doerr, along with the 
Minnesota, Florida and Illinois DOT's thought this unnecessary since it 
is adequately addressed within each State's rules and regulations 
governing professional registration. The Advocates commented that the 
NBIS should require that the person performing inspections and 
reporting be either a civil or structural professional engineer, with a 
minimum of five years experience in bridge inspection, and have 
periodic refresher training in latest inspection techniques and 
technologies.

Inspection Report

    Most commenters believed that oversight of inspection efforts and 
quality control/quality assurance procedures, necessitated that 
inspection reports be changed by management when errors were 
encountered. Most commenters agreed that changes should be allowed, as 
long as the field inspector has been notified and concurs with the 
change. The Wisconsin, Delaware and Massachusetts DOTs indicated that 
only the inspection team leader should be authorized to make changes to 
an inspection report.

Inventory

    Most commenters felt that the NBIS reporting requirements were 
reasonable and need not be changed. The Florida DOT indicated that the 
States should be relieved of the requirement to maintain data on 
Federal agency bridges since that information is supplied directly to 
the FHWA.

Reorganization of the Regulation

    The Delaware DOT thought the regulations ambiguous and should be 
refined. The Oregon DOT felt that much upgrading and reorganization is 
needed. One of the questions posed in the ANPRM was whether the current 
NBIS correctly addresses the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 151 and the 
comments indicate that it does.

Recommended Improvements

    Eleven State transportation departments recommended improvements to 
bridge inspection procedures. The Virginia DOT wanted to expand the 
NBIS to promote both safety inspections and maintenance evaluations. 
The Minnesota DOT wanted the NBIS to address private bridge ownership 
compliance with NBIS requirements. National certification standards, 
was mentioned by the Delaware DOT. The Massachusetts DOT wanted 
clarification of the term ``unique or special feature.'' The South 
Dakota DOT suggested ``less stringent inspector qualifications for more 
simple type of structures.'' The Oregon DOT proposed the incorporation 
of ``element level bridge inspection'' data. The Washington DOT 
suggested that the NBIS include any ``structural element that can 
impact safety,'' e.g., sign structures, mechanical and electrical 
components on movable structures, tunnels and retaining walls.
    Lastly, nine State transportation departments and a private citizen 
recommended specific procedures to enhance the NBIS which include the 
following: Handheld computer data entry in the field; flexibility in 
minimum inspection intervals for newer or historically stable bridges; 
flexibility for the States to set qualification standards and certify 
their inspectors; enhance technology and attract engineers to the 
bridge inspection field; provide a communication element among the 
States; establish unambiguous definitions; review the NBIS regulations 
on a more regular basis; establish a quality control/quality assurance 
program; use element level inspection data; define arms length 
inspections; and clarify inspector qualifications.

Summary of the Proposed Revisions to the NBIS

    The proposed revisions to the NBIS are based in part on comments 
received to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published 
on September 26, 2001, at 66 FR 49154. The proposed changes address 
ambiguous language and clarify the following areas: Purpose; 
applicability; terminology; bridge inspection organization; 
qualifications; inspection frequency; inspection procedures; and 
inventory. The FHWA proposes to reformat the NBIS to place referenced 
definitions in one section instead of being buried throughout the 
regulation's narrative. The FHWA proposes to

[[Page 53066]]

remove the requirement that States are responsible for Federal bridges. 
This proposal would require Federal agencies to be directly responsible 
for inspection of bridges under their jurisdiction. The proposed rule 
language places emphasis on applicability of the standards pertaining 
exclusively to ``highway'' bridges that carry public roads.
    This proposed revision would clearly delineate the responsibilities 
of a bridge inspection organization and define what can and cannot be 
delegated. This proposal would enhance and clarify the qualifications 
of personnel as well as inspection frequency. It proposes periodic 
refresher training for inspection personnel. It includes a provision 
for lengthening the underwater inspection interval from 60 months to 72 
months under certain conditions with FHWA approval. The proposed 
revision would clearly define the interval for fracture critical member 
(FCM) inspections. The FHWA proposes to specifically address scour 
critical bridges, bridges vulnerable to seismic damage, and complex 
bridges. The FHWA proposes to establish quality control/quality 
assurance (QC/QA) requirements. The proposed rule also discusses 
procedures for follow-up on critical findings by the inspection program 
manager. Lastly, this action proposes to reaffirm inventory and 
reporting requirements including timeframes for submission of data by 
both the State and Federal agencies.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals

Proposed Section 650.301 Purpose

    There were no comments on this topic.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the section ``Application of 
Standards'' with ``Purpose.'' The FHWA proposes to reiterate the 
purpose of the NBIS as stated in 23 U.S.C. 151 to address the proper 
safety inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges. The current 
bridge definition does not differentiate between the types of 
passageways carried; however, the term ``highway'' does. The FHWA 
proposes to re-emphasize that for purposes of the NBIS, a highway 
bridge is a bridge that carries a public road.

Proposed Section 650.303 Applicability

    The FHWA proposes to replace the section ``Inspection Procedures'' 
with ``Applicability.'' The FHWA proposes to clarify that the NBIS only 
applies to highway bridges that carry public roads.
    The Minnesota DOT requested discussion about the responsibility of 
private bridge owners to comply with the NBIS. Collins Engineers, Inc. 
indicated that the NBIS should be extended to all bridges whether 
publicly or privately owned.
    The FHWA acknowledges that some confusion has existed about the 
applicability of the NBIS to privately owned highway bridges. While 23 
U.S.C. 151 states that the NBIS are for all highway bridges, the FHWA 
has no legal authority to require privately owned bridge owners to 
inspect and maintain their bridges. While the FHWA does not have the 
authority to compel the States to inspect private bridges, the FHWA 
strongly encourages that private bridge owners follow the NBIS as the 
standard for inspecting privately owned bridges. Because of the 
seamless nature of the transportation infrastructure within many 
States, the motoring public does not know the difference between a 
privately owned and publicly owned highway bridge. This being the case, 
it is extremely important that privately owned highway bridges be 
inspected to a nationally recognized standard. Private bridge owners 
that do not inspect their highway bridges to the NBIS can open 
themselves to liability for deaths or injuries because of possible 
highway bridge failure. State transportation departments that do not 
cause private bridge owners to inspect their highway bridges to the 
NBIS can open themselves to liability for deaths or injuries because of 
possible highway bridge failure. States and Federal Agencies should 
encourage owners of privately-owned highway bridges to inspect their 
bridges in accordance with these NBIS or reroute any public highways 
away from such bridges if NBIS inspections are not conducted.
    The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) lists roughly 2,200 privately 
owned highway bridges in some 41 States and Puerto Rico. However, the 
total number of privately owned bridges is unknown because the States 
are not required to report them to the FHWA. Many privately owned 
bridges can be assumed to carry public roads, some of which are 
significant highways. The FHWA does not know if privately owned bridges 
are inspected using the NBIS or other standard and the FHWA does not 
know the level to which privately owned bridges are maintained. As a 
result, the FHWA cannot determine whether the public may be at risk 
when crossing a privately owned bridge.
    Public authorities, must follow the NBIS for all highway bridges 
located on all public roads. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23 
U.S.C. 101(a)(27) as ``any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.'' The NBIS 
applies to seasonally or periodically opened public roads and to 
limited access public access roads.
    Highway bridges owned by Indian tribes are in a separate category. 
Indian tribes as sovereign nations, have a unique government-to-
government relationship with the Federal government. There is no 
explicit requirement in 23 U.S.C. 144 that requires inventory of 
tribally owned bridges. Likewise, there is no explicit requirement in 
23 U.S.C. 151 that requires inspection of tribally owned bridges. 
Absent such clear language, the FHWA has no legal authority to require 
federally recognized Indian tribes to inventory tribally owned bridges 
or to comply with the NBIS. While the FHWA does not have the authority 
to compel the federally recognized Indian tribes to inspect tribally 
owned bridges, the FHWA strongly encourages that Indian tribes follow 
the NBIS (23 U.S.C. 151), as the standard for inspecting tribally owned 
bridges, particularly those open to public travel. Indian tribes that 
do not inspect their bridges to the NBIS can open themselves to 
liability for deaths or injuries because of bridge failure.
    The FHWA recognizes that the NBIS does not apply to federally owned 
bridges on roads that are used only by public employees and not open to 
the general public. These bridges and administratively used roads 
support behind-the-scenes operations, are used by public employees 
engaged in official business, and are not open to the general public. 
While the NBIS does not apply to such bridges, these bridges need to be 
periodically inspected to assure the safety of public employees, 
contractors, official visitors and the motoring public which may 
inadvertently use these facilities. The public looks at the 
transportation infrastructure as seamless and may not know that they 
have driven on an administratively used road. Furthermore, public 
authorities could be liable for injuries or death resulting from the 
use of bridges that are not properly and systematically inspected and 
maintained.
    The Michigan DOT and Collins Engineers, Inc. were concerned about 
the applicability of the NBIS to railroad and pedestrian bridges over 
public roads. The Wisconsin DOT thought sign support structures, high 
mast lighting, retaining walls, and noise barrier structures should be 
addressed, in the NBIS. Collins Engineers, Inc. thought railroad 
bridges and overhead traffic signs should be addressed in the NBIS.

[[Page 53067]]

    The FHWA proposes to clarify that 23 U.S.C. 151 applies only to 
highway bridges; therefore the NBIS does not apply to bridges that 
carry only pedestrians, railroad tracks, pipelines, or other types of 
non-highway passageways. The FHWA would continue to strongly encourage 
public authorities or bridge owners to inspect these non-highway 
carrying bridges and other significant structures. Similarly, the FHWA 
believes that the NBIS does not apply to inspection of sign support 
structures, high mast lighting, retaining walls, noise barriers 
structures, railroad bridges and overhead traffic signs. Public 
authorities have an obligation to the motoring public to periodically 
inspect and maintain these facilities. Likewise, non-public authorities 
including utility companies, railroads, and private owners who may own 
these facilities, must periodically inspect and maintain their 
structures for the safety of the motoring public.
    The FHWA would continue to emphasize some minimal inventory 
requirements that apply to non-highway bridges over certain highways. 
These requirements are described in the ``Recording and Coding Guide 
for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges'' \1\ 
and need not be mandated in the NBIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``Recording and Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' December 1995, Report No. FHWA-
PD-96-001, is available electronically at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//bridge/mtguide.doc and may be inspected and copied 
as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Section 650.305 Definitions

    The FHWA proposes to replace the section `` Frequency of 
Inspections'' with ``Definitions.'' The FHWA proposes to include all 
definitions that are used within the NBIS in one section at Sec.  
650.305. This proposal would add clarity to the regulation and would 
provide a convenient reference for the commonly used terms.
    The following terms used in the current regulation would be 
relocated to this section: (1) American Association of State Highway 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual,'' \2\ (2) bridge, and (3) 
National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies 
(NICET). The FHWA also proposes to update the address for AASHTO and 
NICET, to reflect their current addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The AASHTO Manual refers to the Manual for Condition 
Evaluation of Bridges, 1994, 2nd Edition and is available from the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that there is a common understanding of bridge inspection 
terms within the NBIS, the following new terms would be added to this 
section: (1) Bridge inspection experience; (2) ``Bridge Inspector's 
Reference Manual, 2002'', (formerly Bridge Inspector's Training Manual/
90); (3) complex bridge; (4) comprehensive bridge inspection training, 
(5) damage inspection; (6) fracture critical inspection; (7) fracture 
critical member; (8) hands-on; (9) in-depth inspection; (10) initial 
inspection; (11) legal load; (12) load rating; (13) operating rating; 
(14) program manager; (15) routine inspection; (16) routine permit 
load; (17) scour; (18) scour critical; (19) special inspection; (20) 
team leader; and (21) underwater inspection.
    The Virginia DOT, suggested that changes to the bridge definition 
might be appropriate to exclude certain minor structures from the 
inspection requirement. The majority of commenters did not want the 
definition changed, expressing concerns such as possible adverse 
economic impacts and conflicts with established State laws. The 
Advocates wanted to include all structures that can reasonably be said 
to perform bridge functions and thought that the FHWA adopted the 
AASHTO bridge definition without serious discussion or debate and 
without compiling an independent record to support the definition.
    The FHWA adopted the AASHTO definition for ``bridge'' very early on 
in the National Bridge Inspection Program. The FHWA proposes to 
continue to adopt the AASHTO definition of a bridge. Title 23, U.S.C., 
section 151 directed the Secretary to establish national bridge 
inspection standards in consultation with the State transportation 
departments and interested and knowledgeable private organizations and 
individuals. According to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), roughly 
278,000 bridges or 47 percent of the bridge inventory is owned and 
operated by State transportation departments. Similarly, county 
governments own approximately 231,000 bridges or 39 percent of the NBI. 
This makes the States and counties the major stakeholders in the 
National Bridge Inspection Program. The State transportation 
departments report on all highway bridges within their State regardless 
of ownership, except for certain Federal bridges. This data is reported 
every April to the NBI. Based on 23 U.S.C. 151 direction, the FHWA has 
developed a close working relationship with the States on bridge 
related issues. This consultation with the State transportation 
departments through the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 
Structures, convinced the FHWA to adopt the AASHTO definition of bridge 
that has been used since the NBIS was first drafted. This subcommittee 
is chaired by a State transportation official with voting 
representatives from each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico. The subcommittee's Secretary is a FHWA official and the 
subcommittee has active FHWA participation. The development of the 
AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, which is referenced 
in the current NBIS, was sponsored by AASHTO, in cooperation with the 
FHWA.
    While we exclude bridges 20 feet and less in length, public 
authorities and private bridge owners are strongly encouraged to 
periodically examine and also maintain those bridges less than 20 feet 
in length to an adequate standard. The existing definition for 
``bridge'' has served the public for over 30 years to identify which 
structures should be inspected and this definition is well understood 
and accepted, as evidenced by the statements of a majority of the 
commenters. There is no compelling reason to change it. To expand the 
inventory to include a larger number of structures may result in 
redistributing limited resources from inspection of larger, more 
critical structures, to inspection of these shorter structures thereby 
reducing the overall safety of the inventory.
    The National Bridge Inspection Program is established to provide 
safe bridges. The Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 
(HBRRP) is established to provide Federal funding to the States for 
bridges. Congress establishes the total level of HBRRP funding, and 
adding bridges to the inspection inventory would dilute funds currently 
available for longer, more critical structures. While the HBRRP primary 
focus is on bridge rehabilitation and replacement needs, bridge 
inspection is an eligible activity under this program. For those States 
that use HBRRP funds to support their bridge inspection programs, any 
increase in the number of highway bridges to be inspected would further 
reduce funds available for rehabilitation and replacement needs and 
thus impact bridge safety. The NBI is one tool used by the HBRRP to 
apportion funds to the States fairly, and expanding the inventory would 
have an uncertain effect on the funding apportionment. Though the 
inspection program provides data for the NBI, and though the NBI is a 
useful tool for funding purposes and for many other non-safety 
applications, the FHWA believes that

[[Page 53068]]

the inspection standards should focus on bridge safety separately 
without complicated ties to the considerations of the HBRRP.
    The proposed definition of ``Program Manager'' in Sec.  650.305, 
lists three overall responsibilities (i.e., inspecting, reporting or 
inventory), which could be supervised by one or more individuals. By 
using the word ``or'' connecting those three responsibilities in the 
definition, the FHWA intends to indicate that each of the individuals 
who supervise one or more of those overall responsibilities must meet 
the minimum qualifications of the Program Manager. Therefore, in any 
organization, there may be several individuals meeting those 
requirements.

Proposed Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection Organization

    There were no comments on this topic.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the section ``Qualifications of 
Personnel'' with ``Bridge Inspection Organization.'' The FHWA 
stewardship of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) program 
over the years has shown that some States have not exercised sufficient 
control over delegated local agencies to assure compliance with the 
NBIS. The proposal, in general, is intended to clarify and describe 
bridge inspection program responsibilities, organizational 
requirements, and delegation requirements as well as expand on what is 
currently provided in Sec.  650.303(a).
    In Sec.  650.307(a), the FHWA proposes to clarify the bridge 
inspection responsibilities of the States. The State transportation 
department is responsible for the inspection, reports, load ratings and 
other requirements of the NBIS for all non-Federal and non-tribal 
bridges within a State, regardless of public authority ownership. A 
public authority delegated with the authority by the State to inspect 
bridges could jeopardize State compliance with the NBIS if it fails to 
properly comply with the inspection standards. Therefore, although a 
State may delegate the authority to inspect, it is ultimately the 
State's responsibility to ensure compliance with the NBIS. As such, the 
FHWA proposes to clarify that delegation does not relieve the State 
transportation department of any of its responsibilities under the 
NBIS.
    The FHWA also proposes to relieve States of responsibilities for 
bridges owned by Federal agencies. This would bring NBIS into line with 
current procedures followed by the FHWA and other Federal agencies.
    Proposed Sec.  650.307(b) lists the bridge inspection 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The inspection, reports, load 
ratings and other requirements of the NBIS for all Federal bridges 
within the respective Federal agency's jurisdiction is the 
responsibility of that specific agency.
    The inspection of jointly owned State border bridges is the 
responsibility of all owning bordering States and/or Federal agencies. 
The FHWA proposes that agreements for the delegation of border bridge 
inspections, reports, load ratings and other requirements of the NBIS 
to be in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  650.307(d).
    Proposed Sec.  650.307(c) describes basic bridge inspection program 
organization requirements. State transportation departments and Federal 
agencies would be required to be organized with a unit or units that 
are responsible for setting statewide or Federal agency wide bridge 
inspection program policies and procedures, assuring quality 
inspections are performed throughout the State or agency, and 
maintaining the State bridge inventory. Most States, but not all, have 
such an organizational unit or units, usually located in the central 
office, that perform some or all of these activities. In order to 
improve inspection program consistency and uniformity, the FHWA 
proposes to require that all of these activities be performed at a 
statewide or Federal agency wide organizational level of the State 
transportation department or Federal agency. This section does not 
preclude the activities described from being assigned to a qualified 
consulting engineering firm.
    Proposed Sec.  650.307(d) describes specific requirements for the 
delegation of bridge inspections, reports, load ratings and other 
requirements of the NBIS to ``public authorities'' within the State. 
The States would continue to be able to delegate the authority to 
perform bridge inspection activities; however, the overall program 
responsibility could not be delegated. Some States currently delegate 
some or all bridge inspections, reports, load ratings and other 
requirements of the NBIS to local agencies by authority under State law 
or written agreements that clearly state in writing the roles of all 
agencies and entities involved. However, other States delegate bridge 
inspections without any such State laws or agreements. This section 
proposes to require States that choose to delegate bridge inspections, 
reports, load ratings and other requirements of the NBIS, to do so by 
State law or by written agreement. States and delegated agencies will 
be required to keep these agreements on file.
    The FHWA proposes that the requirement to establish a bridge 
inspection organization responsible for Statewide or Federal agency 
wide bridge inspection policies and procedures, quality assurance, and 
bridge inventory activities of proposed Sec.  650.307(c)(1) could not 
be delegated.
    As with other State administered Federal-aid programs under title 
23, U.S. Code, delegation of bridge inspections, reports, load ratings 
and other requirements of the NBIS must be accompanied by appropriate 
State transportation department oversight.
    Proposed Sec.  650.307(e) would clarify that each organizational 
unit with the responsibilities identified in paragraph (c) of this 
section must be led by a person meeting the qualifications of a program 
manager as defined in the proposed Sec.  650.309. The current NBIS is 
vague about what organizational units this qualification applies to. 
This clarification pertains to the individual in charge of each 
organizational unit involved in bridge inspections, reports, load 
ratings, and other requirements of the NBIS, including organizational 
units of delegated agencies. For example, the program manager 
qualifications would apply to a State district that has the 
organizational responsibility for bridge inspections and reports, as 
well as to a town with only one bridge that has been delegated the 
authority for bridge inspections and reports.

Proposed Section 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel

    The FHWA proposes to replace the section ``Inspection Report'' with 
``Qualifications of Personnel.'' In this section, the FHWA proposes the 
minimum qualifications required for a program manager, a team leader, 
an underwater bridge inspector, and the individual for determining load 
ratings for bridges. Additionally, this section proposes to require 
refresher training for program managers and team leaders.
    Six commenters to the docket affirmed the need to clarify the 
phrases ``individual in charge,'' ``responsible capacity,'' and 
``qualified for registration.'' The Massachusetts DOT recommended that 
the term ``qualified for registration'' be removed from the regulation. 
The Minnesota DOT stated that the phrase ``responsible capacity'' did 
not need further clarification.
    The FHWA concurs that the phrases ``individual in charge,'' 
``responsible capacity,'' and ``qualified for registration'' need 
further clarification. Accordingly, the following changes are proposed 
in paragraph (a):
    1. The individual in charge would be identified as a ``program 
manager'' and

[[Page 53069]]

a definition of this person provided in Sec.  650.305. The proposed 
definition was developed to clarify that this individual provides 
overall supervision and is available to inspection team leaders to 
provide guidance. A State or Federal organization can have multiple 
program managers, depending on the organizational structure and 
delegation of duties.
    2. The phrase ``responsible capacity'' would be clarified as 
``bridge inspection experience.'' A definition for ``bridge inspection 
experience'' is provided in Sec.  650.305. Emphasis has been placed on 
active participation in bridge inspection activities. The intent is to 
ensure that the predominant amount of experience is acquired through 
direct involvement in bridge inspection activities. States and Federal 
organizations may choose to develop additional experience criteria that 
consider aspects, such as, number and types of structures inspected.
    3. The criteria to be qualified for registration as a professional 
engineer (PE) in current Sec.  650.307(a)(1) would be removed. The term 
``qualified for registration'' has been interpreted to mean that an 
individual satisfies the education and experience requirements for 
professional registration, but has not obtained the license. Another 
interpretation has been that an individual has successfully passed the 
professional engineer's exam and is awaiting issuance of his/her 
official license. The FHWA proposes in Sec.  650.309(a)(1) that 
registration as a PE is the necessary requirement for someone with the 
responsibilities of a ``program manager,'' as an equivalent alternate 
to ten years of bridge inspection experience.
    The majority of commenters were in favor of establishing bridge 
inspection training and experience requirements for the individual in 
charge of the bridge inspection and inventory program. Sixteen 
commenters noted that having a civil or structural related engineering 
degree, an Engineer-In-Training (EIT) certificate, or a Professional 
Engineer's (PE) license should count towards an experience requirement. 
The majority of those in favor of establishing a training requirement 
recommended that the person in charge be required to complete the same 
training as regular bridge inspectors. The majority of commenters were 
in favor of requiring a specific discipline for the PE of the person in 
charge. Civil/structural were the most commonly recommended 
disciplines. Many commenters thought that the laws governing 
professional engineering licensing within each State ensure that PE's 
only practice engineering in the fields in which they are qualified and 
experienced. A private citizen, Marc S. Grunnert, noted that years of 
experience might not be as important as exposure to different types of 
structures or the number of structures inspected over a given period of 
time. The ARTBA and the Florida DOT noted that States should be allowed 
a great deal of latitude in making personnel decisions and judgment 
calls with respect to qualifications.
    The FHWA recognizes the majority of commenters recommended that the 
NBIS specify the engineering license discipline for the program manager 
who is a PE, preferably in civil or structural engineering. However, 
the FHWA concurs with the minority of commenters who indicated that the 
laws governing licensing within each State or Federal organization 
ensure that PE's only practice engineering in the fields in which they 
are qualified and experienced. Furthermore, the FHWA believes that it 
is the State or Federal organization's responsibility to ensure that 
those individuals involved in the bridge inspection program meet the 
minimum qualifications defined in the NBIS. The proposed regulations 
would not specify the engineering discipline; however, individual 
States and Federal organizations can adopt requirements that are more 
specific than the minimum requirements established by the NBIS.
    References to the ``Bridge Inspector's Training Manual'' would be 
removed in the proposed regulation. A definition of ``comprehensive 
bridge inspection training'' which mentions the ``Bridge Inspector's 
Reference Manual (BIRM)'' \3\ would be added in the proposed Sec.  
650.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM), 2003, FHWA-
NHI-03-001, may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing 
Office bookstore, Room 118, Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were almost evenly divided on the need to require 
certification training in proportion to the complexity of the structure 
being inspected. Seven of the commenters who were opposed to adding 
this requirement, supported the idea that both level of training and 
experience should be considered, particularly for the inspection of 
complex structures. Several commenters stated that this should be a 
responsibility of the bridge inspection program manager and does not 
need to be codified in regulation. The New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina and Florida DOT's along with a private citizen, Omaha Greene, 
noted that it would be very difficult to administer a program where the 
training and experience requirements varied with the complexity of 
structures.
    The FHWA agrees that program managers must have the same basic 
level of training as all other bridge inspectors. A requirement is 
proposed in Sec.  650.309(a)(2) for the program manager to have 
successfully completed a comprehensive bridge inspection training 
course. The FHWA proposes to define comprehensive bridge inspection 
training in Sec.  650.305. This requirement would apply regardless of 
whether the program manager is a PE or has ten years of bridge 
inspection experience. The FHWA proposes to allow 12 months for new or 
current program managers who have not participated in the training to 
complete the required comprehensive training. In proposed Sec.  
650.309(a)(2), States and Federal organizations would be permitted to 
develop their own comprehensive inspection training programs subject to 
approval by the FHWA. The FHWA will use the proposed comprehensive 
bridge inspection training definition and the BIRM as criteria to apply 
when reviewing these programs.
    The ``individual in charge'' of a bridge inspection team in current 
Sec.  650.307(b) would be identified as a ``team leader'' in Sec.  
650.309(b) and a definition of this person provided in Sec.  650.305. 
The California DOT, and two private citizens, Omaha Greene and Rick 
Jager, recommended that an additional, alternate team leader 
qualification be added for those who possess an EIT certificate, have 
two years bridge inspection experience, and have completed an 80-hour 
training course based on the bridge inspector's training manual (BITM). 
The FHWA agrees with the comments regarding the consideration of 
engineering degrees and PE licensing status in evaluating an 
individual's experience level. Accordingly, the FHWA proposes the 
addition of an alternate qualification in Sec.  650.309(b) that a 
``team leader'' have a bachelors degree in engineering and have 
successfully completed the National Council of Examiners for 
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering 
examination, and have two years of bridge inspection experience. 
Additionally, team leaders would also have to complete a comprehensive 
bridge inspection training course.
    There are approximately 84,500 bridges or 14 percent of the NBI 
that are posted in virtually every State, the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico. Bridge load rating calculations provide the basis for 
determining the safe load capacity of a bridge and critical load 
posting and permitting decisions are

[[Page 53070]]

also based on load rating calculations. Therefore, the FHWA would like 
to ensure that qualified engineers determine these load ratings. The 
AASHTO ``Manual for the Condition Evaluation of Bridges,'' states that 
the individual charged with overall responsibility for determining load 
ratings of bridges should be a PE. Although we did not receive any 
comments regarding the need to establish qualifications for this 
individual, the FHWA believes it is important to outline the 
qualifications. Therefore, consistent with the AASHTO Manual, the FHWA 
proposes to require that the individual responsible for determining 
load ratings of bridges shall be a registered PE in Sec.  650.309(c). 
The FHWA also proposes to define the term ``load rating'' in Sec.  
650.305.
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Michigan and Pennsylvania DOT's, 
and the Advocates recommended that a requirement for periodic bridge 
inspection refresher training be established and incorporated in the 
regulation. The recommended frequency of this training varied from one 
to eight years.
    The FHWA concurs with the comments regarding the need for periodic 
refresher training. A requirement for refresher training every five 
years for all program managers and team leaders is proposed in Sec.  
650.309(d). The refresher training will assist in maintaining the 
skills and knowledge level needed to perform accurate and thorough 
bridge inspections in a consistent manner as technology, materials, 
bridge designs, and available tools change. The National Highway 
Institute (NHI) currently offers a FHWA approved bridge inspection 
refresher training course.\4\ Other refresher training could be 
developed by a State or Federal organization, subject to the FHWA 
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Information regarding NHI training can be obtained at the 
following URL: http//www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Michigan DOT stated that specific requirements relative to an 
inspector's physical characteristics, such as vision and mobility, 
should not be addressed in the regulation.
    The FHWA agrees with the comment that vision, mobility, and other 
physical characteristic requirements do not need to be addressed within 
the regulations. As stated above, State and Federal organizations are 
responsible for evaluating the qualifications of those involved in the 
bridge inspection program. The need for good vision and physical 
mobility are important in the performance of many bridge inspection 
activities, particularly since the most frequent method of 
nondestructive evaluation is visual and access to elements of most 
bridges requires climbing and other physical performance. States and 
Federal organizations are strongly encouraged to consider these 
characteristics when evaluating qualifications of bridge inspection 
personnel.
    The Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Dakota DOT's, the 
Advocates, and Collins Engineers, Inc., stated that minimum training 
requirements should be established for all bridge inspection team 
members.
    Based on comments from the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South 
Dakota DOT's, the Advocates, and Collins Engineers, Inc., the FHWA 
considered the establishment of minimum qualifications for bridge 
inspection team members who are not team leaders. Given that a 
qualified team leader must be on site during the inspection and that 
many organizations use seasonal helpers, we decided that this is a 
personnel issue that should be addressed at the State or Federal agency 
organization level.
    The majority of commenters were not in favor of establishing a 
requirement that those performing underwater bridge inspections be 
licensed professional engineers (PE). Those who were opposed to this 
requirement felt that the supply of licensed PE divers would not be 
sufficient to meet the demand, resulting in significantly higher costs 
of underwater inspections without a corresponding benefit. Proponents 
for requiring that underwater bridge inspectors be licensed PEs 
reasoned that there is a sufficient cadre of licensed PE divers and 
that costs for such would be competitive with non PE divers and would 
provide for a much better product. Also, many commenters indicated 
support for requiring that a PE be present during the underwater 
inspection. Commenters also stated that the regulation should establish 
the same qualifications for both above and below water inspectors, 
noting that diving is merely a means of transportation.
    The FHWA concurs with the commenters who were not in favor of 
requiring that those performing underwater bridge inspections be 
licensed PEs. Currently, the NBIS does not have a requirement for the 
qualifications of underwater bridge inspectors. Because the desired 
qualifications of such personnel vary with the complexity of the 
bridge, the FHWA proposes Sec.  650.309(e) to require at a minimum that 
all underwater inspection divers who are not fully qualified as program 
managers or team leaders must complete a comprehensive bridge 
inspection training course. This requirement would help to ensure that 
a properly trained inspector, who does not necessarily have to meet 
team leader qualifications, performs the inspection in those instances 
when direct observation by a team leader is not possible. At a minimum, 
a qualified team leader must be on-site during the underwater 
inspection. The importance of having a qualified team leader on site 
during the underwater inspection cannot be overemphasized, and is 
proposed as a requirement under Sec.  650.313(b).
    The Association of Diving Contractors International, Inc. noted 
that in order to be compliant with the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's (OSHA) regulations contained in 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart 7, dive team members must meet qualifications that require 
appropriate commercial diver training.
    The FHWA position on this issue would be that in addition to having 
appropriate bridge inspection training, those personnel who participate 
as bridge inspection dive team members must meet minimum diver 
qualifications that entail training as a professional diver. Those 
qualifications should meet or exceed OSHA and/or industry safety 
standards and should be established by the ``Bridge inspection 
organization'' and need not be mandated in the NBIS. By giving the 
``Bridge inspection organization'' the latitude to establish diver 
qualifications including training for its organization, the ``Bridge 
inspection organization'' may choose to establish diver qualification 
and training that exceed OSHA and/or industry standards. States and 
Federal organizations are strongly encouraged to consider stringent 
bridge inspection dive team member qualifications for the conduct of 
safe diving operations in support of bridge underwater inspections.

Proposed Section 650.311 Inspection Frequency

    In this section, the FHWA examines inspection frequency and how an 
NBI of roughly 590,000 bridges should be inspected to assure the safety 
of the motoring public.
    The majority of the commenters thought that the maximum inspection 
interval of 4 years for certain structures is reasonable and should not 
be extended; the remaining commenters said that 6 to 10 years may be 
appropriate for some low-risk structures. The majority of commenters 
stated that the maximum inspection cycle for most structures should 
remain at 2 years.

[[Page 53071]]

    Additional responses included 13 commenters who stated that the 
FHWA approval process should be revisited to include additional 
structure types, and/or be made simpler or automatic for certain groups 
of low-risk structures. Several commenters stated that the 2 year 
frequency should be clarified. The ARTBA, Florida DOT, National 
Association of County Engineers (NACE), and Alcona County (Michigan), 
stated that there should be a grace period (30 to 90 days) for each 
cycle to account for such things as staffing and weather problems. The 
Wisconsin DOT suggested a calendar year approach so that inspections 
may be moved to any time of a calendar year to monitor structures 
during various weather conditions.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the section ``Inventory'' with 
``Inspection Frequency.'' Based on the NBI, there are approximately 
561,000 bridges that are inspected on a 2-year cycle (i.e., biennial 
routine inspections). The FHWA concurs with the majority of commenters, 
and proposes in paragraph (a) of this section, that the maximum 
inspection cycle should remain at 4 years (48 months) for certain 
structures, and that the maximum inspection cycle for most structures 
should remain at 2 years (24 months). The FHWA also proposes to include 
a definition for ``routine inspection'' at Sec.  650.305.
    There are roughly 27,000 bridges or 4.7 percent of the NBI that are 
inspected on a 4-year inspection cycle. According to the NBI, there are 
32 States using the 4-year inspection cycle. The FHWA recognizes the 
concerns of those commenters that suggest there should be a modified 
approval process and/or automatic approval of some low risk structures 
for the 4-year inspection cycle. However, the FHWA thinks it remains 
necessary at this time to retain a central approval process for the 4-
year cycle to minimize risk to the traveling public. Subject to bridge 
safety, approvals will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, and 
consideration will be given to unique and specific conditions 
identified in order to provide maximum flexibility to each requestor.
    Regarding the commenters who suggested there should be an 
inspection ``grace period,'' the FHWA proposes to retain and more 
clearly define the current 30-day grace period. It is thought that if a 
longer period were granted, it could be applied for several subsequent 
cycles, which could have an adverse impact on safety.
    The majority of commenters stated that it would be reasonable to 
increase the underwater inspection interval beyond 4 years for certain 
structures based on factors such as foundation type and materials, 
water quality and velocity, substructure material and condition. The 
majority of commenters also thought the current 5-year interval was 
appropriate for most structures. The New Jersey DOT, Department of the 
U.S. Navy and William Hovell, a private citizen, stated that the 
maximum interval for most structures should be reduced to 4 years to 
increase safety and to gain efficiency by conducting these inspections 
on a multiple of the ``routine inspection'' cycle. Several other 
commenters suggested that any increase in maximum frequency proposed by 
the FHWA should be an even-year cycle to coincide with routine 
inspection cycles.
    With the April 1987 collapse of New York's Schoharie Creek bridge, 
national attention turned to underwater inspection. According to the 
NBI, there are roughly 47,000 bridges or 8 percent of the inventory 
that require underwater inspection in some 49 States, the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico. The FHWA concurs with the majority of 
commenters, and proposes at Sec.  650.311(b), that the current 5-year 
(60 month) underwater inspection interval be maintained. Some 
commenters wanted a separate interval for underwater inspections from 
above water inspections that are conducted biennially. The FHWA 
continues to believe that the 5-year underwater inspection interval is 
a valid interval for the underwater inspection of a bridge pier and 
abutment substructures based on engineering judgment and review of NBI 
data.
    The FHWA proposes to add the option for States to apply for a 72 
month underwater inspection interval for certain bridges. In proposing 
the 72 month interval, the FHWA believes that applying engineering 
judgment and approval on a case-by-case basis to bridges with little or 
no change from inspection cycle to cycle in benign environments 
provides an adequate margin of safety to the motoring public. Industry 
standards, such as those provided by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE) in their ``Underwater Investigations Standard Practice 
Manual, 2001,'' \5\ promote a degree of latitude in the maximum 
interval between routine underwater inspections up to 6 years. The 
guidance they provide is tied to material, environment, scour and 
condition rating from previous inspections. While we are proposing an 
additional year beyond the current 60 month underwater inspection 
interval, we are taking into consideration these same factors of 
material composition (timber, steel, concrete, protected or unprotected 
steel or timber, composite), environment (benign or aggressive), scour 
(susceptibility to scour) and previous condition rating (excellent to 
failed). Based on our assessment, again on a case-by-case basis, the 
FHWA may approve requests not to exceed 72 months. This authorization 
can be rescinded at any time owing to structural degradation, adverse 
change in environment and presence of localized bridge scour. An 
example of a situation that may warrant an extended interval may 
include a highway bridge with concrete piles with no degradation over a 
lined irrigation canal carrying fresh water. An example of a situation 
that would not warrant approval would be a highway bridge over a high 
flow saltwater or brackish water environment, with structural piles 
showing degradation and subject to localized scour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This document may be obtained from ASCE, 1801 Alexander Bell 
Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-4400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four-year frequencies may be used, if desired, but retention of the 
60 month frequencies allows more flexibility to program managers. The 
FHWA also proposes to include a definition for ``underwater 
inspection'' at Sec.  650.305.
    Omaha Greene, a private citizen, and the Colorado and Oregon DOTs, 
stated that a firm inspection interval should be established for 
fracture critical member (FCM) inspections, and the first two of these 
three commenters thought the maximum interval should be 2 years.
    Based on the NBI, there are approximately 14,000 bridges or 2.4 
percent of the bridge inventory that require fracture critical member 
inspections in some 49 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico. The FHWA agrees with these commenters, and proposes at Sec.  
650.311(c) that FCM inspections be conducted at intervals not to exceed 
24 months, but that utilization of in-depth inspection and testing 
methods may exceed 24 months as outlined in an FCM Plan developed by 
the program manager. The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for 
``fracture critical inspection'' and ``fracture critical member'' at 
Sec.  650.305.
    Many commenters indicated that the level to which individual 
bridges should be inspected depends on a variety of factors that should 
be evaluated by the individual in charge of the inspection program.
    The FHWA proposes at Sec.  650.311(d) to provide the program 
manager with the discretion to determine the level and frequency of 
these inspections to

[[Page 53072]]

address damage, in-depth, and special inspections. The FHWA also 
proposes to define ``damage,'' ``in-depth,'' and ``special'' 
inspections in Sec.  650.305.

Proposed Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures

    The Oklahoma DOT, and Collins Engineers, Inc., noted that the level 
to which individual bridges should be inspected needed clarification. 
They suggested the type/depth of the inspection be determined by the 
individual in charge of the inspection program based on factors unique 
to the bridge.
    The FHWA proposes to replace section ``Inspection Procedures'' with 
a revised section also entitled ``Inspection Procedures.'' The FHWA 
agrees that the depth to which individual bridges should be inspected 
depends on such factors as age of the bridge, traffic characteristics, 
state of maintenance, and known deficiencies. The FHWA proposes in 
paragraph (a) of this section, that each bridge shall be inspected in 
accordance with the procedures in the AASHTO Manual. The FHWA 
determined that there is sufficient guidance in this manual to allow 
the program manager to establish the depth and type of inspections 
appropriate for each bridge without further direction in the NBIS.
    The FHWA proposes in paragraph (b) of this section, that at least 
one Team Leader be present at the bridge during inspections. The Team 
Leader being present is an existing requirement that is being 
emphasized. The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for 
``initial inspection'' in Sec.  650.305.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the current Sec.  650.303(c) with a 
new paragraph (c) and discuss the requirements for load rating and 
bridge posting. The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for 
``legal load,'' ``routine permit load,'' and ``operating rating'' at 
Sec.  650.305.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the current Sec.  650.303(d) with a 
new paragraph (d) that would place greater emphasis on actions taken 
pursuant to findings during the inspection as well as requiring the 
State or Federal agency to maintain reports on the results of all 
highway bridge inspections. We are proposing at Sec.  650.313(d) that 
records be maintained in the bridge file for the life of the bridge.
    The Pennsylvania, Oregon and Kansas DOT's, suggested the NBIS 
should require element level inspections to be performed and reported. 
The NBI ratings are thought by some to be too general. Those State 
transportation department's thought the element level data would be 
more meaningful to bridge owners for programming work. Those State 
transportation departments requested the annual submittal of NBI data 
should be made using element level bridge inspection data.
    The FHWA recognizes that element level data is more meaningful to 
bridge owners for programming work, and that the element level data can 
be converted for Federal use. The FHWA agrees it would be desirable to 
work toward that goal for the future. However, a significant amount of 
additional testing of the conversion program and development of 
apportionment calculations is needed.
    The Virginia DOT suggested the NBIS be expanded to promote both 
safety and maintenance evaluations. It felt States were already doing 
this as part of the inspection process, and that it should be a 
regulatory requirement.
    The FHWA agrees that safety and maintenance evaluations should be 
conducted along with the NBIS inspections. The need for safety and 
maintenance inspections is already emphasized sufficiently in the 
AASHTO and the Bridge Inspector's Reference Manuals, and need not be 
mandated in the NBIS.
    The Massachusetts DOT requested the NBIS contain a better 
definition of what is meant by ``unique or special feature.'' The NBIS 
requires that master lists of such structures be kept; however, this is 
difficult to do if it is not clear what falls under this definition. It 
was also suggested that procedures and manuals be developed for the 
inspection of segmental, cable-stayed and suspension bridges as well as 
procedures for underwater inspection of bridges and the creation of a 
diver's manual, similar to the ``Bridge Inspector's Training Manual 
(BITM).''\6\ The Advocates believe the requirements for listing of 
fracture critical and unique bridge features are appropriate. However, 
the Advocates believe underwater elements should be considered part of 
the bridge and also receive similar inspection priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The BITM/90 has been replaced with the Bridge Inspector's 
Reference Manual (BIRM), 2003, FHWA-NHI-03-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA agrees that the NBIS should define what is required in 
these master lists. Accordingly, the FHWA proposes at Sec.  650.313(e): 
to require the program manager to maintain only specific lists of 
fracture critical bridges, bridges requiring underwater inspection, 
scour critical bridges, and bridges subject to seismic damage.
    In paragraph (f), the FHWA proposes to replace Sec.  650.303(l). 
This proposed section would require the State or Federal agency to 
prepare an inspection plan for inspecting the fracture critical 
bridges.
    In paragraph (g), the FHWA proposes to replace Sec.  650.303(l)(2). 
This proposed section would require the State or Federal agency to 
prepare an inspection plan for inspecting bridges requiring underwater 
inspections. The plan would take into account the importance of 
underwater elements and contain procedures based on the risk of 
failure, as evaluated in the scour analysis required in paragraph (h).
    In paragraph (h), the FHWA proposes to include requirements for 
action plans and inspection of scour critical bridges. There are 
roughly 20,600 bridges or 3.5 percent of the NBI that are identified as 
being scour critical in virtually all States and Puerto Rico. This 
proposed section would require the State or Federal agency to prepare a 
plan to monitor and/or correct deficiencies for scour critical bridges. 
The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for ``scour'' and 
``scour critical'' at Sec.  650.305.
    In paragraph (i), the FHWA proposes to discuss inspection of 
bridges vulnerable to seismic damage and would require the State or 
Federal agency to establish a seismic damage vulnerability program as 
well as a plan to correct deficiencies in the bridge.
    The FHWA agrees that the NBIS should contain a better definition of 
what is meant by ``unique or special feature.'' Accordingly, the 
following changes are proposed at Sec.  650.313(j):
    1. A new category of ``complex'' bridges would be established with 
a more specific definition of applicable bridge types.
    2. An inspection plan would be required for each of the bridges 
falling in the ``complex'' category. Complex bridges would then be 
inspected in accordance with the plan.
    3. The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for ``complex 
bridge'' at Sec.  650.305.
    The Pennsylvania and Connecticut DOT's suggested a formal quality 
assurance (QA) program be required to verify inspection findings. The 
Oregon and South Dakota DOT's suggested that the QA provisions were 
enforced differently in each State and asked that the QA requirements 
be clarified. The specific reference to the Federal code requiring 
performance of the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the 
bridge inspection program should be clarified.
    The FHWA agrees that the regulation should specifically require QA/
QC of the bridge inspection program.

[[Page 53073]]

Accordingly, the following changes are proposed at Sec.  650.313(k):
    1. A new provision would be added to the NBIS that requires States 
to implement a systematic quality control and quality assurance 
program;
    2. No specific requirements would be given, but general guidelines 
would be provided to require the program to include periodic field 
review of inspection teams and their work to ensure uniformity and 
completeness and to review inspection reports and load rating 
computations; and
    3. The program would be required to be submitted to the FHWA for 
approval. This would allow the FHWA to work closely with the States to 
develop and implement these programs.
    The Oregon DOT suggested that the FHWA amend the NBIS to strengthen 
the need for critical follow-up and define what structures are required 
to be included. Additionally, the commenter requested that the FHWA 
clearly indicate a requirement for each State to initiate a process to 
follow-up on critical findings.
    The FHWA evaluated the need to strengthen the follow-up on critical 
findings and specify what structures are required to be included. The 
following changes are proposed at Sec.  650.313(l):
    1. A new provision would be added in the NBIS to require States to 
establish a critical follow-up program;
    2. The FHWA proposes to require that States notify the FHWA of 
actions taken to assure public safety in response to the critical 
findings reported by the inspectors; and
    3. The FHWA believes it is not appropriate to establish a 
nationwide definition of the criteria for which bridges should be 
included in the critical follow-up program. The FHWA proposes to allow 
the States the discretion, in cooperation with the FHWA, to define the 
criteria.

Proposed Section 650.315 Inventory

    Almost all comments received indicated that the NBIS reporting 
requirements were reasonable and need not be changed. The Florida DOT 
indicated that the States should be relieved of the requirement to 
maintain data on Federal agency bridges in its State. The Delaware DOT 
commented that the FHWA should not be concerned with the 90 or 180 days 
requirement that the State, Federal agency or other bridge owner has to 
enter new or changed data into their inventory.
    The FHWA proposes a ``Sec.  650.315 Inventory'' to replace the 
current ``Sec.  650.311 Inventory.'' In paragraph (a), the FHWA 
proposes to add language requiring Federal agencies to be responsible 
for the inspection, inventory and reporting of data regarding bridges 
under their authority/control. The FHWA feels that this will ensure the 
best representation of the bridges owned by the Federal agencies. This 
practice has been in place since 1995 and the language will reflect the 
current practice. Since the Federal agencies have been inventorying and 
reporting their own bridges, the number of federally owned bridges has 
grown from just over 4,000 to over 7,000 bridges. The FHWA also 
proposes in paragraph (a) to add language that will accommodate future 
changes/updates to the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure 
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' December 1995 (the 
Guide). The FHWA feels that this will clarify that the most current 
version of the Guide is to be used in instances where updates will be 
made to the Guide.
    In paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), the FHWA proposes to add language 
that will change the time that the Federal agency has to enter new or 
revised data into the inventory from 180 to 90 days from change in 
bridge status, bridge load restriction, bridge closure status or bridge 
inspection. The FHWA feels that this aligns better with the State 
requirements and is in the best interest of public safety and national 
security. In the event of a bridge catastrophe or national or statewide 
emergency, the State would have on hand the most current bridge 
information available.

Proposed Section 650.317 Reference Manuals

    There were no comments on this topic.
    The FHWA proposes to create a new section entitled ``Reference 
Manuals'' to incorporate a manual, the AASHTO Manual for Condition 
Evaluation of Bridges (AASHTO Manual) and its 2001 interim revision. 
The AASHTO Manual is referred to in the current NBIS but not 
incorporated by reference. This manual is discussed in the proposed 
NBIS, and provides good guidance for the inspection and evaluation of 
highway bridges, and for that reason needs to be incorporated by 
reference.
    While we are proposing to incorporate by reference the AASHTO 
Manual, it is important to note that the regulation on the NBIS, takes 
precedence over any guidance contained in the AASHTO manual. Where 
there may be implied or conflicting language between the two documents, 
the nationwide direction provided by the NBIS will always govern.

Related Rulemakings and Notices

    The FHWA is also in the process of reviewing 23 CFR part 650, 
subpart D, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 
(HBRRP). The FHWA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
for the HBRRP on September 26, 2001, at 66 FR 49152. Additionally, the 
FHWA published a final rule for 23 CFR part 650, subpart G, 
Discretionary Bridge Candidate Rating Factor on October 15, 2002, at 67 
FR 63539.
    For ease of reference the following distribution table is provided:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
650.301, first sentence................  650.303 Revised, purpose added.
650.301, second sentence...............  650.305 Revised, definition of
                                          terms added.
650.303(a), portion of first sentence..  650.307(a) and (c)(2) Revised,
                                          bridge inspection organization
                                          added.
None...................................  650.305 added.
Definitions:...........................  Definitions:
650.303(a) American Association of       Revised.
 State Highway Transportation Officials
 (AASHTO) Manual definition.
Bridge.................................  Bridge, revised.
None...................................  Bridge inspection experience,
                                          Added.
None...................................  Bridge inspector's reference
                                          manual, Added.
None...................................  Complex bridge, Added.
None...................................  Comprehensive bridge inspection
                                          training, Added.
None...................................  Damage inspection, Added.
None...................................  Fracture critical inspection,
                                          Added.
None...................................  Fracture critical member,
                                          Added.
None...................................  Hands-on, Added.

[[Page 53074]]

 
None...................................  In-depth inspection, Added.
None...................................  Initial inspection, Added.
None...................................  Legal load, Added.
None...................................  Load rating, Added.
None...................................  National Institute for
                                          Certification in Engineering
                                          Technologies (NICET), Added.
None...................................  Operating rating, Added.
None...................................  Program manager, Added.
None...................................  Routine inspection, Added.
None...................................  Routine permit load, Added.
None...................................  Scour, Added.
None...................................  Scour critical, Added.
None...................................  Special inspection, Added.
None...................................  Team leader, Added.
None...................................  Underwater inspection, Added.
650.303(b).............................  605.309 Revised.
650.303(c).............................  650.313(c) Revised.
650.303(d).............................  650.313(d) Revised.
650.303(e) introduction................  650.313(e) Revised.
650.303(e)(1) first sentence...........  650.313(f) Revised.
650.303(e)(1) second sentence..........  650.305 Revised.
650.303(e)(2) first sentence...........  650.305 Revised.
650.303(e)(2) second sentence..........  650.311(b)(1) Revised.
None...................................  650.313(k) Added.
650.303(e)(4)..........................  650.313(d) and (l) Revised.
650.305(a).............................  650.311(a)(1) Revised.
650.305(b).............................  650.311(a)(2) Revised.
650.305(c).............................  650.311(a)(3) Revised.
650.307(a) introduction................  650.307(d) Added; 650.309(a)
                                          Revised.
650.307(a)(1)..........................  650.309(a)(1) Revised.
650.307(a)(2) and (a)(3)...............  650.309(a)(2) Revised.
650.307(a)(3) Bridge Inspector's         650.305 Bridge Inspector's
 Training Manual.                         Reference Manual.
650.307(b).............................  650.309(b) Revised.
650.307(b)(1)..........................  650.309(b)(1) Revised.
650.307(b)(2)..........................  650.309(b)(3) Revised.
650.307(b)(3)..........................  650.309(b)(4) Revised.
650.309................................  650.313(d) Added second
                                          sentence.
650.311(a).............................  650.315(a) Revised.
650.311(b).............................  650.315(b), (c), (d) Revised.
None...................................  650.307(c) Added.
None...................................  650.307(c)(1) Added.
None...................................  650.307(e) Added.
None...................................  650.309(c) Added.
None...................................  650.309(d) Added.
None...................................  650.309(e) Added.
650.311(a).............................  650.315(a) Revised.
None...................................  650.311(b)(2) Added.
None...................................  650.311(b)(3) Added.
None...................................  650.311(c) Added.
None...................................  650.311(c)(1) Added.
None...................................  650.311(c)(2) Added.
None...................................  650.311(c)(3) Added.
None...................................  650.311(d) Added.
None...................................  650.313(a) Added.
None...................................  650.313(b) Added.
None...................................  650.313(g) Added.
None...................................  650.313(h) Added.
None...................................  650.313(i) Added.
None...................................  650.313(j) Added.
None...................................  650.313(k) Added.
None...................................  650.313(l) Added.
None...................................  650.317 Added.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the comment period closing date, and 
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new 
material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the 
comment period.

[[Page 53075]]

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would be a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 and would be significant within the meaning of the U. S. 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This 
action is considered significant because of the substantial public 
interest in the safety of highway bridges. It is anticipated that the 
economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal since funding the 
inventory of bridges is provided under 23 U.S.C. 144. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) designated this proposed regulation as a 
significant regulatory action and has reviewed it under E.O. 12866.
    These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material 
way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not 
interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would 
not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation 
is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 60 l-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed 
action on small entities. Since the proposed regulatory changes are 
primarily directed to the States, which are not considered small 
entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA 
is able to preliminarily certify that this proposed rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FHWA welcomes comments on this analysis.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 
1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 
U.S.C. 1532). Funding to inventory highway bridges, as well as 
inventory of Indian reservation and park road bridges, is currently 
provided under 23 U.S.C. 144, Highway bridge replacement and 
rehabilitation program (HBRRP). Bridge inspection is an eligible 
activity under the HBRRP and Federal funding is available to the States 
under the HBRRP.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and 
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposal will not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the 
FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed action 
would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the 
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA believes that this 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 is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. Currently, the State 
reporting requirements related to the National Bridge Inspection 
Standards are covered by an existing FHWA information collection 
entitled Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) Sheet. The SI&A 
sheets are used by the States to provide to the FHWA the required 
information on annual bridge inspections. The current annual burden 
imposed on the States under this information collection is 540,000 
hours. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-0501. OMB 
clearance will expire on April 30, 2004.
    The FHWA has determined that this proposed rulemaking would result 
in an additional 67,000 burden hours (12 percent increase) on the 
States. This is based on review of the national bridge inspection data 
coupled with the additional NBIS requirements this rulemaking action 
would impose on the States. These additional requirements include 
development of seismic damage vulnerability and quality control/quality 
assurance programs; procedures for follow-up on critical findings; 
State-agency agreements; and comprehensive bridge inspection training. 
The revised total annual burden on the States would be 607,000 hours.
    The FHWA will submit to the OMB the required clearance request 
documents to cover the additional burden hours at the time this 
proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. The FHWA is 
required to submit this proposed collection of information to OMB for 
review and approval, 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.

[[Page 53076]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and has 
determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the 
quality of the environment.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant 
energy action under that order, because although it is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 it is not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650

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

    Issued on: September 2, 2003.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend, 
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 650, subpart C, as set 
forth below:

PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS

    1. The authority citation for part 650 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 (a) and (h), 144, 151, 315, and 319; 23 
CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b), E.O. 11988 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 117); 
Department of Transportation Order 5650.2 dated April 23, 1979 (44 
FR 24678); section 161 of Public Law 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097, 3135; 
section 4(b) of Public Law 97-134, 95 Stat. 1699; 33 U.S.C. 401, 491 
et seq., 511 et seq.; and section 1057 of Public Law 102-240, 105 
Stat. 2002.

    2. Revise subpart C to read as follows:

Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards

Sec.
650.301 Purpose.
650.303 Applicability.
650.305 Definitions.
650.307 Bridge inspection organization.
650.309 Qualifications of personnel.
650.311 Inspection frequency.
650.313 Inspection procedures.
650.315 Inventory.
650.317 Reference Manuals.

Subpart C---National Bridge Inspection Standards


Sec.  650.301  Purpose.

    This regulation sets the national standards for the proper safety 
inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges in accordance with 23 
U.S.C. 151.


Sec.  650.303  Applicability.

    The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in this part apply 
to all structures defined as highway bridges located on all public 
roads.


Sec.  650.305  Definitions.

    Terms used in this regulation are defined as follows:
    American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) Manual. ``Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges,'' 1994, 
second edition, published by the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials. [A copy of the AASHTO Manual may be 
obtained upon payment in advance by writing to the American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol Street, 
NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001. The AASHTO Manual may also be 
ordered via the AASHTO bookstore located at http://www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/FrontPage.]
    Bridge. A structure including supports erected over a depression or 
an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track 
or passageway for carrying vehicular traffic or other moving loads, and 
having an opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 
20 feet between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or 
extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it may also include 
multiple pipes, where the clear distance between openings is less than 
half of the smaller contiguous opening.
    Bridge inspection experience. Active participation in bridge 
inspections in accordance with the NBIS, in either a field inspection, 
supervisory, or management role. A combination of bridge design, 
maintenance, construction and bridge inspection experience, with the 
predominant amount being bridge inspection, is acceptable.
    Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM). A comprehensive FHWA 
manual on programs, procedures and techniques for inspecting and 
evaluating a variety of in-service highway bridges. This manual may be 
purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office bookstore, Room 118, 
Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
    Complex bridge. Movable, suspension, cable stayed, prestressed 
concrete segmental, long span arches and other bridges with unusual or 
complex designs.
    Comprehensive bridge inspection training. A minimum of 80 hours of 
training that covers all aspects of bridge inspection and enables 
inspectors to relate conditions observed on a bridge to established 
criteria (see the Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual for the 
recommended material to be covered in a comprehensive training course).
    Damage inspection. An unscheduled inspection to assess structural 
damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions.
    Fracture critical inspection. A detailed, visual, close-up, hands-
on inspection that may include other non-destructive evaluation of 
fracture critical members.
    Fracture critical member. A steel member in tension, or with a 
tension element, whose failure would probably cause a portion of or the 
entire bridge to collapse.
    Hands-on. Inspection of bridge components conducted with the 
inspector being within arms length of the component. Inspection is 
performed using visual techniques that are supplemented by 
nondestructive testing.
    In-depth inspection. A close-up, hands-on inspection of one or more 
members above or below the water level to identify any deficiencies not 
readily detectable using routine inspection procedures.
    Initial inspection. The first inspection of a bridge as it becomes 
a part of the bridge file to provide all Structural Inventory and 
Appraisal (SI&A) data and other relevant data and to determine baseline 
structural conditions.
    Legal load. The maximum legal load for each vehicle configuration 
permitted by law for the State in which the bridge is located.
    Load rating. The determination of the live load carrying capacity 
of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by information gathered 
from a field inspection.
    National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies 
(NICET).

[[Page 53077]]

NICET provides nationally applicable voluntary certification programs 
covering several broad engineering technology fields and a number of 
specialized subfields. For information on the NICET program 
certification contact: National Institute for Certification in 
Engineering Technologies, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2794.
    Operating rating. The maximum permissible live load to which the 
structure may be subjected for the load configuration used in the 
rating.
    Program Manager. The individual in charge of the unit, that has 
been assigned or delegated the duties and responsibilities for bridge 
inspection, reporting, or inventory. The program manager provides 
overall leadership and is available to inspection team leaders to 
provide guidance.
    Routine inspection. Regularly scheduled inspection consisting of 
observations and/or measurements needed to determine the physical and 
functional condition of the bridge, to identify any changes from 
initial or previously recorded conditions, and to ensure that the 
structure continues to satisfy present service requirements. Areas of 
the bridge to be closely monitored based on previous inspection 
findings or found to be of concern during the current regular 
inspection must be inspected using in-depth inspection procedures, 
either during the current regular inspection or as a follow-up in-depth 
inspection.
    Routine permit load. A live load, higher than the legal load, 
authorized to move along side other heavy vehicles on a regular basis.
    Scour. Erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water; 
often considered as being localized around piers and abutments of 
bridges.
    Scour critical. A bridge, whose foundation has been determined to 
be unstable for the assessed, observed or calculated scour condition.
    Special inspection. An inspection scheduled at the discretion of 
the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected 
deficiency.
    Team leader. Individual in charge of an inspection team responsible 
for planning, preparing, and performing field inspection of the bridge.
    Underwater inspection. Inspection of the underwater portion of a 
bridge substructure and the surrounding channel, which cannot be 
inspected visually at low water by wading or probing, generally 
requiring diving or other appropriate techniques.


Sec.  650.307  Bridge inspection organization.

    (a) Each State transportation department must inspect, or cause to 
be inspected, all highway bridges located on public roads that are 
fully or partially located within the State's boundaries, except for 
bridges that are owned by Federal agencies.
    (b) Federal agencies must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all 
highway bridges located on public roads that are fully or partially 
located within the respective agency responsibility or jurisdiction.
    (c) Each State transportation department or Federal agency must 
include a bridge inspection organization that is responsible for the 
following:
    (1) Statewide or Federal agency wide bridge inspection policies and 
procedures, quality assurance, and bridge inventory.
    (2) Bridge inspections, reports, load ratings and other 
requirements of these standards.
    (d) Each State transportation department may delegate bridge 
inspections, reports, load ratings and other requirements of these 
standards to public authorities. Delegation does not relieve the State 
transportation department of any of its responsibilities under this 
subpart. Delegation must be made according to State law or a fully 
executed agreement, which clearly states in writing the roles and 
responsibilities of all agencies and entities involved.
    (e) Each organizational unit with the responsibilities identified 
in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section, including each 
organizational unit of an Agency with delegated authority to perform 
bridge inspections, reports, load ratings and other requirements of 
these standards, must be led by a program manager with qualifications 
defined in Sec.  650.309.


Sec.  650.309  Qualifications of personnel.

    (a) A program manager must possess, at a minimum, the following 
qualifications:
    (1) Be a registered professional engineer, or have ten years bridge 
inspection experience; and,
    (2) Successfully completed a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course prior to or 
within 12 months of becoming a Program Manager. Previous FHWA approved 
comprehensive bridge inspection training is also acceptable.
    (b) A team leader must possess, at a minimum, the following 
qualifications:
    (1) Have the qualifications specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section, or
    (2) Have all of the following:
    (i) A bachelor's degree in professional engineering from a college 
or university accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Committee of 
the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (EAC/ABET);
    (ii) Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for 
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering 
examination;
    (iii) Two years of bridge inspection experience; and
    (iv) Successfully completed a FHWA approved comprehensive bridge 
inspection training course, or
    (3) Have five years bridge inspection experience and have 
successfully completed a FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training course; or
    (4) Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under 
the National Society of Professional Engineer's program for National 
Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) and have successfully 
completed a FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training 
course.
    (c) The individual charged with the overall responsibility for 
determining load ratings of bridges must be a registered professional 
engineer.
    (d) Program managers and team leaders must complete FHWA approved 
bridge inspection refresher training every five years.
    (e) An underwater bridge inspection diver must complete an FHWA 
approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course or other FHWA 
approved underwater bridge inspection training course.


Sec.  650.311  Inspection frequency.

    (a) Routine inspections.
    (1) Inspect each bridge at regular intervals not to exceed twenty-
four months.
    (2) Certain bridges require inspection at less than twenty-four 
month intervals. The program manager determines the level and frequency 
to which these bridges are inspected considering such factors as age, 
traffic characteristics, and known deficiencies.
    (3) State or Federal agencies may inspect certain types of bridges 
at greater than twenty-four month intervals, not to exceed forty-eight 
months, with the FHWA's approval. This may be appropriate when past 
inspection findings and analysis justifies the increased inspection 
interval.
    (b) Underwater inspections.
    (1) Inspect underwater structural members at regular intervals not 
to exceed sixty months.

[[Page 53078]]

    (2) Certain underwater structural members require inspection at 
less than sixty month intervals. The program manager determines the 
level and frequency to which these members are inspected considering 
such factors as construction material, environment, age, scour 
characteristics, condition rating from past inspections and known 
deficiencies.
    (3) State or Federal agencies may inspect some underwater 
structural members at greater than sixty-month intervals, not to exceed 
seventy-two months, with the FHWA's approval. This may be appropriate 
when past inspection findings and analysis justifies the increased 
inspection interval.
    (c) Fracture critical member (FCM) inspections.
    (1) Inspect FCMs at intervals not to exceed twenty-four months.
    (2) Certain FCMs require inspection at less than twenty-four month 
intervals. The program manager determines the level and frequency to 
which these members are inspected considering such factors as age, 
traffic characteristics, and known deficiencies.
    (3) Nondestructive testing or other specialized techniques beyond 
visual inspection must follow the frequency specified in the FCM 
inspection plan discussed in Sec.  650.313(f) and may exceed the 
twenty-four month interval.
    (d) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. The program manager 
determines the level and frequency of these inspections.


Sec.  650.313  Inspection procedures.

    (a) Inspect each bridge in accordance with the inspection 
procedures in the AASHTO Manual.
    (b) Provide at least one team leader, who meets the minimum 
qualifications stated in Sec.  650.309, at the bridge at all times 
during each initial, routine, in-depth, fracture critical, special and 
underwater inspection.
    (c) Rate each highway bridge as to its safe load-carrying capacity 
in accordance with the AASHTO Manual. Post the bridge in conformity 
with the AASHTO Manual or in accordance with State law, if the maximum 
unrestricted legal load or routine permit load under State law exceeds 
the load allowed under the operating rating or equivalent rating 
factor.
    (d) Prepare bridge files as described in the AASHTO manual. 
Maintain reports on the results of highway bridge inspections together 
with notations of any action taken pursuant to the findings of such 
inspections. Maintain the records in the bridge file for the life of 
the bridge. Record the findings and results of bridge inspections on 
standard forms found in the Recording and Coding Guide for the 
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) The program manager must identify and maintain a list of 
bridges with FCMs, bridges requiring underwater inspection, bridges 
that are scour critical, and bridges that are vulnerable to seismic 
damage.
    (f) Fracture critical bridges. For each fracture critical bridge, 
prepare an FCM inspection plan containing the location and description 
of FCMs, the inspection frequency, and the inspection procedures. 
Inspect FCMs according to the FCM inspection plan.
    (g) Bridges requiring underwater inspections. Develop a plan 
containing a description of the underwater elements, the inspection 
frequency and the procedures. Inspect those bridges requiring 
underwater inspections according to the plan.
    (h) Scour critical bridges. For each scour critical bridge, prepare 
an action plan to monitor and/or correct deficiencies. Scour critical 
bridges should be inspected after a major flood event.
    (i) Bridges vulnerable to seismic damage. Establish a seismic 
damage vulnerability program to evaluate the adequacy of existing 
bridges to resist damage from earthquakes and an action plan to correct 
deficiencies.
    (j) Complex bridges. For each complex bridge prepare an inspection 
plan that includes specialized inspection needs and additional 
inspector training and/or experience required. Inspect complex bridges 
according to the plan.
    (k) Quality control/quality assurance program. Provide systematic 
quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) to maintain the 
accuracy and consistency of the inspection program. Include periodic 
field review of inspection teams, and the review of reports and 
computations by a person other than the originating individual. Submit 
documentation of the QC/QA Program to the FHWA for approval.
    (l) Follow-up on critical findings. Establish a Statewide or 
Federal agency-wide procedure to assure that critical findings are 
addressed in a timely manner. Notify the FHWA of the actions taken to 
assure public safety.


Sec.  650.315  Inventory.

    (a) Each State and Federal agency must prepare and maintain an 
inventory of all bridges subject to the NBIS. Certain structure 
inventory and appraisal (SI&A) data must be collected and retained by 
the State and Federal agency for collection by the FHWA as requested. A 
tabulation of this data is contained in the SI&A sheet distributed by 
the FHWA as part of the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure 
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' (December 1995) 
together with subsequent interim changes or the most recent version. 
Report the data using FHWA established procedures as outlined in the 
``Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal 
of the Nation's Bridges.''
    (b) For all types of inspection listed in Sec.  650.313(b), enter 
SI&A data into the State or Federal agency inventory not to exceed 90 
days for State and Federal agency bridges and within 180 days for all 
other bridges after the date of inspection.
    (c) For existing bridge modifications that alter previously 
recorded data and for new bridges, enter SI&A data into the State or 
Federal agency inventory not to exceed 90 days for State and Federal 
agency bridges and within 180 days for all other bridges after the 
completion of the work.
    (d) For changes in load restriction or closure status, enter SI&A 
data into the State or Federal agency inventory not to exceed 90 days 
for State and Federal agency bridges and within 180 days for all other 
bridges after the change in status.


Sec.  650.317  Reference Manuals.

    The documents listed in this section are incorporated by reference 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and are on file at the Office of 
the Federal Register in Washington, DC. They are available as noted in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (a) Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 1994 second 
edition, AASHTO. [See Sec.  650.317 (c)(1)].
    (b) 2001 Interim Revisions to the Manual for Condition Evaluation 
of Bridges, AASHTO. [See Sec.  650.317 (c)(1)].
    (c) Availability of documents incorporated by reference. The 
documents listed in Sec.  650.317 are incorporated by reference and are 
on file and available for inspection at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. 
These documents may also be reviewed at the Department of 
Transportation Library, 400 Seventh

[[Page 53079]]

Street, SW., Washington, DC, in Room 2200. These documents are also 
available for inspection and copying as provided in 49 CFR part 7. 
Copies of these documents may be obtained from the following 
organization:
    (1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001.
    (2) [Reserved].

[FR Doc. 03-22807 Filed 9-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P