[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41282-41309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16929]



[[Page 41281]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 213 and 237



Bridge Safety Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 41282]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 237

[Docket No. FRA 2009-0014, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC04


Bridge Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is establishing Federal safety requirements for railroad 
bridges. This final rule requires track owners to implement bridge 
management programs, which include annual inspections of railroad 
bridges, and to audit the programs. This final rule also requires track 
owners to know the safe load capacity of bridges and to conduct special 
inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such 
inspections.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Chief 
Engineer--Structures, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6320); or Sarah 
Grimmer Yurasko, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20950 (telephone: (202) 493-6390).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges
    A. General
    B. Guidelines
    C. Regulatory History
II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview
III. RSAC Railroad Bridge Working Group
IV. Response to Public Comment
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Environmental Impact
    E. Federalism Implications
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Energy Impact
    H. Privacy Act Statement

Background

I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges

A. General

    There are nearly 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States. 
These bridges are owned by over 600 different entities. The bridges 
vary in length, load capacity, design, and construction material. 
Everything that is shipped or transported via rail likely travels 
across one or more railroad bridges. Thus, everything from intermodal 
goods, automobiles, grain, coal, hazardous materials, and passengers is 
transported on the nation's rail system and therefore across railroad 
bridges.
    The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is 
important to the safety of railroad employees and to the public. The 
responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges rests with the owner 
of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to 
whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner. The 
severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a bridge is 
involved, regardless of the cause of the accident.
    Beginning in 1991, FRA conducted a review of the safety of railroad 
bridges. The review was prompted by the agency's perception that the 
bridge population was aging, traffic density and loads were increasing 
on many routes, and the consequences of a bridge failure could be 
catastrophic. During the past five decades, not one fatality has been 
caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge. Train accidents 
caused by the structural failure of railroad bridges have been 
extremely rare.
    Although the average construction date of railroad bridges predates 
most highway bridges by several decades, the older railroad bridges 
were designed to carry heavy steam locomotives. Design factors were 
generally conservative, and the bridges' functional designs permit 
repairs and reinforcements when necessary to maintain their viability. 
Railroad bridges are most often privately, rather than publicly, owned. 
Their owners seem to recognize the economic consequences of neglecting 
important maintenance. Private ownership enables the railroads to 
control the loads that operate over their bridges. Cars and locomotives 
exceeding the nominal capacity of a bridge are allowed on a bridge only 
with permission from the responsible bridge engineers, and then only 
under restrictions and conditions that protect the integrity of the 
bridge.
    Many railroad bridges display superficial signs of deterioration 
but still retain the capacity to safely carry their loads. Corrosion on 
a bridge is not a safety issue unless a critical area sees significant 
loss of material. Routine inspections are prescribed to detect this 
condition, but determination of its effect requires a detailed 
inspection and analysis of the bridge. In general, timber bridges 
continue to function safely, and masonry structures built as early as 
the 1830s remain functional and safe for their traffic. Of the few 
train accidents that involved bridges, most have not been caused by 
structural failure. FRA accident records for the 27 years 1982 through 
2008 show 58 train accidents that were caused by the structural failure 
of railroad bridges. These accidents resulted in nine reportable 
injuries and a reported $26,555,878 in damages to railroad facilities, 
cars and locomotives.

B. Guidelines

    On April 27, 1995, FRA issued an Interim Statement of Policy on the 
Safety of Railroad Bridges. Published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 
20654, the interim statement included a request for comments to be 
submitted to FRA during a 60-day period following publication. On 
August 30, 2000, FRA published a Final Statement of Agency Policy on 
the Safety of Railroad Bridges (``policy statement''). See 65 FR 52667. 
With the policy, FRA established criteria for railroads to use to 
ensure the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks, 
which reflected minor changes following public comment on the interim 
statement. Unlike regulations under which FRA ordinarily issues 
violations and assesses civil penalties, the policy statement contained 
guidelines for the proper maintenance of bridge structures and is 
advisory in nature.
    On October 16, 2008, President Bush signed into law, the Railroad 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, Division A 
(``RSIA''). Section 417 of the RSIA directs FRA to issue regulations 
requiring railroad track owners to adopt and follow specific procedures 
to protect the safety of their bridges. Prior to the passage of the 
RSIA, FRA had already begun work on revising the policy statement. On 
January 13, 2009, FRA published an amendment to the policy statement by 
incorporating changes proposed by the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (``RSAC'') on September 10, 2008. RSAC developed a list of 
essential elements of railroad bridge management programs (``essential 
elements'') which make up the bulk of the amendment. See 74 FR 157. All 
aspects of the policy statement that are not incorporated into the 
regulatory text of part 237 are now found in its appendix A.

C. Regulatory History

    On August 17, 2009, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) as a first step in the agency's promulgation of bridge safety

[[Page 41283]]

regulations as mandated by the RSIA. See 74 FR 41558. FRA received 
comments from eight parties, including two professional engineers, the 
Alaska Railroad Corporation, Maryland Department of Transportation 
(``Maryland DOT''), Iowa Department of Transportation (``Iowa DOT''), 
RailAmerica, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). FRA will 
address the concerns raised by the comments in the text below.
    This final rule is the culmination of FRA's efforts to develop and 
promulgate bridge safety standards. In the Section-by-Section Analysis, 
below, FRA will discuss how the regulatory text addresses each portion 
of the RSIA.

II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview

    In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for 
developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on 
rulemakings and other safety program issues. The RSAC includes 
representation from all of the industry's major stakeholders, including 
railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other 
interested parties. A list of RSAC members follows:

American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO);
American Chemistry Council;
American Petrochemical Institute;
American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
Association of American Railroads (AAR);
Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Chlorine Institute;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
Fertilizer Institute;
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
Institute of Makers of Explosives;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*;
League of Railway Industry Women*;
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway Business Women*;
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association;
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*;
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America (STA);
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte*;
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
Transport Canada*;
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.

    When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the 
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the 
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop 
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations 
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more 
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a 
given task. The task force then provides that information to the 
working group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous 
consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to 
the full RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple 
majority of RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then 
determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff 
plays an active role at the working group level in discussing the 
issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus 
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC 
recommendation.
    However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the recommendation, and 
the agency exercises its independent judgment on whether the 
recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is soundly 
supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal requirements. 
Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC recommendation in 
developing the actual regulatory proposal or final rule. Any such 
variations would be noted and explained in the rulemaking document 
issued by FRA. If the working group or RSAC is unable to reach 
consensus on recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the 
issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.

III. RSAC Railroad Bridge Working Group

    RSAC on February 20, 2008, agreed to accept the task of reviewing 
FRA's railroad bridge safety policies and activities, and to make 
appropriate recommendations to FRA to improve the bridge safety 
program. RSAC accordingly established a Railroad Bridge Working Group 
(Working Group), composed of representatives of the various 
organizations on the RSAC and including persons with particular 
expertise in railroad bridge safety and management. The Working Group 
met on April 24-25, 2008, June 12, 2008, and August 7, 2008. On 
September 10, 2008, the full RSAC voted on the Working Group's report, 
Essential Elements of Railroad Bridge Management Programs, and 
recommended that FRA incorporate it into FRA's Statement of Agency 
Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges. The Working Group met again 
on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24, 2009, to recommend rule 
text to address the RSIA's mandate to FRA in Section 417 to promulgate 
bridge safety regulations. The Working Group reached consensus on 
proposed regulatory text which made up most of the provisions of the 
NPRM.
    After the NPRM comment period closed, the Working Group reconvened 
on December 15, 2009, to review the comments and offer additional 
advice on how FRA should proceed with the final rule. Due to time 
constraints, FRA elected to seek advice from the Working Group 
regarding the public comments and possible revisions to the NPRM rather 
than asking the group and the full RSAC to formally provide 
recommendations regarding the final rule.

IV. Response to Public Comment

    As mentioned above, FRA received eight comments to the NPRM. 
Comments were submitted by a variety of affected parties, including 
individual professional engineers, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, 
RailAmerica, two state DOTs, the AAR and the ASLRRA. FRA reviewed the 
comments with the Working Group and FRA staff also extensively reviewed 
and evaluated the

[[Page 41284]]

comments. In this section, FRA will respond to comments regarding the 
application of the bridge rule, the responsibility for compliance, 
definitions, adoption of bridge management programs, the definition of 
a railroad bridge engineer, the determination of bridge load 
capacities, bridge inspection records, and other general comments. FRA 
is also responding to some of the smaller concerns within the section-
by-section analysis.

Application

    Mr. Wayne Duffet, P.E., commented that FRA proposed that this part 
apply to tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads 
are entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. He observed that, 
as written, the rule applies to every bridge with a gauge of two feet 
or more, that handles trains, regardless of whether part of the general 
railroad system. The comment requests clarification on two points: 
whether the rule applies to a tourist railroad that is not part of the 
general railroad system, and whether the rule applies to a two-foot 
gage bridge within an amusement park.
    FRA notes that a ``tourist railroad'' comes under the uniform FRA 
definition of the term ``railroad'' as found at 49 CFR 209.3 and within 
the meaning of the Federal railroad safety statutes as found at 49 
U.S.C. 20102(1)(A). Tourist railroads move passengers by the use of 
track and equipment that, taken together, would commonly be described 
as a ``railroad,'' and their operations pose a distinct risk to the 
safety of the public. ``An installation which is not part of the 
general railroad system of transportation and over which trains are not 
run by a railroad'' refers to tracks located within an industrial 
operation where rolling equipment is moved only by and for the account 
of that particular industry. If a railroad as defined in 49 CFR 209.3 
operates over a bridge inside such an installation, then this 
regulation applies to that bridge and to the owner of track on that 
bridge.
    Specifically as to tourist railroad operations, FRA exercises 
jurisdiction over tourist operations whether or not they are conducted 
on the ``general railroad system of transportation'' (``general 
system''), which is defined as ``the network of standard gage track 
over which goods may be transported throughout the nation.'' Appendix A 
to 49 CFR part 209. The only exceptions where FRA typically does not 
exercise jurisdiction are for tourist operations on track gage that is 
less than 24 inches and tourist operations that are off of the general 
system and are ``insular.'' A tourist operation is considered 
``insular'' if its operations are limited to a separate enclave in such 
a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of any 
member of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of the 
tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be 
affected by the operation. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. FRA does, 
however, exercise limited jurisdiction over tourist railroads that do 
not operate on the general system, but that are non-insular. 
Specifically, FRA will consider a railroad to be non-insular if one or 
more of the following exist on its line: A public highway-rail crossing 
that is in use; an at-grade rail crossing that is in use; a bridge over 
a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or a common 
corridor with another railroad. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. With 
respect to this rule, FRA is exercising jurisdiction over all tourist 
and excursion operations regardless of whether they are insular or not.
    Maryland DOT requested an explanation of the definition of the 
``general railroad system of transportation'' as it applies to urban 
rapid transit operations as set forth in the rule. FRA replies that 
Sec.  237.1(b) is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 20102(1)(B) and 49 CFR 
213.3(b)(2), which exempt ``track used exclusively for rapid transit 
operations in urban areas that are not connected with the general 
system of transportation'' from the application of that regulation. If 
an urban rapid transit system operates over the general system, FRA 
will exercise jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit operation to 
the extent that it is connected to the general system. In situations in 
which an urban rapid transit operation has a minor connection to the 
general system, i.e., at a highway-rail grade crossing, FRA will 
exercise limited jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit system and 
only to the extent necessary to ensure safety at the points of 
connection for that system, the general system, and the public.

Responsibility for compliance

    AAR noted that there are numerous tracks on railroad bridges that 
have been leased by their owners to other companies. The proposed 
bridge rule attempted to account for these historical leases by 
providing that where an owner of the track over the bridge has assigned 
responsibility for the track to another company and FRA has been 
notified pursuant to 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification under 
part 237 for the bridge is not needed. This is because part 237 places 
responsibility for the bridge with the person to whom responsibility 
for the track has been assigned and recognized pursuant to part 213. 
AAR is concerned that there will be situations where notification 
pursuant to Sec.  213.5(c) has not taken place, and argues that 
notification might not have taken place because the lease was entered 
into before Sec.  213.5 was adopted. AAR explains that there might be 
other reasons notification did not take place or a railroad might 
simply be unable to determine whether notification occurred. If it 
cannot be established that notification did occur, AAR argues that the 
rule, literally interpreted, might not permit FRA to hold the lessee 
responsible for compliance even though, as a practical matter, the 
lessee controls the track and bridge and is performing all functions 
related to track and bridge safety. AAR suggests FRA address the issue 
of historical leases by adding regulatory text which states that FRA 
may hold a lessee of track to which this part applies responsible for 
compliance with this part where the lessee exercises control over the 
track.
    This provision follows the use of the term ``owner of track'' in 
the Track Safety Standards at 49 CFR part 213. FRA believes that it 
would be confusing and inconsistent for FRA to define an ``owner of 
track'' differently in two different parts of the Rail Safety 
Standards. FRA advises an owner of track to resubmit a notification of 
assignment if the owner is uncertain whether an assignment has been 
made. However, assignment does not relieve a track owner of compliance 
with part 237, as Sec.  237.3(c) states that FRA can always hold the 
track owner responsible for compliance with the bridge safety 
standards.
    Maryland DOT noted that its state highway administration, and 
several counties in the state, own and inspect several railroad-
carrying bridges. Unstated, but implicit in the comment, is that while 
the state highway administration owns the bridge, the track is owned by 
a third party. Maryland DOT states that in accordance with this 
section, however, the state highway administration would not be 
responsible for compliance with this rule, since the ``track owner'' is 
responsible. In addition, several counties own railroad-carrying 
bridges as well.
    FRA replies that the rule does not alter the financial 
responsibility of a highway agency that owns, inspects and maintains 
railroad bridges. The rule does, however, hold the track owner 
responsible to assure that the inspections and maintenance are 
performed correctly by qualified and

[[Page 41285]]

designated persons. The track owner would be permitted to accept work 
performed by a highway agency provided that it conforms to the 
requirements of this part. FRA also notes that instances have arisen in 
which state agencies have performed inspections and evaluations in 
which a state-owned railroad bridge was found to be seriously 
deficient, and where the operating railroad was never notified or 
advised of the problem. FRA accident records include at least one such 
instance in which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a 
catastrophic train accident, an accident which occurred on the Southern 
Railroad of New Jersey on August 12, 1999. This provision is intended, 
partly, to prevent such a loss of vital communication among the 
concerned parties
    Maryland DOT also questions whether the track owner could assign 
responsibility to someone else. If one of these railroads requests the 
state agency to be the responsible party for the FRA inspection, they 
would consider refusing the request because they would have to be in 
compliance with the whole program, which would require a railroad 
bridge engineer, railroad bridge inspectors and a railroad bridge 
management program.
    FRA responds that, in any case of assignment of responsibility, the 
assignee must first accept the assignment before it can become 
effective. See Sec.  237.3(b)(6). The final rule states that the track 
owner must send a written notification of assignment to FRA at least 30 
days in advance of the assignment, and that the notification must 
include a statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the 
assignment. A notification that did not include an acknowledging 
statement would not comply with Sec.  237.3(b)(6), and FRA would 
disregard the assignment.

Definitions

    FRA received three comments regarding the definition of a railroad 
bridge. The comments suggested that the definition of a railroad bridge 
is either not broad enough or too broad and that there is an 
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge and the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) definition of a bridge. FRA 
intends the explanations in this response to clarify that the 
definition of a railroad bridge is consistent with long-held industry 
practice and is neither too broad nor too narrow.
    One commenter suggested that the definition of a bridge be changed 
to ``any structure with an open deck.'' FRA replies that the regulatory 
definition of a bridge includes open decks, ballast decks, and solid 
decks. Essentially, a bridge deck is the component of the bridge upon 
which the track is supported, and which is subject to bending stresses 
from trains moving over it.
    Another comment requests an explanation of an apparent 
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge in this rule, 
and the definition of a bridge used by the FHWA, which defines a bridge 
as a structure with a span length of 20 feet or more. FRA responds that 
railroad bridges differ greatly from highway bridges in many respects, 
particularly in regard to the nature of the heavy live load which they 
support. This definition represents the consensus of all parties in the 
Working Group and is consistent with long-held railroad industry 
practice.
    A third commenter suggests that the railroad bridge definition is 
broad and potentially includes types of structures that are affected by 
track live loads that have not previously been managed as bridges. 
These structures may include waterfront structures such as piers and 
wharves, mechanical shop structures including drop tables and 
inspection pits, as well as scales, large culverts and potentially even 
various types of retaining walls that have under-grade structural 
layout features that could be interpreted to be span lengths of 10 feet 
or more.
    FRA replies that piers and wharves, scales, and other structures 
that carry railroad track and meet the span definition of a bridge are 
included under this regulation. Retaining walls and other roadbed 
structures are not included, because they do not carry track on a span 
over a gap. Additionally, culverts with a span of 10 feet or greater 
are also subject to this regulation and must be included in track 
owner's bridge management program.

Adoption of Bridge Management Programs

    Three comments addressed concerns with the adoption of bridge 
management programs. Maryland DOT asked if the regulations 
``distinguish between Transit Railroads or short-lines, or rail traffic 
volume,'' and requested that FRA define Class I and II carriers and the 
general railroad system. ASLRRA remarks that some design documents for 
each bridge might be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. ASLRRA 
proposes that all documentation required by the rule be completed no 
later than five years following the program's adoption. This would 
allow for the search and retrieval, or replication, of required 
documentation over more realistic time frames, as well as the 
allocation of necessary expense over a longer, and possibly less 
impacting, period of time. The Alaska Railroad Corporation requests 
that the bridge management program adoption time be extended to the 
effective date of the final rule plus one year. The additional time is 
necessary for inventory and database development of all structures 
covered by the regulation, as seasonal climatic conditions will 
potentially make some of these structures on the Alaska Railroad 
inaccessible until early summer 2010.
    With regard to the first concern, FRA replies that the Surface 
Transportation Board defines the class of railroad at 49 CFR part 1201, 
based on the carrier's annual operating revenue. This section specifies 
time periods for program adoption according to the type of railroad, 
not according to railroad traffic volume or load intensity. By 
``general railroad system of transportation,'' FRA refers to the 
network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported 
throughout the nation and passengers may travel between cities and 
within metropolitan and suburban areas. See appendix A to 49 CFR part 
209.
    Regarding the second comment, ASLRRA's proposal is consistent with 
the proposed rule. Pursuant to Sec.  237.33(c), the program, when 
adopted by a track owner, need only incorporate a provision to obtain 
and maintain the design documents of each bridge if available, and to 
document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge. 
There is no deadline for acquisition of these documents. FRA 
anticipates that the priorities for acquisition of archived bridge 
design documents would closely follow their usefulness in determining 
bridge capacities.
    To address the Alaska Railroad Corporation's concerns, FRA replies 
that the bridge inventory need not be complete in all of its details at 
the time of adoption of a railroad's bridge management program. It is 
reasonable to expect that an adopted program would specify the format 
for recording the inventory information, or ``bridge list,'' and that 
information readily available from existing records, such as valuation 
maps, could be used to initially populate the data base. After that, 
additions and refinements to that information would be generated by 
normal inspection work.

[[Page 41286]]

Railroad Bridge Engineer

    AAR noted in its comment that the NPRM reference to the 
``Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)'' is 
obsolete in that the organization has changed its name to ABET, Inc. 
AAR further notes that ABET Inc. only accredits engineering education 
programs in the United States, but mutually recognizes programs 
accredited by corresponding organizations in other nations. The same 
commenter notes an ambiguity in the term ``licensed scope of practice'' 
as it applies to the professional practice of engineering.
    FRA acknowledges the concern regarding ABET, Inc., and has changed 
the reference in the regulatory text to ABET, Inc., or its successor. 
FRA did not intend to exclude engineers who received their education in 
other nations from being recognized as railroad bridge engineers, and 
has amended the text to specify that, in order to fulfill the 
educational requirements of this section, a railroad bridge engineer 
can also have received a degree from a program accredited as a 
professional engineering curriculum by a foreign organization 
recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor. FRA has clarified the 
ambiguity commented on in the language of the NPRM by stating that a 
railroad bridge engineer can also be considered to have fulfilled the 
educational requirements of this section if he or she is currently 
registered as a professional engineer. FRA notes that state law 
governing the professional practice of engineering requires that 
professional engineers limit the subject of their practice to areas in 
which they are competent.
    RailAmerica commented that nothing in this section speaks to the 
competence of an engineer as a railroad bridge engineer. FRA replies 
that the determination of the competence of a railroad bridge engineer 
is left to the track owner. FRA does not intend to engage in qualifying 
individuals to perform those functions. That determination will have to 
be made by the track owner after review of the engineer's 
qualifications and experience in the light of the qualification 
requirements of this part. The employer or the client of an engineer 
has always had the prerogative and responsibility to determine the 
qualifications of that individual, and FRA does not propose to alter 
that relationship.

Determination of Bridge Load Capacities

    One commenter remarked on the difficulty of assigning a precise 
capacity rating to a timber bridge owing to the wide variations in the 
properties of timber material and the changes that occur to timber 
components over time. FRA recognizes that the evaluation of timber 
trestles is not an exact science. Although theoretical values of safe 
forces and stresses can be placed on individual timber components, the 
actual nature of wood varies widely, even within the same species. In 
addition, timber deteriorates over time and under repeated loads. Some 
timber bridge components are not easily inspected, especially where 
faces of the members are hidden by other adjacent or supported members. 
A load rating on a timber bridge must also account for time and for 
expected costs to maintain the bridge under its rated traffic. An 
engineer can raise the capacity of a timber trestle from 263,000- to 
286,000-pound cars, for instance, but the owner must be advised that 
increased maintenance costs will probably result, and that a more 
intensive inspection program must be instituted for that bridge, owing 
to the more rapid deterioration that will occur.
    The same commenter also suggested that a revised rating not be 
required where an existing, valid rating provides a large margin of 
capacity above the loads that are actually operated. The rule text has 
been slightly modified to address that issue with a realistic solution. 
FRA has revised Sec.  237.71(f) to state that a new bridge load 
capacity shall be determined, if, in the opinion of the railroad bridge 
engineer, a bridge inspection reveals that the condition of a bridge or 
a bridge component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to 
carry the traffic being operated. This issue is also addressed further 
in the section-by-section analysis, below.
    The same commenter also noted the difficulty of assigning a precise 
rating to many older concrete and masonry structures that are not well 
documented, and of which the internal configuration cannot be easily 
determined. FRA recognizes that many older concrete and masonry 
structures are not documented. Especially in the case of reinforced 
concrete, the configuration of reinforcing steel greatly affects the 
calculated capacity of the bridge. The analysis of brick and stone 
arches is possible, but the unknown variables can produce widely 
differing results. The practice to date in the railroad bridge 
engineering profession has been to observe these structures for any 
obvious signs of distress, and to rate them based on their condition at 
the time of inspection. FRA will accept the reasonable application of 
present methods for evaluating and managing these structures, because 
there is not a history of sudden catastrophic failure, absent sudden 
damage from severe weather conditions or heavy water flows.
    ASLRRA commented that ``an individual trained as a bridge 
supervisor and inspector with many years of experience inspecting a 
bridge that itself has been in place for many years, is fully qualified 
to determine whether that bridge has the capacity to carry the loads 
for which it is rated. Under normal bridge inspection procedures, if 
the bridge shows signs of problems, a bridge inspector usually `rates' 
a bridge each time he inspects it. If problems are encountered, 
additional steps will be taken to address the problem in accordance 
with these regulations. Rating an old masonry arch or bridge span may 
be difficult to do even for a railroad bridge engineer. While a number 
of bridges have been upgraded on many short lines and capacity rating 
calculations are available for those bridges, many more have not been 
upgraded and are performing well.'' FRA responds that there is a clear 
distinction between what some consider a ``condition rating'' ascribed 
to a bridge by an inspector, and a ``capacity rating'' which is 
determined by a qualified engineer. The term ``rating'' in the context 
of this rule refers only to a ``capacity rating.'' This rule does not 
address a ``condition rating'' to be applied to a bridge.
    A bridge inspector or supervisor who is not an engineer can 
certainly determine by observation and measurement whether the 
condition and configuration of a bridge corresponds with its state when 
it was rated by an engineer for capacity. However, if the bridge 
displays a condition or deterioration that materially affects its 
capacity, as by increasing the stress intensity in one or more 
components of the bridge, accurate determination of the revised 
capacity requires the experience, education and training of a competent 
railroad bridge engineer. In the same manner, the determination of the 
capacity of an existing bridge requires that the engineer should 
consider all available information related to the configuration and 
condition of the bridge, including all available design and 
modification documents and current reports of inspections. These 
determinations of bridge capacity ratings are usually performed in an 
office environment, and only seldom in the field.
    RailAmerica commented that the rule would require bridge ratings to 
be completed within 5 years of the adoption of a Bridge Management 
System. This provision would penalize

[[Page 41287]]

those railroads which have adopted a bridge management program before 
the final date required in the rule. FRA agrees with this comment. The 
rule has been modified so that the determinations of load capacity are 
required within five years of the required date for adoption of the 
bridge management program, rather than the actual date of adoption if 
earlier than required.

Bridge Inspection Records

    Several commenters suggested that the interim bridge inspection 
report be deleted from the rule, or that the time period for its 
submission be extended. Several also suggested that the time period for 
submission of the complete inspection report be extended. FRA 
understands that the regulated community is reluctant to see the 
imposition of record-keeping requirements that might not correspond 
with their current practices. However, bridge inspections performed by 
or for the track owner are a critical function which must be monitored 
in the enforcement process. Since FRA cannot be present on-site at each 
bridge inspection, the agency must see a record that shows that the 
inspection was performed, when and by whom it was performed, and the 
conditions found in the inspection. If there were no time requirements 
for recording inspections, it would be impossible for FRA to 
effectively monitor this vital function.
    FRA views the interim report as a management tool in the bridge 
program audit to show whether bridge inspections are being performed at 
or near their scheduled frequency, with ample time to permit 
adjustments as necessary in the inspection program. Most railroad 
bridge inspection programs at present do not incorporate an interim 
inspection report. The time between an inspection and the filing of the 
inspection report is found to vary. An effective bridge management 
program requires that the person in charge of the program have 
reasonably current information on the progress of the vital function of 
bridge inspection. The proposed time frame of 14 days has been extended 
to 30 days in the final rule because FRA now believes that the 30-day 
time period is sufficient for effective management by the railroad and 
effective compliance monitoring by FRA.
    Two commenters requested that the time period for submission of the 
complete inspection report be extended from 45 to 90 days, and one 
commenter requested 120 days. FRA understands the circumstances in 
which a consultant is engaged to conduct detailed bridge inspections 
and evaluations. Some of those evaluations include a considerable 
amount of engineering work that is performed in an office rather than 
in the field, and several months are often used in preparing the 
complete report. The extension of the time period for filing the report 
is intended to allow the most efficient use of inspection and 
engineering resources, while still providing effective input for 
management by the bridge owner and monitoring by FRA.
    In light of the reasons given, and discussion at the RSAC Railroad 
Bridge Working Group, FRA finds that a 120-day period for submission of 
the complete report would be reasonable and effective.
    Two commenters noted that the proposed requirement to retain 
inspection reports until the completion of the next two following 
inspections of the same type would be burdensome and ineffective in the 
case of certain special inspections. For instance, if a highway vehicle 
strike occasions a special inspection, it would have been necessary to 
retain the records of the special inspection until the bridge had twice 
again been struck by a highway vehicle and inspected. This is not 
realistic, so the final rule simply requires that records of 
inspections be retained for two years following completion of the 
inspection, and that records of underwater inspections be retained 
until the completion and review of the next underwater inspection of 
the same components of the bridge.
    Additionally, the final rule also accommodates instances in which a 
bridge inspection does not encompass the entire bridge. It also 
includes a clarification that when a complete report is filed before an 
interim report is due, the interim report is not required.

Other Comments

    FRA received a number of comments that did not pertain to specific 
sections of the rule text. FRA will address these concerns below.
    Maryland DOT suggested that FRA consider whether it would be 
beneficial to have the same inspection frequency criteria for all rail 
and transit lines or whether it is relevant to distinguish between 
Class I railroads, short lines, and transit lines, or to factor in rail 
traffic volume in general. Maryland DOT also states that it already has 
a detailed structural inspection program and database. It recommends 
that the new regulations not require replacement of existing agency 
programs, reporting forms, etc., to be in accordance with a national 
standard. Additionally, Maryland DOT asks whether FRA will compensate 
state agencies for the cost of overhauling their structural inspection 
program and database, and for the additional expense of conducting 
annual rather than biennial inspections. Finally, Maryland DOT asked if 
any regulations are proposed for tunnel, station or other miscellaneous 
structural inspections.
    With respect to the first question, FRA has not distinguished among 
railroads of different sizes because the size of the railroad is in no 
way related to the physical attributes of a bridge and the loads that 
it carries. As noted above, this rule does not affect transit lines. 
The only criterion related to inspection frequency in this rule is a 
minimum of one inspection per year. As this provision is found in the 
RSIA, FRA has no option in this regard. See Section 417(b)(5), Public 
Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). With regard to the 
second concern, the rule does not require replacement of existing 
programs as long as they comply with the requirements of the rule. In 
response to the third concern, FRA is not aware of any Congressional 
appropriation of funds to provide assistance in order for regulated 
entities to comply with bridge safety regulations and thus FRA will not 
be providing any funding for that purpose. Finally, tunnels, stations, 
and other structures were not addressed in the proposed rule and thus 
are not addressed in this final rule.
    Iowa DOT commented on the various types of ownership and 
maintenance agreements in place between highway agencies and railroads 
that cross those highways on bridges. Iowa DOT stated that ``it would 
be more logical and provide a more consistent bridge safety program if 
the responsibility for inspection, load capacity ratings, and other 
aspects of the bridge safety program were fully retained by the track 
owner and not by the party that is financially responsible for 
maintenance. Where no agreement exists there can be a conflict over the 
responsibilities, therefore having the track owner fully responsible 
for the bridge safety program aspects would prevent any bridge from 
`falling through the cracks' due to that conflict.'' Iowa DOT would 
like to see the final rule assign track owners the full responsibility 
for the bridge safety program, regardless of who is financially 
responsible for the structure's maintenance. Finally, the comment also 
states that, although the agency's bridge inspectors are fully 
qualified to inspect railroad bridges, determine load capacities, etc., 
they would not have the experience or

[[Page 41288]]

knowledge to translate the load capacities into railroad operational 
terms as required by the rule.
    FRA notes that the final rule holds the track owner responsible for 
compliance, which is consistent with the commenter's request. The 
regulation does not address the question of financial responsibility or 
apportionment of expenses for bridge management or maintenance. That 
issue would continue to be governed by the terms of any agreements 
between the track owner and bridge owner. The rule does not assign or 
apportion financial or functional responsibility for inspection or 
maintenance of railroad bridges. The rule simply holds the track owner 
responsible for the adequate and safe support of its track on bridges. 
FRA does not specify who will perform those functions, so long as they 
are performed correctly by qualified individuals designated by the 
track owner. That designated individual may accept work performed by 
others, such as a state agency, if it is acceptable to them and can be 
adequately verified.
    Regarding the last concern, bridge inspectors do not normally 
calculate the load capacities of a railroad bridge, unless they also 
happen to be competent railroad bridge engineers. Moreover, an engineer 
who cannot translate load capacities into railroad operational terms is 
not qualified to prescribe the loadings for a railroad bridge. The rule 
places the responsibility upon the track owner to have this done by a 
designated, competent railroad bridge engineer.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendment to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards

Appendix C to Part 213--Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of 
Railroad Bridges
    FRA is removing appendix C to part 213, which is FRA's Statement of 
Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges (``policy statement''). 
As many portions of the text in the policy statement are covered in 
part 237, it would be redundant and confusing to leave them in the 
policy statement as currently published in part 213. With regard to the 
portions of the policy statement that are advisory in nature, FRA is 
publishing them in a new appendix to part 237, which will be discussed 
further below.

Addition of 49 CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards

Subpart A--General
    This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for the management 
of railroad bridges that support one or more tracks. Track owners may 
adopt more stringent standards as long as they are in accordance with 
this part. FRA notes that it expressed these statements in proposed 
Sec.  237.1, Scope of part, in the NPRM. See 74 FR 41560, 41573. FRA 
does not believe it necessary to include these explanatory statements 
directly in a section of the rule text, however, and is retaining them 
here instead.
    Separately, FRA has removed proposed Sec.  237.3, Preemptive 
effect. See 74 FR 41573. One commenter questioned whether the 
provisions in the proposed section were necessary, and whether they 
were inconsistent with other regulations. This section has been 
removed; discussion of the federalism implications of the rulemaking is 
found under Regulatory Impact and Notices, below. The sections in 
subpart A have been renumbered, accordingly.
Section 237.1 Application
    This rule applies to all owners of track carried on railroad 
bridges with certain exceptions as outlined or explained in following 
subsections. As delineated in FRA's Statement of Agency Policy 
Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws at appendix 
A of 49 CFR part 209, FRA exercises jurisdiction over tourist, scenic, 
and excursion railroad operations whether or not they are conducted on 
the general railroad system. This part applies to both insular and non-
insular tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads are 
entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. As a matter of 
policy, FRA does not consider devices that run on rails in amusement 
parks to be railroads.
    Paragraph (b). This part does not apply to bridges on track used 
exclusively for rapid transit operations in urban areas that are not 
connected with the general system of transportation. This is in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20103 and appendix A of 49 CFR part 209.
    Paragraph (c). This part does not apply to bridges located in an 
installation which is not a part of the general railroad system of 
transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.
Section 237.3 Responsibility for Compliance
    The responsibility for the safety of trains on any track lies with 
the owner of that track. Therefore, the track owner is responsible for 
complying with the bridge safety standards promulgated in this part. If 
a bridge carries tracks owned by two or more owners, then the track 
owners can choose to make an assignment of responsibility for 
compliance with this part. The assignment process, delineated in 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, is similar to the 
assignment process detailed in 49 CFR 213.5. However, FRA will hold the 
track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance with 
this part and subject to penalties under Sec.  237.7. FRA intends that 
the responsibility for compliance with this part will follow, as 
closely as practicable, the responsibility for compliance with the 
Federal Track Safety Standards, and that where such responsibility is 
already established, it would not be necessary for the track owner to 
file an additional assignment of responsibility. As in part 213, FRA 
intends that ``person'' means an entity of any type covered under 1 
U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a 
manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a 
railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad 
equipment, track or facilities; any independent contractor providing 
goods or services to a railroad; any employee of such owner, 
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor; and anyone 
held by FRA to be responsible for compliance with this part.
    Paragraph (d). As described in 49 CFR part 213, a common carrier by 
railroad which is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to 
provide service over the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C. 
11123 is considered the owner of that track for the purposes of the 
application of this part during the period the directed service order 
remains in effect. On rare occasions, such as a cessation of service by 
a railroad, the Surface Transportation Board has directed a railroad 
other than the track owner to provide service. In such cases, the 
designated operator shall be considered the owner for purposes of 
compliance with the bridge safety regulations.
    Paragraph (e). This paragraph requires any person, including a 
state agency, who performs a function on a railroad bridge that is 
required by this part to perform that function in accordance with this 
part. Instances have occurred

[[Page 41289]]

in which state agencies have performed bridge inspections and 
evaluations in which the bridge was found to be seriously deficient, 
and where the operating railroad was never notified or advised of the 
problem. FRA accident records include at least one such instance in 
which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a catastrophic 
train accident. Section 237.109 requires that the track owner keep the 
bridge inspection reports, and must therefore obtain them from a state 
agency or any other party that performs bridge inspections in 
conformance with the requirements of these regulations. This provision 
will prevent a loss of vital communication among concerned parties.
    Paragraph (f). Where an owner of track to which this part applies 
has previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to 
another person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional 
notification to FRA is not required.
    Paragraph (g). This paragraph provides that FRA reserves the right 
to reject an assignment of responsibility under Sec.  237.3(b) for 
cause shown. As stated in paragraph (c) of this section, FRA may hold 
the track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance 
with this part and subject to penalties under Sec.  237.7. 
Consequently, if FRA rejects an assignment of responsibility, FRA will 
not consider the rejected assignee responsible for compliance with part 
237 pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
Section 237.5 Definitions
    The definitions in this section are only intended to apply to this 
part, and not to alter the same terminology wherever used outside this 
part for other purposes.
    Bridge modification and bridge repair. ``Bridge modification'' 
means a change to the configuration of a railroad bridge that affects 
the load capacity of the bridge, while ``bridge repair'' means 
remediation of damage or deterioration which has affected the 
structural integrity of a railroad bridge. This part requires that 
modifications and repairs to bridges be designed by railroad bridge 
engineers, and the work supervised by designated railroad bridge 
supervisors. This definition clarifies that minor modifications and 
repairs, such as replacing a wire rope handrail with one made of pipe, 
or painting a bridge, do not need to be designed and supervised 
pursuant to this part. However, this does not exempt the track owner 
from properly supervising the personal safety of the individuals 
performing the work because that issue is addressed in other rules.
    Railroad bridge. A ``railroad bridge'' is any structure which spans 
an opening under the track except for a small culvert, pipe, or other 
such structure that is located so far below the track that it only 
carries dead load from soil pressure and is not subjected to measurable 
bending, tension or compression stresses from passing trains. Unloading 
pits, track scales, and waterfront structures such as piers and wharves 
that fall within the definition of a ``railroad bridge'' are considered 
bridges for purposes of this part.
    FRA does not intend to relieve a railroad from taking any action 
necessary to protect the safety of trains in the case of any structure, 
including small culverts, retaining walls, tunnels or overhead 
structures by providing for their inspection and maintenance, but it 
exempts them from the specific requirements of this regulation. A 
structure in a locomotive or car maintenance facility which is used to 
support cars or locomotives for maintenance is not included in the 
specific requirements of this regulation.
Section 237.7 Penalties
    This provision conforms to provisions of the enabling legislation 
and stated agency policy. Consistent with FRA's Statement of Agency 
Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, a 
penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful 
violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of 
up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 
CFR part 209, appendix A.
Section 237.9 Waivers
    This section provides that each petition for a waiver under this 
part shall be filed in the manner and contain the information required 
by 49 CFR part 211, which prescribes rules of practice that apply to 
waiver proceedings. The processing of petitions for waiver of safety 
rules is found at subpart C to part 211.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
    This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for persons 
responsible for railroad bridges to implement programs to assure the 
structural integrity of those bridges and to protect the safe operation 
of trains over those bridges. The responsibility for the safety of a 
railroad bridge rests with the owner of the track supported by that 
bridge, who relies upon the work of the engineer who makes the critical 
decisions regarding the management and use of that bridge.
Section 237.31 Adoption of Bridge Management Programs
    Congress mandated that FRA ``promulgate a regulation requiring 
owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a 
bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration of 
railroad bridges and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental 
damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system 
that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure.'' Section 417(a), 
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This 
section requires track owners to adopt a bridge safety management 
program that prevents the deterioration of railroad bridges by 
preserving their capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated 
over them. Class I carriers and owners of track segments which are part 
of the general railroad system of transportation and which carry more 
than ten scheduled passengers trains per week shall implement their 
bridge safety programs no later than March 14, 2011. Class II carriers 
which carry ten or fewer scheduled passenger trains per week shall 
implement their bridge safety programs no later than September 13, 
2011. All other track owners subject to this part shall implement their 
bridge safety programs no later than September 13, 2012.
    FRA considers this implementation schedule to be realistic and 
effective, with priorities given to railroads with the highest levels 
of freight or passenger traffic. The implementation dates apply to the 
track owner, not to specific track segments. However, it is reasonable 
to consider that the specific provisions of each program will be 
implemented in a manner that accords higher priority to individual 
track segments with high volumes of freight or passenger traffic.
Section 237.33 Content of Bridge Management Programs
    Certain elements of a bridge management program are essential to 
its effectiveness. Those elements are enumerated in this section. Track 
owners and individuals responsible for the safety of railroad bridges 
are encouraged to adapt these elements to the needs of their areas of 
responsibility, and to adopt additional elements not inconsistent with 
the requirements of this part.
    Paragraph (a). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
each track owner to ``develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its 
railroad bridges, which shall identify the

[[Page 41290]]

location of each bridge, its configuration, type of construction, 
number of spans, span lengths, and all other information necessary to 
provide for the safe management of the bridges.'' Section 417(b)(1), 
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This 
paragraph requires that such an inventory be maintained. An accurate 
inventory of any property to be managed is essential so that the 
responsible individuals may schedule and track inspection, maintenance, 
and repair of the property units.
    Paragraph (b). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
that the track owner ``maintain, and update as appropriate, a record of 
the safe capacity of each bridge which carries its track and, if 
available, maintain the original design documents of each bridge and a 
documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of the 
bridge.'' Section 417(b)(3), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 
U.S.C. 20103, note). This paragraph requires that a record of the safe 
load capacity of each bridge be established. The operation of 
excessively heavy loads over a bridge will seriously shorten a bridge's 
useful life and will reduce or even eliminate the margin of safety 
between structural integrity and catastrophic failure. It is essential 
that the track owner should know that the loads permitted to be 
operated on a bridge are within the safe limits of the bridge.
    Paragraph (c). The track owner must obtain and maintain the design 
documents of each bridge, if available, and document all repairs, 
modifications, and inspections of each bridge. The determination of 
safe load capacity requires knowledge of the configuration of the 
bridge and the materials of which it is constructed. Although the 
configuration may be determined by actual measurements of all of the 
components, that procedure can be tedious and expensive. Good 
documentation of the design and history of a bridge will facilitate 
more rapid and accurate determination of bridge capacity when such 
calculations are needed, as well as determination of the maintenance 
and service history of a bridge to detect and correct possible 
deterioration of its components. If the design documents for a bridge 
cannot be located, the track owner must measure and document the 
configuration of the bridge in sufficient detail to enable an accurate 
determination of the safe capacity of the bridge.
    Paragraph (d). Bridge inspection is absolutely essential to an 
effective bridge management program. In this paragraph, FRA requires 
that the track owner's bridge management program contain a bridge 
inspection program. Items (1) through (6) should be addressed in the 
program to a degree that promotes effective and efficient conduct of 
the inspection program. With regard to item (1), bridge inspection can 
present certain risks that are inherent in working at heights and 
around moving vehicles. A bridge inspection program should at least 
address the unique hazards associated with the process. With regard to 
item (2), a bridge inspection program should incorporate standards for 
the procedures and required details of any different types of 
inspection that are referenced in the program, such as annual 
inspections, post-event inspections, rating inspections, and 
intermediate periodic inspections. A large railroad might find it 
convenient to describe the standard procedures for various types of 
inspections in some detail, while a small railroad that normally 
conducts only annual inspections might describe only that procedure as 
well as post-event special inspections, and then issue instructions of 
particular applicability for other types of inspections that occur only 
infrequently. With regard to items (3) through (6), use of a standard 
method of describing the condition of components promotes effective and 
efficient communication between the inspector and those persons who 
review and evaluate a bridge using information from the inspection.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
    In subpart C, FRA establishes minimum standards for incorporation 
in railroad bridge management programs for qualification and 
designations of persons who perform safety critical functions that 
affect the integrity and safety of railroad bridges. Many aspects of 
railroad bridge work differ from other fields of engineering, 
inspection and maintenance. It is essential that the individuals who 
are responsible for these safety-critical functions be qualified by 
education, training and experience to perform them correctly.
Section 237.51 Railroad Bridge Engineers
    This section sets forth the minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge engineer must meet. Congress directed FRA to ``ensure that an 
engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering'' 
is responsible for the development of all inspection procedures, 
reviews all inspection reports, and determines whether bridges are 
being inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequency, 
and reviews any items noted by an inspector as exceptions. See Section 
417(b)(7) of the RSIA. Railroad bridge engineering is based on the same 
principles of engineering as all other structural engineering work, but 
the application of many of those principles is unique to this 
particular field. The live loads carried on railroad bridges are 
generally much higher than the loads on highway bridges or other 
transportation structures. Overall configuration and details of 
construction of railroad bridges differ greatly from other classes of 
structures, to the extent that dealing with these features requires 
some experience with them as well as an understanding of the 
fundamentals of engineering.
    FRA understands that not all railroad bridge engineers will be 
faced with all aspects of railroad bridge engineering. For example, an 
engineer engaged to prescribe safe loads for short steel spans and 
timber trestles on a particular railroad might never have to perform a 
detailed analysis of a large truss bridge. The basic premise is that 
the engineer be competent to perform the functions that are encompassed 
by that individual's employment. The determination of qualifications by 
the track owner includes employment of the engineer by the track owner, 
and designation of the engineer to exercise the authority called for in 
this part. By employment, FRA includes both engineers who are employees 
of the track owner as well as those engaged under a consulting 
contract.
    A railroad bridge engineer must also have either: (1) A degree in 
engineering granted by a school of engineering with at least one 
program accredited by ABET, Inc. or its successor organization, as a 
professional engineering curriculum, or a degree from a program 
accredited as a professional engineering curriculum by a foreign 
organization recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor; or (2) current 
registration as a professional engineer.
    FRA believes that the critical nature of railroad bridge 
engineering work called for in this rule requires persons to meet a 
minimal educational or experience standard which is common to the 
engineering profession and which is necessary for an individual who 
will perform the functions of an engineer as called for in this rule.
    In paragraph (c), FRA states that nothing in this part affects the 
States' authority to regulate the professional practice of engineering. 
This section represents a minimum standard to be attained by engineers 
who perform the functions called for in this regulation.

[[Page 41291]]

Recognition by FRA as a railroad bridge engineer would not enable a 
person to provide professional engineering services in violation of a 
state law or regulation. FRA does not intend to preempt or interfere 
with any state laws regarding the professional practice of engineering. 
For example, a person registered as a professional engineer in Maryland 
could not work as a professional engineer in Virginia under this 
regulation in violation of Virginia law if such work violated Virginia 
law regarding the practice of engineering.
Section 237.53 Railroad Bridge Inspectors
    In this section, FRA establishes the minimum standards that a 
railroad bridge inspector must meet. Effective inspection of bridges is 
essential to preserving their integrity and serviceability. Inspectors 
must be able to understand and carry out the inspection procedures, 
including accessing inspection points on a bridge, measuring components 
and any changes, describing conditions found in a standard, unambiguous 
manner, and detecting the development of conditions that are critical 
to the safety of the bridge. It is essential that an inspector who 
detects a potential hazard to the safe operation of trains be 
authorized by the track owner to place appropriate restrictions on the 
operation of railroad traffic, pending review as necessary by a 
railroad bridge engineer. An individual who is not competent in 
railroad bridge work cannot overrule a determination made by a 
designated bridge inspector, supervisor, or engineer.
Section 237.55 Railroad Bridge Supervisors
    In this section, FRA establishes minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge supervisor must meet. Individuals who supervise and take 
responsibility for construction, repair and modification of railroad 
bridges must be competent to ensure that the work is performed in 
accordance with valid standards and any specific specifications, plans 
and instructions applicable to the work to be performed. This provision 
applies to any such individual, regardless of job title, who directly 
oversees such work and approves or restricts the movement of railroad 
traffic during the progress of the work.
Section 237.57 Designations of Individuals
    In the RSIA, Congress mandated that the bridge regulations 
designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to 
authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage, 
or indications of potential structural problems. See Section 417(b)(8), 
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In this 
section, FRA requires that each track owner designate certain 
individuals as qualified railroad bridge engineers, inspectors, and 
supervisors, and provide a recorded basis for each designation in 
effect. The track owner must record designations of individuals, 
whether employees, consultants or contractors. If a consultant or 
contractor has several individuals performing the described functions 
then one or more individuals should be designated as being responsible 
to the track owner for the work performed under that engagement, with 
the others working under the responsible charge of that individual.
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
    In subpart D, FRA prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated 
in railroad bridge management programs to prevent the operation of 
equipment that could damage a bridge by exceeding safe stress levels in 
bridge components or by extending beyond the horizontal or vertical 
clearance limits of the bridge. Protection of bridges and bridge 
components from overstress is essential to the continued integrity and 
serviceability of the bridge. It is also essential that equipment or 
loads that exceed the clearance limits of a bridge not be operated 
owing to the potential for severe damage to the bridge.
Section 237.71 Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
    Paragraph (a). Each track owner must determine the load capacity of 
each of its railroad bridges. It is essential that the track owner know 
that loads operated over a bridge do not exceed the safe capacity of 
that bridge. However, once it is determined that a bridge has adequate 
capacity to carry the loads being operated, the regulation does not 
require that the track owner precisely calculate the additional 
capacity of that bridge, although that could be useful from a planning 
or economic standpoint.
    Paragraph (b). This paragraph requires that the load capacity of 
each bridge be documented in the track owner's bridge management 
program, together with the method by which the capacity was determined. 
Once the load capacity is determined, the value must be recorded in 
order for it to be useful. Examples of methods of determination could 
be the original design documents, recalculation, or rating inspection.
    Paragraph (c). In the RSIA, Congress mandated that a professional 
engineer competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering, or a 
qualified person under the supervision of the track owner, determine 
bridge capacity. See Section 417(b)(2), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 
4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). Load capacity determination in most 
instances requires the education, experience and training of an 
engineer who is familiar with railroad bridges and the standard 
practices that are unique to that class of structure.
    The present standard references for railroad bridge design and 
analysis are found in the ``Manual for Railway Engineering'' of the 
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 
(AREMA). The chapters in this Manual dealing with Timber, Concrete and 
Steel structures, and Seismic Design, are under continuous review by 
committees consisting of leading engineers in the railroad bridge 
profession, including representatives of FRA. Although bridges exist 
that were designed using different or earlier references, they can 
still be evaluated by use of the AREMA Manual.
    Paragraph (d). This paragraph permits bridge load capacity to be 
determined from existing design and modification records of a bridge, 
provided that the bridge substantially conforms to its records 
configuration. Determination of bridge load capacity requires 
information on the configuration of the bridge and the dimensions and 
material of its component parts. If the bridge is found to conform to 
the drawings of its original design and modifications, those drawings 
may serve as the basis for any rating calculation that might be 
performed, thus simplifying the process. Lacking that prior 
information, it is necessary that the configuration, dimensions, 
condition and properties of the bridge and its components be determined 
by on-site measurement of the bridge as it currently exists.
    FRA recognizes that a rigorous, exact method of rating is not 
practicable with several types of bridges, including some massive 
concrete or masonry bridges and many timber trestles. The railroad 
bridge engineer will necessarily use judgment in determining the loads 
which should be permitted to operate over these bridges, and assuring 
that adequate inspections are performed so that any developing 
deterioration or signs of overload are detected before they progress to 
become a serious problem.
    Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA requires a track owner to 
schedule the evaluation of bridges for which the load capacity has not 
already been

[[Page 41292]]

determined. This section provides for a phase-in period for 
determination of bridge capacities. There is probably not sufficient 
engineering expertise available in the United States for immediate 
rating of all unrated railroad bridges. This will provide a reasonable 
time period for track owners to accomplish this work. It is intended 
that the unrated bridges be given relative priority for rating, based 
on the judgment of a railroad bridge engineer. This prioritization can 
be accomplished either by observation or by evaluation of certain 
critical members of a bridge, as determined by the engineer using 
professional judgment.
    Paragraph (f). A new capacity must be determined by a railroad 
bridge engineer when a bridge inspection record reveals that the 
condition of a bridge or a bridge component might affect the load 
capacity of the bridge. Accurate determination of current bridge 
capacity depends on accurate information about the current 
configuration and condition of the bridge. The railroad bridge engineer 
might determine that a change in condition or configuration calls for a 
revised rating calculation.
    Paragraph (g). In this paragraph, FRA states that bridge load 
capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a 
standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any case be stated in 
terms of weight and length of individual or combined cars and 
locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel. Engineers use 
standard definitions of loading combinations for design and rating of 
bridges. Common among these standard definitions is a series of 
proportional loads known as the Cooper System. The capacity of a bridge 
and its components can be described in terms of a Cooper Rating, and 
the effect of rail equipment on a bridge can also be related to a 
Cooper System value.
    Proper application of this system requires a full understanding of 
its use and limitations. However, the results of its application can be 
translated into terms of equipment weights and configurations that can 
be effectively applied by persons who manage regular transportation 
operations of the railroad. This enables them to determine if a given 
locomotive, car, or combination can be operated on a bridge with no 
further consideration, or if the equipment must be evaluated as an 
exceptional movement.
    Paragraph (h). FRA states that bridge load capacity may be 
expressed in terms of both normal and maximum load conditions. Normal 
bridge ratings generally define the loads that can be operated on a 
bridge for an indefinite period without damaging the bridge. In some 
cases, mostly involving steel or iron bridges, a higher rating, up to a 
maximum rating, can be given to the bridge to permit the operation of 
heavier loads on an infrequent basis. These heavier loads should not, 
in themselves, damage the bridge, but the cumulative effect of the 
higher resulting stresses in bridge members could cause their eventual 
deterioration.
    Paragraph (h) also states that operation of equipment that produces 
forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any 
restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge 
engineer. A railroad bridge engineer can often prescribe compensating 
conditions that will permit the movement of equipment that is heavier 
than normal. Examples include speed restrictions to reduce the impact 
factor of the rolling load, the insertion of lighter-weight spacer cars 
between the heavier cars in a train, or the installation of temporary 
bents or other supports under specific points on the bridge.
Section 237.73 Protection of Bridges From Over-Weight and Over-
Dimension Loads
    Bridges can be seriously damaged by the operation of loads that 
exceed their capacity. Movement of equipment that exceeds the clear 
space on a bridge is an obvious safety hazard. In this section, FRA 
addresses Congress' mandate in the RSIA that the track owner ``develop, 
maintain, and enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its 
bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities.'' See Section 
417(b)(4), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).
    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each track 
owner issue instructions to its personnel who are responsible for the 
configuration and operation of trains over its bridges to prevent the 
operation of cars, locomotives and other equipment that would exceed 
the capacity or dimensions of its bridges. Transportation personnel of 
a railroad are ultimately responsible for the movement of trains, cars 
and locomotives. It is essential that they should know and follow any 
restrictions that are placed on those movements.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions 
regarding weight shall be expressed in terms of maximum equipment 
weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or axle spacing. 
Transportation personnel have information on the weights and 
configuration of cars and locomotives, and they must be able to relate 
that information to any restrictions placed on the movement of that 
equipment.
    Paragraph (c). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions 
regarding dimensions shall be expressed in terms of feet and inches of 
cross section and equipment length, in conformance with common railroad 
industry practice for reporting dimensions of exceptional equipment in 
interchange in which height above top-of-rail is shown for each cross 
section measurement, followed by the width of the car or the shipment 
at that height. In the industry, a standard format exists for the 
exchange of information on dimensions of railroad equipment. This 
standard practice is practical, even if it is not intuitive. Use of the 
industry practice is necessary to avoid error and confusion.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA states that the instructions 
may apply to individual structures or to a defined line segment or 
groups of line segments where the published capacities and dimensions 
are within the limits of all structures on the subject line segments. 
Railroads commonly issue instructions related to equipment weights and 
dimensions to be effective on line segments of various lengths. It is 
not necessary that transportation personnel be advised of the capacity 
of every bridge as long as each bridge in the line segment has the 
capacity to safely carry the loads permitted on that line.
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
    In subpart E, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated 
into railroad bridge management programs to provide for an effective 
program of bridge inspections.
    Bridge inspection is a vital component in any bridge management 
program. A bridge with undetected or unreported damage or deterioration 
can present a serious hazard to the safe operation of trains. Bridge 
inspection and evaluation is a multi-tiered process, unlike many other 
types of inspection on a railroad. While track, equipment and signal 
inspectors usually can compare measurements against common standards to 
determine whether the inspected feature complies with the standards, 
such is not the case with most bridges. The evaluation of a bridge 
requires the application of engineering principles by a competent 
person, who is usually not present during the inspection. It is 
therefore necessary that an inspection report should show any 
conditions on the bridge that might lead to a reduction in capacity, 
initiation of repair work, or a more detailed inspection to further 
characterize the condition.

[[Page 41293]]

Section 237.101 Scheduling of Bridge Inspections
    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA establishes regulations to 
address Congress' mandate that the track owner ``conduct regular 
comprehensive inspections of each bridge, at least once every year, and 
maintain records of those inspections that include the date on which 
the inspection was performed, the precise identification of the bridge 
inspected, the items inspected, and accurate description of the 
condition of those items, and a narrative of any inspection item that 
is found by the inspector to be a potential problem.'' Section 
417(b)(5), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). 
Annual inspection of bridges has been an industry practice for over a 
century, and has proven to be an effective tool of bridge management. 
Even where a bridge sees very low levels of railroad traffic, the 
potential still exists for damage from external sources or natural 
deterioration. This paragraph calls for one inspection per calendar 
year, with not more than 540 days between successive inspections. Both 
criteria apply. For example, if a bridge is inspected on January 3, 
2011, it becomes overdue for inspection on June 27, 2012, 541 days 
later. If it is inspected on December 18, 2011, it becomes overdue on 
January 1, 2013, since it was not inspected in calendar year 2012.
    One commenter requested that FRA clarify what constitutes a yearly 
inspection. The commenter asked if this means a ``hands-on'' type of 
inspection, or a routine cursory type of inspection. FRA responds that 
the rule does not prescribe an inspection procedure; that decision is 
left to the railroad bridge engineer. It is quite likely that the 
engineer might prescribe varying levels of detail for inspections 
performed at different periods, depending on the configuration and 
condition of the bridge.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA states that a bridge shall be 
inspected more frequently than the period referenced in paragraph (a), 
above, when a railroad bridge engineer determines that such inspection 
frequency is necessary. The responsibility for adequate inspection 
remains with the track owner, with the conditions prescribed by a 
railroad bridge engineer. The inspection regimen for every bridge 
should be determined from its condition, configuration, environment, 
and traffic levels.
    Paragraph (c). FRA requires that each bridge management program 
define requirements for the special inspection of a bridge to be 
performed whenever the bridge is involved in an event which might have 
compromised the integrity of the bridge, including flood, fire, 
earthquake, derailment, or other vehicular or vessel impact. It is 
essential that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge 
failure resulting from damage from an event caused by natural or non-
railroad agents. The track owner should have in place a means to 
receive notice of such an event, including weather and earthquakes, and 
a procedure to conduct an inspection following such an event.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA states that any railroad 
bridge that has not been in railroad service and has not been inspected 
in accordance with this section within the previous 540 days must be 
inspected and the inspection report reviewed by a railroad bridge 
engineer prior to the resumption of railroad service. The inspection 
frequency requirements of this section do not apply to bridges that are 
not in railroad service. FRA notes that although inspections are not 
required on out-of-service railroad bridges, state law regarding 
responsibility for damage to outside parties that might be caused by 
the condition of the bridge is not affected. If a bridge not in service 
has been inspected within the 540 day period, the track owner may 
accept that inspection and begin railroad service, subject to any 
determination in that regard by a railroad bridge engineer. The 
inspection period would date from the last inspection, with no credit 
for out-of-service time.
Section 237.103 Bridge Inspection Procedures
    In this section, FRA requires that each bridge management program 
specify the procedure to be used for inspection of individual bridges 
or classes and types of bridges. As mandated by the RSIA, FRA states 
that the bridge inspection procedures must be as specified by a 
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the 
conduct and review of the inspections. See Section 417(b)(7)(A), Public 
Law 110-432, 122 Stat 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In the RSIA, 
Congress also mandated that the bridge safety regulations must ``ensure 
that the level of detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate 
to the configuration of the bridge, conditions found during the 
previous inspections, and the nature of the railroad traffic moved over 
the bridge, including car weights, train frequency and lengths, levels 
of passenger and hazardous materials traffic, and vulnerability of the 
bridge to damage.'' Accordingly, FRA requires that the bridge 
inspection procedures must ensure that the level of detail and the 
inspection procedures are appropriate to the configuration of the 
bridge. Additionally, the bridge inspection procedures must be designed 
to detect, report and protect deterioration and deficiencies before 
they present a hazard to safe train operation. The responsibility for 
adequate inspection remains with the track owner, with the conditions 
prescribed by a railroad bridge engineer. The inspection regimen for 
every bridge should be determined from its condition, configuration, 
environment, and traffic levels. The instructions for bridge inspection 
may be both general, as by bridge type or line segment; and specific, 
as needed by particular considerations for an individual bridge.
    ASLRRA commented that the rule provides that a railroad bridge 
engineer must direct programs, review inspections, record procedures, 
and undertake other similar steps. ASLRRA suggests that this seems to 
imply the railroad must have a railroad bridge engineer capable of 
designing a bridge on staff or employed as a consultant each time an 
inspection is made. ASLRRA contends that a railroad supervisor can 
implement a program, review the inspection, audit a program, and assess 
whether a bridge inspection exception needs to go to a railroad bridge 
engineer for review.
    FRA responds that a bridge inspection program can be established by 
a railroad bridge engineer, either as an employee of or as a consultant 
to the track owner. The engineer is not required to be on site, or even 
on the property, during an inspection. A primary purpose of the audit 
procedure called out below is to permit the railroad bridge engineer to 
review and monitor the effectiveness of the bridge inspection program 
that has been conducted under his overall charge.
Section 237.105 Special Inspections
    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each bridge 
management program prescribe a procedure for protection of train 
operations and for inspection of any bridge that might have been 
damaged by a natural or accidental event, including flood, fire, 
earthquake, derailment or vehicular or vessel impact. It is essential 
that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge failure caused 
by damage from an event caused by natural or non-railroad agents. The 
track owner should have in place a means to receive notice of such an 
event, including weather conditions and earthquakes, and a procedure to 
conduct an inspection following such an event.

[[Page 41294]]

    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA requires that each bridge 
management program provide for the detection of scour or deterioration 
of bridge components that are submerged or subject to water flow. The 
condition of bridge components located underwater is usually not 
evident from above. Means to determine their condition might be as 
simple as using measuring rods from the surface, or might call for 
periodic or special diving inspection. Advanced technology might also 
provide devices that can be used to determine underwater conditions.
    Maryland DOT requested that FRA provide advice on a required 
inspection frequency for the underwater inspection, noting that FHWA 
requires underwater inspections at least once in every five years. FRA 
responds that the rule does not prescribe a particular frequency for 
underwater inspections; that decision is left to the railroad bridge 
engineer, to be based on the particular conditions at each bridge.
Section 237.107 Conduct of Bridge Inspections
    In this section, FRA requires that bridge inspections be conducted 
under the direct supervision of a designated railroad bridge inspector, 
who shall be responsible for the accuracy of the results and the 
conformity of the inspection to the bridge management program. Bridge 
inspections can often require more than one person for safety and 
efficiency. This provision permits others to assist the designated 
inspector, who remains responsible for the results of the inspection.
Section 237.109 Bridge Inspection Records
    In this section, FRA requires that each track owner to which this 
part applies keep a record of each inspection required to be performed 
under this part. A bridge inspection has little value unless it is 
recorded and reported to the individuals who are responsible for the 
ultimate determination of the safety of the bridge. Bridge inspectors 
may use a variety of methods to record their findings as they move 
about the bridge. These include notebooks, voice recordings, having 
another individual transcribe notes, and photographs. These notes and 
other items are usually compiled into a prescribed report format at the 
end of the day or at the conclusion of the inspection. In paragraph 
(c), FRA delineates the essential elements that must be addressed and 
reported in any bridge inspection.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA requires that an initial 
report of each bridge inspection be placed in the location designated 
by the bridge management program within 30 calendar days of the 
completion of the field portion of the inspection. The initial report 
must include the information delineated in paragraph (c)(1) through 
(c)(5). The actual conduct of the inspection should be reported and 
recorded, showing the fact that the bridge was actually inspected on a 
certain date, the type of inspection performed, by whom it was 
performed, and whether or not any critical conditions were detected. 
Inspection and reporting procedures vary widely among different 
railroads and circumstances. In many cases, especially on larger 
railroads, an inspector would prepare the report before leaving the 
bridge. The reports might be forwarded by mail, by electronic means, or 
by hand delivery. They might be forwarded daily, weekly, or even less 
frequently. In other circumstances, a consulting engineer might be 
engaged by a small railroad to inspect all of the bridges on all or 
part of the line, and the final report might be prepared by the 
engineering firm after all of the inspections are completed. Similarly, 
a large railroad might begin a comprehensive inspection and evaluation 
of a large structure that will take several months to complete.
    FRA recognizes the wide range of time periods required for these 
various inspections and reporting procedures, so this provision was 
developed as a means for the track owner to track inspection progress, 
bridge by bridge, with a simple line item showing:
    (1) identification of the bridge inspected;
    (2) date of completion of the inspection;
    (3) identification of the inspector;
    (4) type of inspection performed; and
    (5) indication on the report as to whether any item noted thereon 
requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge engineer, 
and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection.
    These five items can usually be listed on a single line of a 
report. The initial report might include all of the bridges inspected 
by one individual in a week or two. FRA does not anticipate that the 
initial or summary report include all of the data called for in the 
bridge management program, together with any narrative descriptions 
necessary for the correct interpretation of the report. This 
information would be included in the complete inspection report.
    Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA requires that a complete 
report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in the location 
designated in the bridge management program within 120 days of the 
completion of the field portion of the inspection. A bridge inspection 
is not complete until the report of the inspection is filed and 
available to the persons who are responsible for the management of the 
bridges inspected. This time period does not include the time used by a 
consultant or in-house engineering group to complete an analysis of the 
results of the inspection, and it is not expected that the analysis 
need be completed within that time period. In cases where a detailed 
analysis is required, FRA intends that the inspection report on which 
the analysis is based would be separated from the analysis and filed 
within the required time frame.
    Paragraph (f). This paragraph requires that each bridge inspection 
program specify the retention period and location for bridge inspection 
records. The retention period must be at least two years from the 
completion of the inspection. A comparison of successive reports can 
reveal any accelerating rates of deterioration or degradation of bridge 
components. Additionally, an audit or review of the effectiveness of a 
bridge inspection program requires comparison of previous inspection 
reports with the actual condition of a bridge included in the audit. 
The practice of comparing previous inspection reports with actual 
bridge conditions has been followed by FRA for more than a decade when 
evaluating railroad bridge management programs. It is a valuable factor 
in determining the effectiveness of a railroad's program.
Section 237.111 Review of Bridge Inspection Reports
    The RSIA requires that an engineer who is competent in the field of 
railroad bridge engineering reviews all inspection reports and 
determines whether bridges are being inspected according to the 
applicable procedures and frequencies, and reviews any items noted by 
an inspector as exceptions. See Section 417(b)(7), Public Law 110-432, 
122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). In this section, FRA requires 
responsible railroad bridge supervisors and railroad bridge engineers 
to review bridge inspection reports. Bridge inspection is usually a 
multi-tiered procedure. The inspector reports on the conditions noted 
in the inspection, but an engineer will necessarily evaluate those 
noted conditions and determine what, if any, further action is 
required.
    The regulation does not require that a railroad bridge engineer 
review every inspection report, so long as the responsible management 
personnel keep

[[Page 41295]]

track of the conduct of inspections to see that they are performed in 
accordance with the schedule and other requirements of this rule and 
the railroad's program. It should be a simple matter for the inspector 
to indicate on a report whether or not the report would require higher-
level or engineering review. The engineering staff would review the 
reports that indicate problems or issues for them to resolve. Section 
237.153, ``Audits of inspections,'' includes a provision for sampling 
of routine inspection reports to assure that the inspectors are 
properly identifying reports that require review.
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
    In subpart F, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated 
in railroad bridge management programs to provide for adequate design 
and effective supervision of those bridge modifications and repairs 
which will materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses 
in any primary load-carrying component of the bridge. This section 
provides for correct design and adequate supervision of repair and 
modification of bridges where the work could materially affect the 
capacity of the bridge, or its continued integrity. FRA does not intend 
that minor repairs that do not affect the capacity of the bridge must 
be designed by an engineer, but the supervision of that work should be 
performed by a person who is competent to assure that the work does not 
inadvertently compromise the integrity of the bridge. For instance, arc 
welding handrails to the members of a through truss might appear to 
some to be a minor repair, but it could seriously compromise the 
structural integrity of the bridge.
Section 237.131 Design
    Design of entire railroad bridges, modifications and repairs which 
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any 
primary load-carrying component of the bridge require the intelligent 
application of the principles of engineering and can be performed only 
by an engineer with training and experience in the field of railroad 
bridges. Railroads have typically issued standard instructions for the 
performance of common maintenance repairs, such as replacement or 
upgrading of components of timber trestles. This section specifically 
permits such a practice. For purposes of this part, a primary load-
carrying component is a railroad bridge component, the failure of which 
would immediately compromise the structural integrity of the bridge.
    One commenter notes that the proposed rule requires that while all 
bridge work that eliminates a deteriorated condition requires design by 
a bridge engineer, for many situations ranging from cracked flange 
angles to failed timber caps, a simple component change-out is the most 
effective repair. These types of repairs have historically been 
performed by bridge forces without the benefit of formal design 
oversight. The commenter suggested that each track owner should 
determine what repairs require the oversight of an engineer.
    FRA understands this concern, and has modified Sec.  237.131 to 
read, in part, that ``[e]ach repair or modification which materially 
modifies the capacity of a bridge or the stresses in any primary load-
carrying component of a bridge shall be designed by a railroad bridge 
engineer.''
    The comment regarding simple component replacement is addressed in 
the last sentence of the paragraph, which states that designs and 
procedures for repair or modification of bridges of a common 
configuration, such as timber trestles, or instructions for in-kind 
replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common standard. 
Although it may be a standard procedure, the standard should be 
designed and issued by a qualified railroad bridge engineer.
Section 237.133 Supervision of Repairs and Modifications
    This section requires that each repair or modification pursuant to 
this part shall be performed under the immediate supervision of a 
railroad bridge supervisor as defined in Sec.  237.55 of this part who 
is designated and authorized by the track owner to supervise the 
particular work to be performed. Modifications and repairs which 
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any 
primary load-carrying component of the bridge must be performed 
according to the specific or general specifications and instructions 
issued by a railroad bridge engineer. Particularly when trains are 
permitted to pass over a bridge which is being repaired or modified, 
the supervisor at the bridge must be able to make the necessary 
determination to either permit, restrict or halt train operation 
depending on the state of the bridge. As this part does not specify the 
employment relationship between the track owner and the bridge 
supervisor, the track owner may designate a contractor or a consultant 
as the bridge supervisor.
    One commenter asked if FRA would object to a track owner 
designating a contractor's foreman as the bridge supervisor qualified 
to return a bridge to service at the end of each work window. The 
commenter also stated that small railroads that do not have a bridge 
engineer may have to designate their engineering consultant as the 
bridge supervisor whose full-time presence on a job will be expensive 
and will take money away from repairs. FRA responds that the proposed 
regulation does not specify the employment relationship between the 
track owner and a bridge supervisor. A contractor employee or a 
consultant may be so designated. It is necessary, however, that a 
qualified individual be responsible for the proper and safe performance 
of work on a bridge, and that the individual be authorized to perform 
the actions necessary to fulfill that responsibility.
Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management 
Programs
    Documentation is essential to any effective management program. In 
subpart G, FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for verification of the 
effectiveness of the program and the accuracy of the information 
developed thereby, by the track owner and by FRA to evaluate compliance 
with this regulation.
Section 237.151 Audits; General
    In this section, FRA requires that each program adopted to comply 
with this part include provisions for auditing the effectiveness of the 
several provisions of that program, including the validity of bridge 
inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and the correct 
application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment of 
exceptional weight or configuration. Effective management of a safety-
critical program such as this requires an adequate level of checks to 
assure that the requisite work is being performed correctly.
Section 237.153 Audits of Inspections
    FRA has found over the years during which it has conducted 
evaluations of railroad bridge programs that one of the most important 
indicators of the effectiveness of a program is a comparison of recent 
bridge inspection reports against actual conditions found at the 
subject bridges. This is fundamental to an effective audit of a bridge 
management program. Therefore, in this section, FRA states that each 
bridge management program incorporate provisions for an internal audit. 
Each

[[Page 41296]]

bridge management program shall incorporate provisions for an internal 
audit to determine whether the inspection provisions of the program are 
being followed, and whether the program itself is effectively providing 
for the continued safety of the subject bridges. Additionally, the 
inspection audit shall include an evaluation of a representative 
sampling of bridge inspection reports at the bridges noted on the 
reports to determine whether the reports accurately describe the 
condition of the bridge.
Section 237.155 Documents and Records
    In this section, FRA requires each track owner required to 
implement a bridge management program and keep records under this part 
to make those program documents and records available for inspection 
and reproduction by FRA. This section addresses Congress' mandate in 
the RSIA to establish a program to periodically review bridge 
inspection and maintenance data from railroad carrier bridge inspectors 
and FRA bridge experts. See Section 417(d), Public Law 110-432, 122 
Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). As in the case of all railroad 
safety regulations, FRA has an enforcement responsibility. FRA will 
require access to the vital documents and records of the various bridge 
management programs to enable it to carry out that responsibility.
    Paragraphs (a) and (b). In these paragraphs, FRA establishes 
minimum standards for electronic record-keeping provisions that a track 
owner may elect to utilize to comply with the record-keeping provisions 
of this part. FRA recognizes the growing prevalence of electronic 
records, and acknowledges the unique challenges that electronic 
transmission, storage, and retrieval of records can present. To allow 
for future advances in technology, FRA is establishing electronic 
record storage provisions in these paragraphs that are technology-
neutral.
    For purposes of complying with the record-keeping requirements of 
this part, a track owner may create and maintain any of the required 
records through electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval, 
provided that certain conditions are met. Not only must the system used 
to generate the electronic records meet all of the requirements of this 
subpart and the records contain all of the information required by this 
subpart, but the track owner must also: monitor the electronic database 
through a sufficient number of monitoring indicators to ensure a high 
degree of the accuracy of the records; train the employees who use the 
system on the proper use of the system; and maintain an information 
technology security program adequate to ensure the integrity of the 
system, including the prevention of unauthorized access to the program 
logic or individual records.
    Additionally, the integrity of the bridge inspection records must 
be protected by a security system that incorporates user identity and 
password, or a comparable method, to establish appropriate levels of 
program and record data access meeting all of the following standards: 
no two individuals can have the same electronic identity; a record 
cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after the record is 
certified by the employee who created the record; any amendment to the 
record must either be electronically stored apart from the record it 
amends, or electronically attached to the record as information without 
changing the original record; each amendment to a record must uniquely 
identify the person making the amendment; and the electronic system 
must provide for the maintenance of inspection records as originally 
submitted without corruption or loss of data.
    Two commenters expressed a general concern that the security 
provisions of the proposed rule would preclude the modification of 
permanent bridge records, such as the inventory itself. As FRA responds 
that was not the intent, the final rule has been modified so that the 
data security provisions apply only to bridge inspection records.
Appendix A to Part 237--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the 
Safety of Railroad Bridges
    A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges was 
originally published by FRA in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal Track 
Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 213. With the issuance of 49 CFR part 
237, Bridge Safety Standards, certain non-regulatory provisions in that 
Policy Statement have been incorporated in that regulation. However, 
FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items are still useful as 
information and guidance. Those provisions of the Policy Statement are 
therefore retained and placed in this Appendix in lieu of their former 
location in the Track Safety Standards.
Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties
    Consistent with FRA's Statement of Agency Policy Concerning 
Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, a penalty may be 
assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. The 
Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to $100,000 
for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, 
appendix A.

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under both 
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034; 
February 26, 1979. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a 
regulatory impact analysis addressing the economic impacts from this 
final rule.
    As part of the regulatory impact analysis FRA has assessed 
quantitative measurements of the cost and benefit streams expected from 
the adoption of this final rule. For the 20-year period the estimated 
quantified costs total $164.2 million, and have a present value (PV, 
7%) of $84.4 million. For the same period of time the estimated 
quantified benefits total $19.4 million and have a PV(7%) of $9.8 
million. These benefits are exclusive of long-term efficiencies to the 
railroads with respect to conservation of the capital value of the 
structures in question. Very often targeted repairs or restoration at 
an early stage in the deterioration of a bridge may significantly 
extend the useful life of a bridge. The benefits also do not consider 
the potential for a catastrophic event resulting in a bridge failure 
and consequent fatalities to railroad personnel, rail passengers, or 
persons underneath the bridge. Although FRA has verified through its 
bridge program that most railroads properly manage their bridges most 
of the time, in the recent past FRA has also determined circumstances--
even on Class I railroads--where proper inspections or repairs have 
been inappropriately deferred. Accordingly, this final rule offers the 
opportunity to capture and extend the current heightened attention to 
bridge management achieved through industry and FRA efforts over the 
past several years.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess 
their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and 
certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not

[[Page 41297]]

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
During the NPRM stage, FRA had not determined whether the proposed rule 
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Therefore, FRA published an IRFA to aid the public in 
commenting on the potential small business impacts of the proposals in 
the NPRM. All interested parties were invited to submit data and 
information regarding the potential economic impact that would result 
from adoption of the proposals in the NPRM.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act also requires an agency to conduct a 
final regulatory flexibility assessment (FRFA) unless it determines and 
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. FRA is not able to certify that 
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities due to insufficient information. 
FRA did not receive many comments, or data from commenters, on the 
IRFA, and the information that was received was not sufficient to make 
a determination. Thus, FRA is publishing this FRFA and will issue a 
small entity guidance document soon.
    FRA estimates, primarily based on two facts, that approximately 70 
percent of the total cost of this rulemaking (see regulatory impact 
analysis (RIA)) will be borne by small entities. First, larger 
railroads generally have more comprehensive bridge management programs 
and more frequent bridge inspections. Second, since FRA's RIA is an 
overall industry analysis, it is not immediately obvious that the 
incremental cost burden on small railroads is proportionally larger 
than for larger entities. This is because more small railroads will 
have to increase inspection frequency and enhance their management 
programs. It should be noted that the bridge populations of typical 
small railroads are less complex than those of larger railroads.
    Below, FRA provides the rationale it used for assessing what 
impacts would be borne by small entities. FRA considered all comments 
received in the public comment process when making a determination in 
the FRFA.
    This FRFA was developed in accordance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
(1) A Succinct Statement of the Need for and Objectives of the Rule
    As discussed in Section I of the preamble to this rule, the 
structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is important 
because the severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a 
bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the accident. In 2000, 
FRA published a final statement of agency policy for the safety of 
railroad bridges, establishing criteria to ensure the structural 
integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. The Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) directs FRA to issue, by October 16, 
2009, regulations requiring railroad track owners to adopt and follow 
specific procedures to protect the safety of their bridges.
    There are more than 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States. 
Federal regulations offer the benefit of uniformity that would allow 
railroads that operate in more than one State to develop and implement 
a single management program that would apply to all of its railroad 
bridges, supporting one or more tracks, rather than several programs 
tailored to meet the different requirements of each different State or 
local jurisdiction.
    FRA is issuing this rule to promulgate minimum bridge safety 
standards as mandated by RSIA, Section 417, Public Law 110-432, 122 
Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).
(2) A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments 
in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of 
Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made to the Proposed Rule 
as a Result of Such Comments
    No comments were received that directly addressed the IRFA. 
However, a few comments did address items of cost used in the RIA, 
which are related to the IRFA for the NPRM.
(a) Security of Records
    In 49 CFR 237.155, FRA proposed numerous recordkeeping requirements 
primarily dealing with security. The recordkeeping requirements in the 
proposed rule assumed that the documents would be kept electronically. 
One commenter noted that not all documents for small railroads would be 
maintained that way. Thus, the final rule has a minor revision that 
accommodates bridge inspection records that are not electronic. The 
impact of this minor change will not cause any cost calculation 
changes.
(b) Bridge Inspection Cost
    One commenter did not agree with the average bridge inspection cost 
that the FRA used in its RIA. More specifically, this commenter 
mentioned that $750 for the average cost of a bridge inspection is not 
realistic. This commenter also opined that the actual cost is more 
excessive (in the range of $4,000 to $5,000 per bridge) for a bridge 
that was inspected on a 2-year cycle.
    FRA disagrees with this commenter and believes that the cost used 
in the RIA for the NPRM is appropriate, given its understanding and 
interpretation of the regulatory requirements. In response, FRA 
emphasizes that its cost estimate is an average that includes lower 
cost inspections, such as that of a wood trestle bridge over a small 
stream, which would be less than the average cost. In addition, this 
commenter was basing the higher cost estimate on a more expensive, 
hands-on detailed bridge inspection process required on a 2-year 
frequency for highway bridges by FHWA. Finally, this commenter was 
providing comments related to experiences with inspecting a population 
of large highway bridges. For these reasons, FRA has not modified its 
cost estimate for bridge inspections.
(3) A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is 
Available
    The ``universe'' of the entities to be considered generally 
includes only those small entities that are reasonably expected to be 
directly regulated by this action. Two types of small entities are 
potentially affected by this rulemaking: (1) railroads that own track 
supported by a bridge, and (2) governmental jurisdictions of small 
communities that own railroad bridges.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as having the same 
meaning as ``small business concern'' under Section 3 of the Small 
Business Act. This includes any small business concern that is 
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of 
operation. Section 601(4) includes nonprofit enterprises that are 
independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their field 
of operations within the definition of ``small entities.'' 
Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines ``small entities'' as governments 
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts with populations less than 50,000.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates ``size 
standards'' for small entities. It provides that the largest a for-
profit railroad business firm may be (and still classify as a ``small 
entity'') is 1,500 employees for ``line-haul operating'' railroads, and

[[Page 41298]]

500 employees for ``shortline operating'' railroads.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Table of Size Standards,'' U.S. Small Business 
Administration, January 31, 1996, 13 CFR Part 121. See also NAICS 
Codes 482111 and 482112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBA size standards may be altered by Federal agencies in 
consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant 
to the authority provided to it by SBA, FRA has published a final 
policy, which formally establishes small entities as railroads that 
meet the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.\2\ 
Currently, the revenue requirements are $20 million or less in annual 
operating revenue, adjusted annually for inflation. The $20 million 
limit (adjusted annually for inflation) is based on the Surface 
Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which 
is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment.\3\ 
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a 
railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity. FRA proposed to use 
this definition for the rulemaking in the NPRM and received no comments 
on that proposal. FRA is using this definition for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003).
    \3\ For further information on the calculation of the specific 
dollar limit, please see 49 CFR Part 1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Governmental Jurisdictions of Small Communities
    Small entities that are classified as governmental jurisdictions of 
small communities may also be affected by this rulemaking. As stated 
above, and defined by SBA, this term refers to the governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts with populations of less than 50,000. The potential 
impact of this rulemaking to these entities is related to their 
ownership of a bridge, and possibly the track supported by the bridge 
as well. Such bridges are usually built by communities, with railroad 
collaboration, to achieve highway-rail grade separation. FRA does not 
have information regarding the number of small communities that own 
such bridges and received no additional information during the comment 
process of the NPRM.
    In some cases, however, the government entity and the railroad 
apportion ownership, expenses, and maintenance responsibility according 
to the provisions of an order from the State regulatory agency that 
governs highway and railroad crossing improvements. It is most common 
for the railroad to retain the responsibility for the actual inspection 
and management of the bridge. To the extent that agreements which 
require cost-sharing and existing bridge management programs would have 
to be enhanced to meet the final regulation, there may be some burden 
passed on to small government jurisdictions; however, such burden is 
not expected to be substantial. To the extent that any burden does 
result, it is possible that insurance premiums could be adjusted to 
reflect the risk reduction, resulting in some level of savings in 
addition to the cost of the program enhancement. This would, of course, 
be in addition to safety benefits related to fewer accidents.
    Accordingly, FRA cannot accurately assess the number of 
governmental jurisdictions of small communities that would be directly 
impacted by this regulation and what the impact would be to them. FRA 
requested comment from affected governmental jurisdictions as to the 
impact the proposed rule would have on them during the NPRM comment 
process. The comments received during the public comment period of the 
NPRM did not provide any additional data or information on this issue.
(b) Railroads
    There are approximately 687 small railroads meeting the definition 
of ``small entity'' as described above. FRA estimates that 
approximately 95 percent of these small entities, or approximately 653, 
own track supported by a bridge. Because the final rule would apply to 
all of these small railroads, FRA has concluded that a substantial 
number of such entities would be impacted. Note, however, that 
approximately 125 of these railroads are subsidiaries of large 
shortline holding companies with the expertise and resources comparable 
to larger railroads. In the IRFA for the NPRM, FRA estimated a smaller 
number of subsidiaries, but since then has gained more accurate 
information as to the best estimate of how many small railroads are 
subsidiaries of larger corporations. In addition, absent this 
rulemaking, most railroads that own track supported by bridges, 
including many of the railroads identified as small entities, would to 
some extent voluntarily incur the expense associated with 
implementation of the bridge management programs in accordance with the 
requirements imposed by FRA to address the risk associated with 
structural failure of a bridge. In fact, the ASLRRA, which represents 
most of the small railroads impacted by this rulemaking, has developed 
a model bridge management program intended to keep bridge and culvert 
infrastructure safe and structurally sound. Member railroads are 
expected to take the generic plan and customize it to meet their 
specific circumstances and the requirements in this rule. Such 
initiative would minimize the program development cost. Nevertheless, 
program implementation costs may be substantial for those small 
railroads that do not currently have bridge management programs, and do 
not inspect railroad bridges regularly.
    While FRA does recognize that some small railroads do not currently 
have bridge management programs, FRA believes that many railroads have 
already made (or are making) the transition to track structures and 
bridges capable of handling 286,000-pound cars in line with the general 
movement in the industry toward these heavier freight cars. To protect 
such investments, which are usually quite significant, railroads are 
already implementing bridge management programs.
    For example, in 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute reported 
that 42 percent of the shortline railroad miles that were operated in 
Texas that year had already been upgraded, 9 percent would not need an 
upgrade, and 47 percent needed upgrading if they wanted to transport 
any type of 286,000-pound shipments.\4\ In addition, the results of a 
1998-1999 survey conducted by ASLRRA indicated that 41 percent of 
respondent shortline railroads could handle 286,000-pound rail cars and 
87 percent of the respondent shortline railroads indicated that they 
would need to accommodate 286,000-pound railcars in the future.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Jeffrey E. Warner and Manuel Solari Terra, ``Assessment of 
Texas Short Line Railroads,'' Texas Transportation Institute 
(November 15, 2005).
    \5\ The 10-Year Needs of Short Line and Regional Railroads, 
Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC (December 
1999). This report was based on a survey conducted by the ASLRRA in 
1998 and 1999, with data from 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, at least one Class I railroad has arranged for 
shortline and regional railroads that connect with it to send 
participants to several multiday bridge inspection classes this year.
    In general, implementation of the final rule will likely 
significantly burden only a small portion of the small railroads 
potentially affected. FRA invited commenters to submit information that 
might assist us in assessing the cost impacts on small railroads of the 
proposals during the comment process of the NPRM; however, very little 
comment was received on this matter, and comments received were not 
sufficient to allow us to make a determination.

[[Page 41299]]

(4) A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the 
Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and 
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report 
or Record
    The impacts from this rulemaking will primarily result from 
complying with the requirements for the adoption of bridge management 
programs. The final rule provides affected entities 6- to 24-month 
periods of time in which to adopt such programs. Class III railroads 
will have the full 24-month period from the effective date of the final 
rule, unless they have more than 10 scheduled passenger trains per week 
operating anywhere on their system, in which case they would have only 
6 months.
(a) Recordkeeping Requirements of Sec.  237.33
    The requirements in Sec.  237.33 stipulate that each bridge 
management program includes an accurate inventory of railroad bridges; 
a record of the safe load capacity of each bridge; a provision to 
obtain and maintain the design documents of each bridge if available, 
and to document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each 
bridge; and a bridge inspection program covering the method of 
documenting inspections, including standard forms and formats.
    FRA believes that most railroads, regardless of size, already 
maintain an accurate inventory of their railroad bridges, records of 
the safe load capacity of their bridges, and design documents to the 
extent they are available. Likewise, because it is good business 
practice to do so, most railroads maintain documents related to all 
repairs, modifications, and inspections of bridges. The States of Ohio, 
Michigan, and New York have existing bridge regulations requiring 
railroads to maintain bridge inventories and inspect bridges annually. 
There are approximately 100 small railroads that operate in those 
States. However, some railroads may not include in their documentation 
some of the particular data items specified in this rule. Thus these 
requirements will impose a nominal additional recordkeeping burden on 
some small railroads.
    As noted above, not all small railroads have inspection programs. 
ASLRRA, however, has developed a model program for its members, thus 
minimizing the burden associated with the development of such plans. 
FRA estimates that the burden for individual railroad customization of 
the program would range from $570, for the smaller Class III railroads, 
to $3,000 for the larger Class III railroads. Costs associated with 
maintenance, modifications, and updates to bridge management plans will 
average approximately 15 percent of the initial development cost, or 
between $85 and $450, annually. Therefore, this reporting requirement 
will have minimal impact on small entities.
    Determination of bridge load capacity will be made by a bridge 
engineer. The engineer is determined by the track owner to be competent 
to perform the functions necessary for the determination of load 
capacity. Bridge inspection procedures would be specified by a railroad 
bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the conduct and 
review of the inspections.
(b) Bridge Inspections
    Bridge management programs will be required to contain bridge 
inspection programs. Subpart E requires calendar year inspections of 
bridges according to specified procedures, as well as special 
inspection of bridges that might be damaged by a natural or accidental 
event. This subpart also specifies that bridge inspections must be 
conducted under the direct supervision of a designated bridge 
inspector. The inspector is deemed technically competent to view, 
measure, report, and record the condition of a railroad bridge and its 
individual components. FRA expects there will be a significant increase 
in the number of bridge inspections conducted by small railroads or 
their contractors or consulting engineers. FRA requested comments and 
input regarding the extent to which Class III railroads already conduct 
annual inspection of bridges and the extent to which they would have to 
conduct additional bridge inspections. FRA did not receive any comments 
or information related to this request.
    Most small railroads do not have bridge engineers or inspectors on 
staff. They contract out bridge inspections. A typical contract is for 
the inspection of most (if not all) the bridges the railroad owns, with 
delivery of a final report addressing the state of all bridges. Interim 
reports are provided to the railroad, or the responsible railroad 
bridge engineer, to record the fact that a certain bridge has actually 
been inspected and whether or not any significant deficiencies were 
noted. Some States provide shortline railroads funding via grants and 
loans for infrastructure improvements including bridge rehabilitation, 
track maintenance, and bridge inspection. For instance, the Tennessee 
Department of Transportation provides significant grants for such 
projects to most of the 20 Class III railroads in the State.\6\ The 
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation administers a matching grant 
program to support freight railroad maintenance and construction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Railroad Bridges and 
Tunnels, Federal Role in Providing Safety Oversight and Freight 
Infrastructure Investment Could Be Better Targeted,'' August 2007, 
(GAO-07-770).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA believes that small railroads own, or would otherwise be 
responsible for inspecting, approximately 20,000 bridges. FRA estimates 
that the average cost per bridge inspection is $750, and that 
approximately 10,000 bridges are being inspected less frequently than 
once a year, while 5,000 are not inspected at all. Most small railroads 
may own track supported by several bridges, especially in some areas 
where the terrain requires such structures. FRA requested comment 
regarding the level of cost burden that the annual inspection would 
impose. The cost for this requirement was the largest cost in FRA's 
RIA. FRA believes that, of the railroads which do not presently inspect 
their bridges on an annual basis, most are small railroads.
(c) Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
    Subpart D requires the determination of bridge load capacities. FRA 
believes that railroad bridge owners are generally aware of bridge load 
capacities. Nevertheless, it is likely that some railroads will have to 
take action to verify this information in order to develop the type of 
documentation required by this subpart. Bridge load capacity 
information is vital to ensuring that safe capacity is not exceeded. 
Small railroads affected by this requirement will likely have a 
consulting engineer perform such calculations. Most of the bridges that 
do not already have load capacities calculated are smaller, less 
complex structures.
(d) Repair and Modification of Bridges
    Subpart F prescribes minimum standards for bridge modification and 
repair that will materially modify the capacity of a bridge or the 
stresses in any primary load carrying component of the bridge. 
Modifications and repairs to bridges (except for minor modifications 
and repairs) will have to be designed by railroad bridge engineers, and 
the work will have to be supervised by designated bridge supervisors. 
Small railroads will generally contract out such modifications and 
repairs. As common

[[Page 41300]]

practice, consulting engineers meet the design and supervision 
requirements of this rule, and competent contractor employees may be 
designated to perform the immediate supervision of much of the 
modification and repair work.
(e) Audits
    Each program will have to include provisions for auditing the 
effectiveness of several provisions of the program, including the 
validity of bridge inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and 
the correct application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment 
of exceptional weight or configuration. FRA anticipates that Class III 
railroad audits will generally be performed by a company official 
following guidance in the ASLRRA model program and without assistance 
from an external financial or engineering auditor. In general, FRA 
anticipates that the audit process will be simpler and consume fewer 
resources for small railroads than for larger railroads. This is 
because, by the nature of their operations, shortlines will probably 
have smaller and less complex bridge populations.
(5) A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Adverse Economic Impact On Small Entities Consistent With 
the Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule, and Why Each of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Was Rejected
    In Sec.  237.31, FRA sets the schedule for railroads to adopt 
bridge safety management programs. In consideration of the impact on 
small railroads that may not already have such programs, this schedule 
generally provides small railroads with an additional 18 months more 
than Class I carriers, and an additional 12 months more than Class II 
carriers, to adopt these programs.
    FRA has identified no additional, significant alternative to this 
final rule that satisfies the mandate of the RSIA or meets the agency's 
objective in promulgating this rule, and that would minimize the 
economic impact of the rulemaking on small entities. As in all aspects 
of this rulemaking, FRA requested comments on this finding of no 
significant alternative related to small entities. No comments were 
received relative to the question of what alternatives could be 
provided to small entities.
    The process by which this final rule was developed provided 
outreach to small entities. As noted in Section III of this final rule, 
this rule was developed in consultation with industry representatives 
through RSAC, which includes small railroad representatives. On 
December 10, 2008, RSAC referred to the Working Group, established in 
March 2008, the task of developing a draft rule requiring the owners of 
track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a bridge safety 
management program to reduce the risk of human casualties, 
environmental damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad 
transportation system resulting from catastrophic bridge failure. The 
Working Group met twice, on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24, 
2009. Small railroad representatives participated in both meetings and 
raised issues of concern to small railroads. Of specific concern to 
small railroads that own several bridges and contract out the 
inspection of these bridges, was the ability to continue to enter into 
such contractual agreements structured such that final inspection 
reports are submitted as part of a single report at the completion of 
the contract, which could span several months. After the comment period 
for the NPRM closed, FRA held a 1-day meeting for the Working Group to 
review the comments to the docket. This meeting was held in Washington, 
DC, on December 15, 2009. At this meeting all comments were reviewed 
and the Working Group provided FRA with pertinent input on potential 
issues. This final rule takes into account the comments and input 
provided by the Working Group.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
The sections that contain the new information collection requirements 
and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Total
                                                               Total annual        Average time per      annual
            CFR Section              Respondent universe         responses             response          burden
                                                                                                         hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.3:
    Notifications to FRA of         693 Railroads........  15 notifications....  90 minutes..........       22.5
     Assignment of Bridge
     Responsibility.
    Signed Statement by Assignee    693 Railroads........  15 signed statements  30 minutes..........        7.5
     Concerning Bridge
     Responsibility.
237.9: Waivers--Petitions.........  693 Railroads........  12 petitions........  4 hours.............         48
237.31 and 237.33: Development/     693 Railroads........  693 plans...........  Varies..............     20,100
 Adoption of Bridge Management
 Program.
237.57: Designation of Qualified    693 Railroads........  200 designations....  30 minutes..........        100
 Individuals.
237.71: Determination of Bridge     693 Railroads........  2,000 determinations  8 hours.............     16,000
 Load Capacities.
237.73: Issuance of Instructions    693 Railroads........  2,000 instructions..  2 hours.............      4,000
 to Railroad Personnel by Track
 Owner.
237.105:
    Special Bridge Inspections and  693 Railroads........  7,500 inspections     12.50 hours.........     93,750
     Reports/Records.                                       and reports/records.
    Special Underwater Inspections  693 Railroads........  50 inspections and    40 hours............      2,000
                                                            reports/records.
237.107 and 237.109:
    Nationwide Annual Bridge        693 Railroads........  18,000 inspections    4 hours.............     72,000
     Inspections--Reports.                                  and reports.
    Records.......................  693 Railroads........  18,000 records......  1 hour..............     18,000

[[Page 41301]]

 
    Report of Deficient Condition   693 Railroads........  50 reports..........  30 minutes..........         25
     on a Bridge (New from NPRM).
237.111:
    Review of Bridge Inspection     693 Railroads........  2,000 inspection      30 minutes..........      1,000
     Reports by Railroad Bridge                             report reviews.
     Engineers.
    Prescription of Bridge          693 Railroads........  200 inspection        30 minutes..........        100
     Inspection Procedure                                   procedure
     Modifications After Review.                            modifications.
237.131:
    Design of Bridge Modifications  693 Railroads........  1,250 designs.......  16 hours............     20,000
     or Bridge Repairs.
    Bridge Modification Repair      693 Railroads........  1,250 bridge          1.50 hours..........      1,875
     Reviews/Supervisory Efforts.                           modification repair
                                                            reviews.
    Common Standard Designed by     693 Railroads........  50 standards........  24 hours............      1,200
     Railroad Bridge Engineer (New
     from NPRM).
237.153: Audits of Inspections....  693 Railroads........  693 inspection        80 hours/24 hours/6       5,470
                                                            audits.               hours.
237.155--Documents and Records:
    Establishment of Railroad       693 Railroads........  5 systems...........  80 hours............        400
     Monitoring and Information
     Technology Security Systems
     for Electronic Recordkeeping.
    Employees Trained in System...  693 Railroads........  100 employees.......  8 hours.............        800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the 
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan at 202-
493-6292 or Ms. Kimberly Toone at 202-493-6132, or via e-mail at the 
following respective addresses: [email protected]; or 
[email protected].
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be 
sent via e-mail to the Office of Management and Budget at the following 
address: [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
    FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information 
collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control 
number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers 
for any new information collection requirements resulting from this 
rulemaking action prior to the effective date of this final rule. The 
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice 
in the Federal Register.

D. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with its 
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) 
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, 
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has 
determined that this action is not a major FRA action (requiring the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental 
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed 
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 
64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of 
FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no 
extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this final rule that 
might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a 
result, FRA finds that this final rule is not a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

E. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), 
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency 
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments 
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early 
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has 
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to 
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the 
regulation.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule will 
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
FRA has also determined that this final rule will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. 
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 
13132 do not apply.
    Moreover, FRA notes that RSAC, which provided advice regarding this 
final rule, has as permanent members, two organizations representing 
State and local interests: AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these State 
organizations concurred with the RSAC

[[Page 41302]]

recommendation made in this rulemaking. RSAC regularly provides 
recommendations to the Administrator of FRA for solutions to regulatory 
issues that reflect significant input from its State members. To date, 
FRA has received no indication of concerns about the federalism 
implications of this rulemaking from these representatives or from any 
other representatives of State government.
    However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by operation 
of law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 
1970 (former FRSA), 49 U.S.C 20106 (Sec. 20106). The former FRSA 
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law, 
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers 
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the 
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) 
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad 
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order 
qualifies under the ``local safety or security hazard'' exception to 
Section 20106.
    In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As 
explained above, FRA has determined that this final rule has no 
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State 
laws under the former FRSA. Accordingly, FRA has determined that 
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this final 
rule is not required.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless 
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector 
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general 
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the 
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) (currently $140,800,000) in any 1 
year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice 
of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a 
written statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. This final rule will not result in 
the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $140,800,000 or more in any one 
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See 
66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order a ``significant 
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates 
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed 
rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any 
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has evaluated 
this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 
determined that this final rule is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 
Consequently, FRA has determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant energy action'' within the meaning of the Executive 
Order.

H. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit 
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 237

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Bridge safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends chapter II, subtitle B, 
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by removing appendix C to part 
213 and adding part 237 as follows:

PART 213--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, 
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.

Appendix C to Part 213--[Removed]

0
2. In part 213, remove appendix C.

0
3. Add part 237 to read as follows:

PART 237--BRIDGE SAFETY STANDARDS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
237.1 Application.
237.3 Responsibility for compliance.
237.5 Definitions.
237.7 Penalties.
237.9 Waivers.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs.
237.33 Content of bridge management programs.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
237.51 Railroad bridge engineers.
237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors.
237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors.
237.57 Designation of individuals.
Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities.
237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension 
loads.
Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections.
237.103 Bridge inspection procedures.
237.105 Special inspections.
237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections.
237.109 Bridge inspection records.
237.111 Review of bridge inspection reports.
Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
237.131 Design.
237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications.
Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management 
Programs
237.151 Audits; general.
237.153 Audits of inspections.
237.155 Documents and records.
Appendix A--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of 
Railroad Bridges
Appendix B--Schedule of Civil Penalties

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20114; P.L. 110-432, division A, 
section 417; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.

[[Page 41303]]

Subpart A--General


Sec.  237.1  Application.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, 
this part applies to all owners of railroad track with a gage of two 
feet or more and which is supported by a bridge.
    (b) This part does not apply to bridges on track used exclusively 
for rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected 
with the general railroad system of transportation.
    (c) This part does not apply to bridges located within an 
installation which is not part of the general railroad system of 
transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.


Sec.  237.3  Responsibility for compliance.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an owner 
of track to which this part applies is responsible for compliance.
    (b) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns 
responsibility for the bridges that carry the track to another person 
(by lease or otherwise), written notification of the assignment shall 
be provided to the appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 30 days in 
advance of the assignment. The notification may be made by any party to 
that assignment, but shall be in writing and include the following--
    (1) The name and address of the track owner;
    (2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is 
assigned (assignee);
    (3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner 
and the assignee;
    (4) A precise identification of the track segment and the 
individual bridges in the assignment;
    (5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to 
carry out the bridge safety duties of the track owner under this part; 
and
    (6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment 
to him of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this part.
    (c) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee, or 
both, responsible for compliance with this part and subject to 
penalties under Sec.  237.7.
    (d) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface 
Transportation Board to provide service over the track of another 
railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner of that track 
for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the 
directed service order remains in effect.
    (e) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track 
owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is 
required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
    (f) Where an owner of track to which this part applies has 
previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to another 
person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification to FRA 
is not required.
    (g) FRA reserves the right to reject an assignment of 
responsibility under Sec.  237.3(b) for cause shown.


Sec.  237.5  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this part--
    Bridge modification means a change to the configuration of a 
railroad bridge that affects the load capacity of the bridge.
    Bridge repair means remediation of damage or deterioration which 
has affected the structural integrity of a railroad bridge.
    Railroad bridge means any structure with a deck, regardless of 
length, which supports one or more railroad tracks, or any other 
undergrade structure with an individual span length of 10 feet or more 
located at such a depth that it is affected by live loads.
    Track owner means a person responsible for compliance in accordance 
with Sec.  237.3.


Sec.  237.7  Penalties.

    (a) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes 
the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of 
at least $650 and not more than $25,000 per violation, except that: 
Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful 
violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of 
repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury 
to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed 
$100,000 per violation may be assessed. ``Person'' means an entity of 
any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the 
following: A railroad; a manager, supervisor, official, or other 
employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or 
lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent 
contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; any employee of 
such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor; 
and anyone held by the Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
Administration to be responsible under Sec.  237.3(d). Each day a 
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See Appendix B 
to this part for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.
    (b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or 
report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under 
49 U.S.C. 21311.


Sec.  237.9  Waivers.

    (a) Any person subject to a requirement of this part may petition 
the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with such requirement. The 
filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility 
for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being 
considered.
    (b) Each petition for waiver must be filed in the manner and 
contain the information required by part 211 of this chapter.
    (c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in 
the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the 
Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the 
Administrator deems necessary. If a waiver is granted, the 
Administrator publishes a notice in the Federal Register containing the 
reasons for granting the waiver.

Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance


Sec.  237.31  Adoption of bridge management programs.

    Each track owner shall adopt a bridge safety management program to 
prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges by preserving their 
capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated over them, and 
reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and 
disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system that would 
result from a catastrophic bridge failure, not later than the dates in 
the following schedule:
    (a) March 14, 2011: Class I carriers;
    (b) March 14, 2011: Owners of track segments which are part of the 
general railroad system of transportation and which carry more than ten 
scheduled passenger trains per week;
    (c) September 13, 2011: Class II carriers to which paragraph (b) of 
this section does not apply; and
    (d) September 13, 2012: All other track owners subject to this part 
and not described paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.


Sec.  237.33  Content of bridge management programs.

    Each bridge management program adopted in compliance with this part 
shall include, as a minimum, the following:
    (a) An accurate inventory of railroad bridges, which shall include 
a unique identifier for each bridge, its location,

[[Page 41304]]

configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span lengths, and 
all other information necessary to provide for the management of bridge 
safety;
    (b) A record of the safe load capacity of each bridge;
    (c) A provision to obtain and maintain the design documents of each 
bridge if available, and to document all repairs, modifications, and 
inspections of each bridge; and
    (d) A bridge inspection program covering as a minimum:
    (1) Inspection personnel safety considerations;
    (2) Types of inspection including required detail;
    (3) Definitions of defect levels along with associated condition 
codes if condition codes are used;
    (4) The method of documenting inspections including standard forms 
or formats;
    (5) Structure type and component nomenclature; and
    (6) Numbering or identification protocol for substructure units, 
spans, and individual components.

Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons


Sec.  237.51  Railroad bridge engineers.

    (a) A railroad bridge engineer shall be a person who is determined 
by the track owner to be competent to perform the following functions 
as they apply to the particular engineering work to be performed:
    (1) Determine the forces and stresses in railroad bridges and 
bridge components;
    (2) Prescribe safe loading conditions for railroad bridges;
    (3) Prescribe inspection and maintenance procedures for railroad 
bridges; and
    (4) Design repairs and modifications to railroad bridges.
    (b) The educational qualifications of a railroad bridge engineer 
shall include either:
    (1) A degree in engineering granted by a school of engineering with 
at least one program accredited by ABET, Inc. or its successor 
organization as a professional engineering curriculum, or a degree from 
a program accredited as a professional engineering curriculum by a 
foreign organization recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor; or
    (2) Current registration as a professional engineer.
    (c) Nothing in this part affects the States' authority to regulate 
the professional practice of engineering.


Sec.  237.53  Railroad bridge inspectors.

    A railroad bridge inspector shall be a person who is determined by 
the track owner to be technically competent to view, measure, report 
and record the condition of a railroad bridge and its individual 
components which that person is designated to inspect. An inspector 
shall be designated to authorize or restrict the operation of railroad 
traffic over a bridge according to its immediate condition or state of 
repair.


Sec.  237.55  Railroad bridge supervisors.

    A railroad bridge supervisor shall be a person, regardless of 
position title, who is determined by the track owner to be technically 
competent to supervise the construction, modification or repair of a 
railroad bridge in conformance with common or particular 
specifications, plans and instructions applicable to the work to be 
performed, and to authorize or restrict the operation of railroad 
traffic over a bridge according to its immediate condition or state of 
repair.


Sec.  237.57  Designations of individuals.

    Each track owner shall designate those individuals qualified as 
railroad bridge engineers, railroad bridge inspectors and railroad 
bridge supervisors. Each individual designation shall include the basis 
for the designation in effect and shall be recorded.

Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges


Sec.  237.71  Determination of bridge load capacities.

    (a) Each track owner shall determine the load capacity of each of 
its railroad bridges. The load capacity need not be the ultimate or 
maximum load capacity, but must be a safe load capacity.
    (b) The load capacity of each bridge shall be documented in the 
track owner's bridge management program, together with the method by 
which the capacity was determined.
    (c) The determination of load capacity shall be made by a railroad 
bridge engineer using appropriate engineering methods and standards 
that are particularly applicable to railroad bridges.
    (d) Bridge load capacity may be determined from existing design and 
modification records of a bridge, provided that the bridge 
substantially conforms to its recorded configuration. Otherwise, the 
load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and 
calculation of the properties of its individual components, or other 
methods as determined by a railroad bridge engineer.
    (e) If a track owner has a group of bridges for which the load 
capacity has not already been determined, the owner shall schedule the 
evaluation of those bridges according to their relative priority, as 
established by a railroad bridge engineer. The initial determination of 
load capacity shall be completed not later than five years following 
the required date for adoption of the track owner's bridge management 
program in conformance with Sec.  237.31.
    (f) Where a bridge inspection reveals that, in the determination of 
the railroad bridge engineer, the condition of a bridge or a bridge 
component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to carry the 
traffic being operated, a new capacity shall be determined.
    (g) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical 
values related to a standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any 
case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual or combined 
cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.
    (h) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of both normal 
and maximum load conditions. Operation of equipment that produces 
forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any 
restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge 
engineer.


Sec.  237.73  Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension 
loads.

    (a) Each track owner shall issue instructions to the personnel who 
are responsible for the configuration and operation of trains over its 
bridges to prevent the operation of cars, locomotives and other 
equipment that would exceed the capacity or dimensions of its bridges.
    (b) The instructions regarding weight shall be expressed in terms 
of maximum equipment weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or 
axle spacing.
    (c) The instructions regarding dimensions shall be expressed in 
terms of feet and inches of cross section and equipment length, in 
conformance with common railroad industry practice for reporting 
dimensions of exceptional equipment in interchange in which height 
above top-of-rail is shown for each cross section measurement, followed 
by the width of the car of the shipment at that height.
    (d) The instructions may apply to individual structures, or to a 
defined line segment or group(s) of line segments where the published 
capacities and dimensions are within the limits of all structures on 
the subject line segments.

[[Page 41305]]

Subpart E--Bridge Inspection


Sec.  237.101  Scheduling of bridge inspections.

    (a) Each bridge management program shall include a provision for 
scheduling an inspection for each bridge in railroad service at least 
once in each calendar year, with not more than 540 days between any 
successive inspections.
    (b) A bridge shall be inspected more frequently than provided for 
in the bridge management program when a railroad bridge engineer 
determines that such inspection frequency is necessary considering 
conditions noted on prior inspections, the type and configuration of 
the bridge, and the weight and frequency of traffic carried on the 
bridge.
    (c) Each bridge management program shall define requirements for 
the special inspection of a bridge to be performed whenever the bridge 
is involved in an event which might have compromised the integrity of 
the bridge, including but not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake, 
derailment or vehicular or vessel impact.
    (d) Any railroad bridge that has not been in railroad service and 
has not been inspected in accordance with this section within the 
previous 540 days shall be inspected and the inspection report reviewed 
by a railroad bridge engineer prior to the resumption of railroad 
service.


Sec.  237.103  Bridge inspection procedures.

    (a) Each bridge management program shall specify the procedure to 
be used for inspection of individual bridges or classes and types of 
bridges.
    (b) The bridge inspection procedures shall be as specified by a 
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the 
conduct and review of the inspections. The inspection procedures shall 
incorporate the methods, means of access, and level of detail to be 
recorded for the various components of that bridge or class of bridges.
    (c) The bridge inspection procedures shall ensure that the level of 
detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate to: the 
configuration of the bridge; conditions found during previous 
inspections; the nature of the railroad traffic moved over the bridge 
(including equipment weights, train frequency and length, levels of 
passenger and hazardous materials traffic); and vulnerability of the 
bridge to damage.
    (d) The bridge inspection procedures shall be designed to detect, 
report and protect deterioration and deficiencies before they present a 
hazard to safe train operation.


Sec.  237.105  Special inspections.

    (a) Each bridge management program shall prescribe a procedure for 
protection of train operations and for inspection of any bridge that 
might have been damaged by a natural or accidental event, including but 
not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake, derailment or vehicular or 
vessel impact.
    (b) Each bridge management program shall provide for the detection 
of scour or deterioration of bridge components that are submerged, or 
that are subject to water flow.


Sec.  237.107  Conduct of bridge inspections.

    Bridge inspections shall be conducted under the direct supervision 
of a designated railroad bridge inspector, who shall be responsible for 
the accuracy of the results and the conformity of the inspection to the 
bridge management program.


Sec.  237.109  Bridge inspection records.

    (a) Each track owner to which this part applies shall keep a record 
of each inspection required to be performed on those bridges under this 
part.
    (b) Each record of an inspection under the bridge management 
program prescribed in this part shall be prepared from notes taken on 
the day(s) the inspection is made, supplemented with sketches and 
photographs as needed. Such record will be dated with the date(s) the 
physical inspection takes place and the date the record is created, and 
it will be signed or otherwise certified by the person making the 
inspection.
    (c) Each bridge management program shall specify that every bridge 
inspection report shall include, as a minimum, the following 
information:
    (1) A precise identification of the bridge inspected;
    (2) The date on which the physical inspection was completed;
    (3) The identification and written or electronic signature of the 
inspector;
    (4) The type of inspection performed, in conformance with the 
definitions of inspection types in the bridge management program;
    (5) An indication on the report as to whether any item noted 
thereon requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge 
engineer, and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection;
    (6) The condition of components inspected, which may be in a 
condition reporting format prescribed in the bridge management program, 
together with any narrative descriptions necessary for the correct 
interpretation of the report; and
    (7) When an inspection does not encompass the entire bridge, the 
portions of the bridge which were inspected shall be identified in the 
report.
    (d) An initial report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in 
the location designated in the bridge management program within 30 
calendar days of the completion of the inspection unless the complete 
inspection report is filed first. The initial report shall include the 
information required by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this 
section.
    (e) A complete report of each bridge inspection, including as a 
minimum the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of 
this section, shall be placed in the location designated in the bridge 
management program within 120 calendar days of the completion of the 
inspection.
    (f) Each bridge inspection program shall specify the retention 
period and location for bridge inspection records. The retention period 
shall be no less than two years following the completion of the 
inspection. Records of underwater inspections shall be retained until 
the completion and review of the next underwater inspection of the 
bridge.
    (g) If a bridge inspector, supervisor, or engineer discovers a 
deficient condition on a bridge that affects the immediate safety of 
train operations, that person shall report the condition as promptly as 
possible to the person who controls the operation of trains on the 
bridge in order to protect the safety of train operations.


Sec.  237.111  Review of bridge inspection reports.

    Bridge inspection reports shall be reviewed by railroad bridge 
supervisors and railroad bridge engineers to:
    (a) Determine whether inspections have been performed in accordance 
with the prescribed schedule and specified procedures;
    (b) Evaluate whether any items on the report represent a present or 
potential hazard to safety;
    (c) Prescribe any modifications to the inspection procedures or 
frequency for that particular bridge;
    (d) Schedule any repairs or modifications to the bridge required to 
maintain its structural integrity; and
    (e) Determine the need for further higher-level review.

[[Page 41306]]

Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges


Sec.  237.131  Design.

    Each repair or modification which materially modifies the capacity 
of a bridge or the stresses in any primary load-carrying component of a 
bridge shall be designed by a railroad bridge engineer. The design 
shall specify the manner in which railroad traffic or other live loads 
may be permitted on the bridge while it is being modified or repaired. 
Designs and procedures for repair or modification of bridges of a 
common configuration, such as timber trestles, or instructions for in-
kind replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common 
standard. Where the common standard addresses procedures and methods 
that could materially modify the capacity of a bridge or the stresses 
in any primary load-carrying component of a bridge, the standard shall 
be designed and issued by a qualified railroad bridge engineer.


Sec.  237.133  Supervision of repairs and modifications.

    Each repair or modification pursuant to this part shall be 
performed under the immediate supervision of a railroad bridge 
supervisor as defined in Sec.  237.55 of this part who is designated 
and authorized by the track owner to supervise the particular work to 
be performed. The railroad bridge supervisor shall ensure that railroad 
traffic or other live loads permitted on the bridge under repair or 
modification are in conformity with the specifications in the design.

Subpart G--Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management 
Programs


Sec.  237.151  Audits; general.

    Each program adopted to comply with this part shall include 
provisions for auditing the effectiveness of the several provisions of 
that program, including the validity of bridge inspection reports and 
bridge inventory data, and the correct application of movement 
restrictions to railroad equipment of exceptional weight or 
configuration.


Sec.  237.153  Audits of inspections.

    (a) Each bridge management program shall incorporate provisions for 
an internal audit to determine whether the inspection provisions of the 
program are being followed, and whether the program itself is 
effectively providing for the continued safety of the subject bridges.
    (b) The inspection audit shall include an evaluation of a 
representative sampling of bridge inspection reports at the bridges 
noted on the reports to determine whether the reports accurately 
describe the condition of the bridge.


Sec.  237.155  Documents and records.

    Each track owner required to implement a bridge management program 
and keep records under this part shall make those program documents and 
records available for inspection and reproduction by the Federal 
Railroad Administration.
    (a) Electronic recordkeeping; general. For purposes of compliance 
with the recordkeeping requirements of this part, a track owner may 
create and maintain any of the records required by this part through 
electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval provided that all of 
the following conditions are met:
    (1) The system used to generate the electronic record meets all 
requirements of this subpart;
    (2) The electronically generated record contains the information 
required by this part;
    (3) The track owner monitors its electronic records database 
through sufficient number of monitoring indicators to ensure a high 
degree of accuracy of these records;
    (4) The track owner shall train its employees who use the system on 
the proper use of the electronic recordkeeping system; and
    (5) The track owner maintains an information technology security 
program adequate to ensure the integrity of the system, including the 
prevention of unauthorized access to the program logic or individual 
records.
    (b) System security. The integrity of the bridge inspection records 
must be protected by a security system that incorporates a user 
identity and password, or a comparable method, to establish appropriate 
levels of program and record data access meeting all of the following 
standards:
    (1) No two individuals have the same electronic identity;
    (2) A record cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after 
the record is certified by the employee who created the record;
    (3) Any amendment to a record is either--
    (i) Electronically stored apart from the record that it amends; or
    (ii) Electronically attached to the record as information without 
changing the original record;
    (4) Each amendment to a record uniquely identifies the person 
making the amendment; and
    (5) The electronic system provides for the maintenance of 
inspection records as originally submitted without corruption or loss 
of data.

Appendix A to Part 237--Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the 
Safety of Railroad Bridges

    A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges 
was originally published by FRA in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal 
Track Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 213. With the promulgation of 49 
CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards, many of the non-regulatory 
provisions in that Policy Statement have been incorporated into the 
bridge safety standards in this part.
    However, FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items are 
still useful as information and guidance for track owners. Those 
provisions of the Policy Statement are therefore retained and placed 
in this Appendix in lieu of their former location in the Track 
Safety Standards.

General

    1. The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad 
tracks is important to the safety of railroad employees and to the 
public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is 
specified in Sec.  237.3, ``Responsibility for compliance.''
    2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be 
determined only by intelligent application of engineering principles 
and the law of physics. Track owners should use those principles to 
assess the integrity of railroad bridges.
    3. The long term ability of a structure to perform its function 
is an economic issue beyond the intent of this policy. In assessing 
a bridge's structural condition, FRA focuses on the present safety 
of the structure, rather than its appearance or long term 
usefulness.
    4. FRA inspectors conduct regular evaluations of railroad bridge 
inspection and management practices. The objective of these 
evaluations is to document the practices of the evaluated railroad, 
to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety of 
the public or railroad employees, and to assure compliance with the 
terms of this regulation. If the evaluation discloses problems, FRA 
seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is jeopardized by a track 
owner's failure to resolve a bridge problem, FRA will use 
appropriate measures, including assessing civil penalties and 
issuance of emergency orders, to protect the safety of railroad 
employees and the public.
    5. This policy statement addresses the integrity of bridges that 
carry railroad tracks. It does not address the integrity of other 
types of structures on railroad property (i.e., tunnels, highway 
bridges over railroads, or other structures on or over the right-of-
way).
    6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory. They 
do not have the force of regulations or orders, which FRA may 
enforce using civil penalties or other means. The guidelines 
supplement the requirements of part 237 and are retained for 
information and guidance.

Guidelines

    1. Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges.
    (a) The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is 
specified in Sec.  237.3.
    (b) The track owner should maintain current information 
regarding loads that may

[[Page 41307]]

be operated over the bridge, either from its own engineering 
evaluations or as provided by a competent engineer representing the 
track owner. Information on permissible loads may be communicated by 
the track owner either in terms of specific car and locomotive 
configurations and weights, or as values representing a standard 
railroad bridge rating reference system. The most common standard 
bridge rating reference system incorporated in the Manual for 
Railway Engineering of the American Railway Engineering and 
Maintenance-of-Way Association is the dimensional and proportional 
load configuration devised by Theodore Cooper. Other reference 
systems may be used where convenient, provided their effects can be 
defined in terms of shear, bending and pier reactions as necessary 
for a comprehensive evaluation and statement of the capacity of a 
bridge.
    (c) The owner of the track on a bridge should advise other 
railroads operating on that track of the maximum loads permitted on 
the bridge stated in terms of car and locomotive configurations and 
weights. No railroad should operate a load which exceeds those 
limits without specific authority from, and in accordance with 
restrictions placed by, the track owner.
    2. Capacity of railroad bridges.
    (a) The safe capacity of bridges should be determined pursuant 
to Sec.  237.71.
    (b) Proper analysis of a bridge requires knowledge of the actual 
dimensions, materials and properties of the structural members of 
the bridge, their condition, and the stresses imposed in those 
members by the service loads.
    (c) The factors which were used for the design of a bridge can 
generally be used to determine and rate the load capacity of a 
bridge provided:
    (i) The condition of the bridge has not changed significantly; 
and
    (ii) The stresses resulting from the service loads can be 
correlated to the stresses for which the bridge was designed or 
rated.
    3. Railroad bridge loads.
    (a) Control of loads is governed by Sec.  237.73.
    (b) Authority for exceptions. Equipment exceeding the nominal 
weight restriction on a bridge should be operated only under 
conditions determined by a competent railroad bridge engineer who 
has properly analyzed the stresses resulting from the proposed loads 
and has determined that the proposed operation can be conducted 
safely without damaging the bridge.
    (c) Operating conditions. Operating conditions for exceptional 
loads may include speed restrictions, restriction of traffic from 
adjacent multiple tracks, and weight limitations on adjacent cars in 
the same train.
    4. Railroad bridge records.
    (a) The organization responsible for the safety of a bridge 
should keep design, construction, maintenance and repair records 
readily accessible to permit the determination of safe loads. Having 
design or rating drawings and calculations that conform to the 
actual structure greatly simplifies the process of making accurate 
determinations of safe bridge loads. This provision is governed by 
Sec.  237.33.
    (b) Organizations acquiring railroad property should obtain 
original or usable copies of all bridge records and drawings, and 
protect or maintain knowledge of the location of the original 
records.
    5. Specifications for design and rating of railroad bridges.
    (a) The recommended specifications for the design and rating of 
bridges are those found in the Manual for Railway Engineering 
published by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 
Association. These specifications incorporate recognized principles 
of structural design and analysis to provide for the safe and 
economic utilization of railroad bridges during their expected 
useful lives. These specifications are continually reviewed and 
revised by committees of competent engineers. Other specifications 
for design and rating, however, have been successfully used by some 
railroads and may continue to be suitable.
    (b) A bridge can be rated for capacity according to current 
specifications regardless of the specification to which it was 
originally designed.
    6. Periodic inspections of railroad bridges.
    (a) Periodic bridge inspections by competent inspectors are 
necessary to determine whether a structure conforms to its design or 
rating condition and, if not, the degree of nonconformity. See Sec.  
237.101. Section 237.101(a) calls for every railroad bridge to be 
inspected at least once in each calendar year. Deterioration or 
damage may occur during the course of a year regardless of the level 
of traffic that passes over a bridge. Inspections at more frequent 
intervals may be required by the nature or condition of a structure 
or intensive traffic levels.
    7. Underwater inspections of railroad bridges.
    (a) Inspections of bridges should include measuring and 
recording the condition of substructure support at locations subject 
to erosion from moving water.
    (b) Stream beds often are not visible to the inspector. Indirect 
measurements by sounding, probing, or any other appropriate means 
are necessary in these cases. A series of records of these readings 
will provide the best information in the event unexpected changes 
suddenly occur. Where such indirect measurements do not provide the 
necessary assurance of foundation integrity, diving inspections 
should be performed as prescribed by a competent engineer.
    8. Seismic considerations.
    (a) Owners of bridges should be aware of the risks posed by 
earthquakes in the areas in which their bridges are located. 
Precautions should be taken to protect the safety of trains and the 
public following an earthquake.
    (b) Contingency plans for seismic events should be prepared in 
advance, taking into account the potential for seismic activity in 
an area.
    (c) The predicted attenuation of ground motion varies 
considerably within the United States. Local ground motion 
attenuation values and the magnitude of an earthquake both influence 
the extent of the area affected by an earthquake. Regions with low 
frequency of seismic events produce less data from which to predict 
attenuation factors. That uncertainty should be considered when 
designating the area in which precautions should be taken following 
the first notice of an earthquake. In fact, earthquakes in such 
regions might propagate their effects over much wider areas than 
earthquakes of the same magnitude occurring in regions with frequent 
seismic activity.
    9. Special inspections of railroad bridges.
    Requirements for special inspections of railroad bridges are 
found in Sec.  237.105.
    10. Railroad bridge inspection records.
    (a) The requirements for recording and reporting bridge 
inspections are found in Sec.  237.109.
    (b) Information from bridge inspection reports should be 
incorporated into a bridge management program to ensure that 
exceptions on the reports are corrected or accounted for. A series 
of inspection reports prepared over time should be maintained so as 
to provide a valuable record of trends and rates of degradation of 
bridge components. The reports should be structured to promote 
comprehensive inspections and effective communication between an 
inspector and an engineer who performs an analysis of a bridge.
    (c) An inspection report should be comprehensible to a competent 
person without interpretation by the reporting inspector.
    11. Railroad bridge inspectors and engineers.
    (a) Bridge inspections should be performed by technicians whose 
training and experience enable them to detect and record indications 
of distress on a bridge. Inspectors should provide accurate 
measurements and other information about the condition of the bridge 
in enough detail so that an engineer can make a proper evaluation of 
the safety of the bridge. Qualifications of personnel are addressed 
in subpart C to part 237.
    (b) Accurate information about the condition of a bridge should 
be evaluated by an engineer who is competent to determine the 
capacity of the bridge. The inspector and the evaluator often are 
not the same individual; therefore, the quality of the bridge 
evaluation depends on the quality of the communication between them. 
Review of inspection reports is addressed in Sec.  237.111.
    12. Scheduling inspections.
    (a) A bridge management program should include a means to ensure 
that each bridge under the program is inspected at the frequency 
prescribed for that bridge by a competent engineer. Scheduling of 
bridge inspections is addressed in Sec.  237.101.
    (b) Bridge inspections should be scheduled from an accurate 
bridge inventory list that includes the due date of the next 
inspection.
    13. Special considerations for railroad bridges.
    Railroad bridges differ from other types of bridges in the types 
of loads they carry, in their modes of failure and indications of 
distress, and in their construction details and components. Proper 
inspection and analysis of railroad bridges require familiarity with 
the loads, details and indications of distress that are unique to 
this class of structure. Particular care should be taken that 
modifications to railroad bridges, including

[[Page 41308]]

retrofits for protection against the effects of earthquakes, are 
suitable for the structure to which they are to be applied. 
Modifications should not adversely affect the serviceability of 
neither the bridge nor its accessibility for periodic or special 
inspection.
    14. Railroad implementation of bridge safety programs.
    FRA recommends that each track owner or other entity which is 
responsible for the integrity of bridges which support its track 
should comply with the intent of this regulation by adopting and 
implementing an effective and comprehensive program to ensure the 
safety of its bridges. The bridge safety program should incorporate 
the following essential elements, applied according to the 
configuration of the railroad and its bridges. The basis of the 
program should be in one comprehensive and coherent document which 
is available to all railroad personnel and other persons who are 
responsible for the application of any portion of the program. The 
program should include:
    (a) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all persons 
who are designated or authorized to make determinations regarding 
the integrity of the track owner's bridges. The designations may be 
made by position or by individual;
    (b) Provisions for a complete inventory of bridges that carry 
the owner's track, to include the following information on each 
bridge:
    (1) A unique identifier, such as milepost location and a 
subdivision code;
    (2) The location of the bridge by nearest town or station, and 
geographic coordinates;
    (3) The name of the geographic features crossed by the bridge;
    (4) The number of tracks on the bridge;
    (5) The number of spans in the bridge;
    (6) The lengths of the spans;
    (7) Types of construction of:
    (i) Substructure;
    (ii) Superstructure; and
    (iii) Deck;
    (8) Overall length of the bridge;
    (9) Dates of:
    (i) Construction;
    (ii) Major renovation; and
    (iii) Strengthening; and
    (10) Identification of entities responsible for maintenance of 
the bridge or its different components.
    (c) Known capacity of its bridges as determined by rating by 
competent railroad bridge engineer or by design documents;
    (d) Procedures for the control of movement of high, wide or 
heavy loads exceeding the nominal capacity of bridges;
    (e) Instructions for the maintenance of permanent records of 
design, construction, modification, and repair;
    (f) Railroad-specific procedures and standards for design and 
rating of bridges;
    (g) Detailed bridge inspection policy, including:
    (1) Inspector qualifications; including:
    (i) Bridge experience or appropriate educational training;
    (ii) Training on bridge inspection procedures; and
    (iii) Training on Railroad Workplace Safety; and
    (2) Type and frequency of inspection; including:
    (i) Periodic (at least annually);
    (ii) Underwater;
    (iii) Special;
    (iv) Seismic; and
    (v) Cursory inspections of overhead bridges that are not the 
responsibility of the railroad;
    (3) Inspection schedule for each bridge;
    (4) Documentation of inspections; including:
    (i) Date;
    (ii) Name of inspector;
    (iii) Reporting Format; and
    (iv) Coherence of information;
    (5) Inspection Report Review Process;
    (6) Record retention; and
    (7) Tracking of critical deficiencies to resolution; and
    (h) Provide for the protection of train operations following an 
inspection, noting a critical deficiency, repair, modification or 
adverse event and should include:
    (1) A listing of qualifications of personnel permitted to 
authorize train operations following an adverse event; and
    (2) Detailed internal program audit procedures to ensure 
compliance with the provisions of the program.

Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties

         Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Willful
               Section \2\                   Violation       violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.31 Adoption of bridge management              $9,500         $17,000
 program................................
237.33 Content of bridge management
 program:
     (a) Inventory of railroad bridges..           2,500           5,000
     (b) Record of safe load capacity...           5,500          10,000
     (c) Provision to obtain and
     maintain:
         (i) Design documents...........           5,500          10,000
         (ii) Documentation of repairs             2,500           5,000
         and modifications..............
         (iii) Inspection reports.......           2,500           5,000
     (d) Bridge inspection program                 2,500           5,000
     content............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Subpart C--Qualification and Designation of Responsible Persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.51 Railroad bridge engineers:
     (a) Competency.....................           5,500          10,000
     (b) Educational qualification......           2,500           5,000
237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors.......           5,500          10,000
237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors......           5,500          10,000
237.57 Designation of individuals.......           2,500           5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges
========================================================================
237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities:
     (a) Safe load capacity.............................................
     (b) Load capacity documented.......................................
     (c) Load capacity determined by a railroad bridge engineer.........
     (d) Method of load capacity determination..........................
     (e) Prioritization of load capacity determination..................
     (f) New load capacity determined due to change in condition........
     (g) Load capacity stated in terms of weight and length of equipment
     (h) Restriction on operations by railroad bridge engineer..........
237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension
 equipment:
     (a) Instructions issued............................................
     (b) Weight instructions............................................

[[Page 41309]]

 
     (c) Dimensional instructions.......................................
     (d) Incorrect instructions issued..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subpart E--Bridge Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.101 Scheduling of bridge
 inspections:
     (a) Scheduling:
         (i) Failure to inspect.........           9,500          17,000
         (ii) Inspection within calendar           2,500           5,000
         year...........................
         (iii) Inspection frequency                2,500           5,000
         exceeding 540 days.............
     (b) Increased inspection frequency.           5,500          10,000
     (c) Special inspections............           2,500           5,000
     (d) Resumption of railroad                    9,500          17,000
     operations prior to inspection &
     review.............................
237.103 Bridge inspection procedures....           2,500           5,000
237.105 Special inspections:
     (a) Procedures to protect train               2,500           5,000
     operations and requiring special
     inspections........................
     (b) Provision for the detection of            2,500           5,000
     scour or underwater deterioration..
237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections...           5,500          10,000
237.109 Bridge inspection records:
     (a) Record of inspection...........           2,500           5,000
     (b) Inspection record:
         (i) Certification and date.....           2,500           5,000
         (ii) Falsification.............  ..............          17,000
     (c) Inspection record information..           2,500           5,000
     (d) Initial report within 30 days..           2,500           5,000
     (e) Final inspection report within            2,500           5,000
     120 calendar days..................
     (f) Retention......................           2,500           5,000
     (g) Prompt reporting of dangerous             5,500          10,000
     conditions.........................
237.111 Review of bridge inspection
 reports.
     (a) Review by railroad bridge                 2,500           5,000
     engineers and supervisors..........
     (b) Appropriate action concerning             5,500          10,000
     present or potential safety hazards
     (c) Modification of inspection                2,500           5,000
     frequency or procedures............
     (d) Scheduling remedial action.....           2,500           5,000
     (e) Higher-level review............           2,500           5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.131 Design..........................           5,500          10,000
237.133 Supervision of repairs and                 5,500          10,000
 modifications..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subpart G--Documentation, Records and Audits of Bridge Management
                                Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.151 Audits; general.................           2,500           5,000
237.153 Audits of inspections...........           2,500           5,000
237.155 Documents and records:
     (a) Electronic recordkeeping,                 2,500           5,000
     general............................
     (b) System security................           2,500           5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
  violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
  up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
  CFR part 209, appendix A.
\2\ The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR part 237. If
  more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given
  section, each item is also designated by a ``penalty code,'' which is
  used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may
  not correspond to any subsection designation(s). For convenience,
  penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if
  any. FRA reserves the right, should litigation become necessary, to
  substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined
  CFR and penalty code citation, should they differ.


    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-16929 Filed 7-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P