[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61494-61516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23929]



[[Page 61493]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 218

November 12, 2019

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Highway Administration





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





23 CFR Part 650





National Bridge Inspection Standards; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 61494]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 650

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2017-0047]
RIN 2125-AF55


National Bridge Inspection Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 
required the Secretary to update the National Bridge Inspection 
Standards (NBIS). Through this NPRM, FHWA proposes to update the NBIS 
to address MAP-21 requirements, incorporate technological advancements 
including the use of unmanned aerial systems, and address ambiguities 
identified since the last update to the regulation in 2009. The FHWA 
also proposes to repeal two outdated regulations: The Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and the Discretionary Bridge 
Candidate Rating Factor.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2020. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, 
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m.-5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-
9329;
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket 
number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking 
at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Thiel, P.E., Office of 
Bridges and Structures, HIBS-30, (202) 366-8795, or Mr. William Winne, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document and all comments received may be viewed online 
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. 
The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An 
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing 
the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov.

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This regulatory action seeks to update the national standards for 
bridge inspections consistent with the provisions of the MAP-21 (Pub. 
L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405) legislation, which includes new requirements 
for a highway bridge inspection program, maintaining a bridge 
inventory, and reporting to FHWA the inspection results and, in 
particular, critical findings, meaning any structural or safety-related 
deficiencies that require immediate follow-up inspection or action. The 
updated NBIS proposed in this NPRM apply to all structures defined as 
highway bridges on all public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, 
including tribally and federally owned bridges. In addition, FHWA 
proposes to apply these standards to privately owned bridges that are 
connected to a public road on each end.
    Periodic and thorough inspections of our Nation's bridges are 
necessary to maintain safe bridge operation and prevent structural and 
functional failures. In addition, data on the condition and operation 
of our Nation's bridges is necessary for bridge owners to make informed 
investment decisions as part of an asset management program for their 
bridges. Congress declared in MAP-21 that it is in the vital interest 
of the United States to inventory, inspect, and improve the condition 
of the Nation's highway bridges. As a result of this declaration and 
the authority established by MAP-21 in 23 U.S.C. 144, FHWA is proposing 
to update the NBIS.
    This regulatory action also proposes to eliminate two outdated 
regulations: The Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 
(23 CFR part 650, subpart D) and the Discretionary Bridge Candidate 
Rating Factor (23 CFR part 650, subpart G).

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in 
Question

    The FHWA proposes revisions to the existing NBIS relative to the 
National Bridge Inventory, including the requirement to collect element 
level data for National Highway System (NHS) bridges. The proposed 
regulations require inspections of bridges on all public roads, on and 
off Federal-aid highways, including tribally and federally owned 
bridges, and private bridges connected on each end by a public road. 
The regulations propose several new terms to provide consistency and 
clarity in the implementation of the regulations. This includes 
renaming some terms in a more descriptive way, such as fracture 
critical member being renamed nonredundant steel tension member.
    The proposed regulations would require the bridge inspection 
organizations to maintain a registry of nationally certified bridge 
inspectors to align with a similar provision in the National Tunnel 
Inspection Standards (NTIS) in 23 CFR part 650, subpart E. The proposed 
regulations modify the training requirements for program managers and 
team leaders by defining a required amount of refresher training for 
both roles and defining training needed to be a team leader on a 
nonredundant steel tension member inspection.
    The regulations propose the permissible inspection intervals for 
bridges, including options for more rigorous, risk-based intervals 
based on the consideration of certain factors. They propose options for 
establishing inspection intervals for each inspection type. An 
inspection interval tolerance of 3 months beyond the inspection date is 
proposed. Specific criteria would be established to allow for extended 
routine inspection intervals up to 48 months, and 72 months for 
underwater inspections. Similarly, proposed requirements are described 
to enable the establishment of more rigorous, risk-based intervals in 
consideration of certain factors associated with bridges for routine, 
underwater, and nonredundent steel tension member inspections that 
would allow some inspection intervals to be up to 72 months.
    The proposed regulations require written reports to FHWA of 
critical findings identified during inspections and they provide 
minimum criteria for what a critical finding is, for national 
consistency. The regulations also propose that a bridge inspection 
organization is to provide information to FHWA for annual compliance 
reviews.

[[Page 61495]]

    The regulations propose new time frames for updating inventory 
data, and a process for tracking the updates of inventory data. In 
addition, they propose a new document to identify data items for the 
National Bridge Inventory. This document, ``Specifications for the 
National Bridge Inventory,'' is proposed to replace the ``Recording and 
Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's 
Bridges.''

III. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the 
requirements proposed in this regulatory action that represent a change 
to current practices for State departments of transportation (State 
DOT), Federal agencies, and Tribal governments. The FHWA derived the 
costs of components by assessing the expected increase in level of 
effort from labor and additional capital needed to standardize and 
update NBIS practices.
    The FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed in labor hours, 
with a corresponding loaded wage rate that varied by the type of 
laborer needed to perform the activity to estimate costs.\1\ Where 
necessary, capital costs were included, as well. Following this 
approach, the annualized cost of this rule, discounted to 2018 using a 
7 percent discount rate, is $1.65 million expressed in 2016 dollars 
over the 10-year analysis period. The vast majority of the costs 
associated with this rulemaking are necessary to implement 23 U.S.C. 
144, as amended by MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics Employee Cost Index, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA expects that, upon implementation, the proposed rule would 
result in significant benefits, although they are not easily 
quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA expects this proposed rule to result 
in improved bridge condition-related project, program, and policy 
choices due to improved data. In addition, the proposed rule would help 
focus the Federal-aid highway program on achieving improved bridge 
performance outcomes.

Background

    The FHWA bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a 
result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat. 
815), which required the Secretary of Transportation to establish the 
NBIS to ensure the safety of the traveling public on highway bridges, 
and directed the States to maintain an inventory of Federal-aid highway 
system bridges. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-605, 84 
Stat. 1713) limited the NBIS to bridges on the Federal-aid highway 
system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-
599, 92 Stat. 2689) extended the NBIS requirements to bridges on all 
public roads. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132) expanded the 
scope of highway bridge inspection programs to include special 
inspection procedures for fracture critical members and underwater 
inspection. Section 1111 of MAP-21 modified 23 U.S.C. 144 by revising 
the NBIS and adding requirements for a parallel NTIS framework. The 
FHWA adopted procedures for the NTIS via rulemaking on July 14, 2015, 
at 80 FR 41350. In order to update the NBIS regulations for MAP-21, and 
to align them with the successful procedures in place for NTIS, FHWA 
proposes a number of changes to 23 CFR part 650.
    The framework of this proposed regulation is aligned with the 
current NBIS framework. Both start with sections discussing the 
purpose, applicability, and definitions. These are followed by sections 
on organization responsibilities, qualifications of select personnel, 
inspection interval, and inspection procedures. The current and 
proposed regulation end with sections on inventorying bridges, 
submitting data, and incorporated references. Specific discussions on 
each section are detailed later.
    The FHWA is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h), as amended by MAP-21, to 
update the NBIS to address the methodology, training, and 
qualifications for inspectors, as well as the frequency of bridge 
inspections. In carrying out the MAP-21 provisions, the Secretary is 
required to consider a risk-based approach to determining the frequency 
of bridge inspections.
    The NBIS is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2), as amended by MAP-21, 
to specify the method by which the inspections shall be carried out by 
the States, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments, or their agents. 
The NBIS is also required to establish the maximum time period between 
inspections and the qualifications for those charged with carrying out 
the inspections. The NBIS requires each State, Federal agency, and 
Tribal government to maintain and make available to the Secretary, on 
request, written reports on the results of highway bridge inspections 
and notations of any action taken pursuant to the findings of the 
inspections and current inventory data for all highway bridges 
reflecting the findings of the most recent inspections conducted. The 
NBIS is to establish a procedure for national certification of highway 
bridge inspectors.
    A requirement was introduced in 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2), as amended by 
MAP-21, for each State and Federal Agency to report element level 
bridge inspection data to the Secretary, as each bridge is inspected, 
for all highway bridges on the NHS.
    The Secretary is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(3)(B), as amended by 
MAP-21, to establish procedures for States in reporting critical 
findings relating to structural or safety-related deficiencies of 
highway bridges and reports on subsequent monitoring activities and 
corrective actions taken in response to a critical finding.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposal

Section 650.301 Purpose
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.301 and be consistent with the 
amendments made by Section 1111(a) of MAP-21. The purpose of the NBIS 
is to set the national minimum standards for the proper inspection and 
evaluation of all highway bridges for safety and serviceability and to 
prepare and maintain an inventory of all bridges. The phrase 
``preparing and maintaining an inventory'' of all bridges is proposed 
to be added to this section to align with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D).
Section 650.303 Applicability
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.303 to clarify the application 
of the NBIS to privately owned bridges. This will also align the NBIS 
with the NTIS. The NBIS applies to all highway bridges located on all 
public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally 
owned, federally owned, and privately owned bridges connected to a 
public road on each end. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23 
U.S.C. 101 as ``any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.'' A 
``public authority'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 as a Federal, State, 
county, town, or township, Indian Tribe, municipal or other local 
government with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll 
or toll-free facilities.
    Because of the seamless nature of the transportation infrastructure 
across the Nation, the motoring public generally is unaware of the 
difference between a privately owned and publicly owned highway bridge 
while traveling within a State, Federal land, or Tribal land. 
Therefore, State DOTs, Federal Agencies, and Tribal governments are

[[Page 61496]]

responsible for ensuring the safety of the traveling public at all 
times by requiring all bridges on public roads within their boundaries 
to be inspected in accordance with the NBIS. State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, and Tribal governments are also responsible for ensuring all 
privately owned bridges that are connected to a public road on each end 
of such bridges, receive a proper inspection and evaluation.
    The inspection of privately owned bridges connected to privately 
owned roads that are open to the public are not typically the 
responsibility of the public authority. State DOTs, Federal agencies, 
and Tribal governments are strongly encouraged to inspect or cause the 
inspection of these bridges in accordance with the NBIS.
Section 650.305 Definitions
    The FHWA proposes to modify Sec.  650.305 to clarify existing 
definitions, introduce definitions for new terms, and delete 
definitions that are no longer needed. In several cases, the changes in 
definitions are aligned with the NTIS.
    The FHWA is proposing seven new definitions associated with the 
concept of the more rigorous assessment of risk in establishing 
inspection intervals. Attribute is used to describe characteristics 
that affect the reliability of a bridge. Consequence is used to 
describe the impacts if the bridge is allowed to deteriorate to a point 
a critical finding needs to be addressed. Damage mode is used to 
identify ways a bridge can deteriorate or be damaged by external 
events. Probability is used to identify the likelihood a damage mode 
may occur before the bridge's next inspection. Risk is proposed as a 
combination of the probability of an event occurring and its 
consequence. Risk assessment panel is proposed to describe the type of 
expertise needed for the more rigorous assessment of risk to establish 
inspection intervals. And, Service inspection is proposed as a new 
inspection type when there is a considerable amount of time between 
routine inspections. See the discussion of the Method 2 risk assessment 
process under Sec.  650.311 for further explanation of these terms.
    The definition of the term Bridge is proposed to be modified to 
clarify that a multiple pipe structure meeting the geometric 
requirements in the definition is a bridge.
    The proposed modifications to the Bridge inspection experience 
definition clarify that some of the required experience may come from 
relevant bridge design, bridge construction, and bridge maintenance 
experience provided it develops the skills necessary to properly 
perform a NBIS bridge inspection.
    The definition for Complex bridge is proposed to be deleted and 
replaced by a new definition for Complex feature. The proposed Complex 
feature definition strategically focuses an inspection on those parts 
of bridges that warrant additional attention due to their inherent 
complexity rather than an entire bridge that may have many other 
noncomplex elements.
    Element level data for bridges on the NHS is required to be 
reported to FHWA by 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2). A definition for Element level 
bridge inspection data is proposed to establish a uniform understanding 
of the data to be reported in order to satisfy the legislative 
requirement. Element level bridge inspection data would be defined as 
quantitative condition assessment data, collected during bridge 
inspections, that indicates the severity and extent of defects in 
bridge elements. The proposed definition is consistent with the common 
understanding of element level bridge inspection data that has existed 
in the highway bridge community for many years.
    The term End-of-course assessment is proposed in the revisions to 
Sec.  650.309. A definition is proposed to establish a uniform 
understanding that students who complete the various types of 
inspection training will be evaluated through the use of comprehensive 
examinations.
    The definitions for Fracture critical member and Fracture critical 
member inspection are proposed to be deleted and replaced with new 
definitions for the new terms Nonredundant member and Nonredundant 
steel tension member (NSTM) inspection. See the proposed definitions 
below.
    The definition of Initial inspection is proposed to be revised to 
clarify the data that is to be provided as part of the first inspection 
of a highway bridge and is to include a full inspection of all members 
of the bridge, including the nonredundant steel tension and underwater 
members. The definitions for In-depth inspection and Routine inspection 
are proposed to be revised to provide more clarity and to align with 
the definitions in the NTIS.
    A new definition is proposed to clarify that the Inspection date is 
the date on which an inspection begins. In addition, a new definition 
is proposed for Inspection due date to identify when the next 
inspection must begin.
    A new definition is proposed to clarify that an Inspection report 
is the document which summarizes inspection findings, results, and 
recommendations of the inspection for a bridge. The proposed definition 
also makes it clear that the report must be signed by a team leader.
    A new definition is proposed for Inventory data to clarify that 
these terms include all data reported to the National Bridge Inventory 
in accordance with the ``Specifications for the National Bridge 
Inventory.'' A new Load posting definition is proposed to expand upon 
the definition of posting that exists in the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials ``Manual for Bridge 
Evaluation'' (AASHTO MBE). The proposed definition clearly states that 
the signing must be in accordance with the FHWA ``Manual for Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices.'' \2\ All of these standards are proposed to 
be incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 23 CFR 655.601, https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(E), procedures are required to be 
established within the NBIS for the national certification of bridge 
inspectors. Accordingly, the proposed definition for the new term 
Nationally certified bridge inspector is a team leader meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  650.309(b). The team leader position has existed 
for many years and is ingrained in the National Bridge Inspection 
Program. The team leader is the on-site individual in charge of an 
inspection team and responsible for planning, preparing, performing, 
and reporting on bridge field inspection. It is logical and efficient 
to align the national certification expectations with the national 
qualification requirements that are proposed for team leaders. Each 
State DOT, Federal agency, and Tribal government may require higher 
requirements for their team leaders than in the NBIS which could 
require additional training, education or experience of a Nationally 
certified bridge inspector to practice as team leader within the 
respective State DOT, Federal agency, and Tribal government.
    The FHWA proposes to delete the definition of National Institute 
for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) to be consistent 
with the proposed changes to Sec.  650.309. The material used in the 
current NICET certification for bridge inspectors is out of date. The 
FHWA does not control the NICET certification process and is not 
authorized to require that it be updated and maintained.
    The FHWA proposes a definition of Nonredundant member for this 
regulation that more accurately reflects the engineering basis for 
identifying bridge members in this category.

[[Page 61497]]

    A definition for the proposed term Nonredundant steel tension 
member inspection training is included in order to align with the 
proposed requirements in Sec.  650.309(c) for training of team leaders 
who inspect NSTMs on bridges.
    A new definition of Plan of action (POA) is proposed in order to 
establish uniformity and a level of consistency in the procedures 
bridge inspectors and engineers adhere to in managing bridges in their 
inventory that are determined to be scour critical or have unknown 
foundations.
    A new definition of Procedures is proposed to be added to the rule 
in order to clarify what FHWA means by this term which is used 
extensively throughout this rule.
    The FHWA proposes to modify the definition of Professional engineer 
to better align with the definition of the same term used in the NTIS.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of Program manager to 
reflect the possibility that there may be multiple individuals who 
serve in this role within an organization. The proposed Sec.  
650.307(g) requires that when there is more than one program manager, 
there must be one lead program manager who is responsible for 
coordinating the NBIS policies and procedures throughout the State, 
Federal agency, or Tribal government land. In addition, the proposed 
definition clarifies that program managers have an overall 
responsibility for ensuring that load ratings and load postings are 
completed since they are ultimately responsible for everything 
associated with the bridge inspection program.
    A new definition of Safe load capacity is proposed in order to 
convey the term as used in Sec.  650.311(a)(3). The wording of the 
definition comes directly from section 1.5 of the AASHTO MBE.
    A new definition of Scour appraisal is proposed to define that 
either observed or evaluated scour will control the scour critical 
determination.
    The current Special inspection definition is proposed to be revised 
to clarify that a bridge that does not have defects may need a special 
inspection when the bridge has details or characteristics that have 
been known to result in defects.
    A new definition of Special permit load is proposed in order to 
define the term used in Sec.  650.313(c)(3). The definition is intended 
to capture live loads crossing a bridge that do not conform with legal 
vehicles nor routine permit vehicles.
    The current Team leader definition is proposed to be revised to 
clarify that the team leader is the individual on site during 
inspections. Team leaders would have some field inspection experience 
and meet the requirements of a team leader in Sec.  650.309(b).
    Inspection requirements for temporary bridges are proposed in Sec.  
650.313(a)(3). Accordingly, a definition of the new term Temporary 
bridge is proposed to identify the population of bridges to which the 
Sec.  650.313(a)(3) requirements would apply.
    The term Underwater diver bridge inspection training is proposed to 
be renamed Underwater bridge inspection training to align with the 
proposed language changes in the Sec.  650.309.
Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection Organization Responsibilities
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.307 to clarify the 
responsibilities of the State DOT's, Federal agency's, and Tribal 
government's bridge inspection organization. The documented policies 
and procedures referenced in Sec.  650.307 would further support 
compliance with the inspection procedure provisions of Sec.  650.313. 
Documented processes serve as the foundation for any successful 
business practice and have many benefits. They are key characteristics 
to ensuring continuity and uniformity in the bridge inspection 
operation. Other benefits of documented processes include ensuring that 
staff have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and 
authority in performing their day to day functions, describing the 
accountability of staff within the organization, ensuring program 
compliance with regulations and policies, serving as a resource for new 
staff, and providing a method for managing risk.
    The FHWA proposes to amend the title of Sec.  650.307 Bridge 
inspection organization by adding the term responsibilities. The reason 
for this modification is to make the title consistent with the 
requirements of this section, which are focused on the responsibilities 
of a bridge inspection organization. This is consistent with the NTIS.
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.307(a) and (b) to clarify the 
responsibilities of the State DOTs and Federal agencies. The phrase 
``must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all highway bridges'' is 
proposed to be replaced with ``perform, or cause to be performed, the 
proper inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges'' to be 
consistent with the language of 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(1)(A). Also, FHWA 
proposes to remove the term ``public roads'' from Sec.  650.307(a) and 
(b) for consistency with the proposed changes to Sec.  650.303.
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.307(c) through (e) to 
accommodate new additions and to clarify current requirements. In 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2), FHWA proposes a new Sec.  
650.307(c) that establishes the bridge inspection responsibilities of 
Tribal governments.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(d) to address the bridge 
inspection responsibilities of jointly owned bridges that involve 
bordering States or combinations of State DOTs, Federal agencies, or 
Tribal governments ownership, or different entities within a State, or 
Federal, or Tribal jurisdiction. The FHWA's experience is that in some 
instances there has not been a clear delineation of the inspection 
responsibilities of border bridges between the affected agencies. The 
lack of a clear delineation of inspection responsibilities can lead to 
undue delays in conducting and completing the required inspections, and 
in the overall management of the bridge. To align the NBIS process with 
that of the existing requirements in the NTIS, this proposed language 
would require the affected agencies to have a written agreement in 
place to clarify the NBIS-related responsibilities for each agency for 
that particular bridge and help ensure that timely bridge inspections 
and follow-up actions are accomplished in accordance with these 
standards.
    The FHWA proposes to replace current Sec.  650.307(c)(1) and (2) 
with Sec.  650.307(e)(1) through (11) to clarify the responsibilities 
of the bridge inspection organization for each State DOT, Federal 
agency, and Tribal government. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2), 
FHWA proposes adding ``Tribal government'' to the proposed Sec.  
650.307(e), which would require each Tribal government with highway 
bridges open to the public on its land to provide for a bridge 
inspection organization responsible for addressing the various 
requirements in these standards. A Tribal government may delegate its 
responsibilities under this subpart to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) if the BIA agrees. A Tribal government that does not delegate its 
responsibilities to BIA would need to provide a bridge inspection 
organization.
    The FHWA proposes to replace Sec.  650.307(c)(1) with the new Sec.  
650.307(e)(1). The phrase ``Developing and implementing written'' is 
proposed to be added to the existing section to clarify the intent that 
bridge inspection organizations are to have documented policies and 
procedures.

[[Page 61498]]

    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(2), which would require 
each bridge inspection organization to have documented policies and 
procedures for setting inspection intervals as required under Sec.  
650.311.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(3), which would require 
each bridge inspection organization to document the roles and 
responsibilities of personnel involved in carrying out the requirements 
of the respective bridge inspection programs of the State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, and Tribal governments.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(4), which would require 
each bridge inspection organization to maintain a central registry of 
nationally certified bridge inspectors that are performing bridge 
inspections in their respective State, Federal, or Tribal government 
jurisdiction. This proposal is aligned with the requirements in the 
NTIS. This proposed requirement further clarifies the roles and 
responsibilities within the bridge inspection organization.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(5), which clarifies the 
intent of the current Sec.  650.307(c)(2) that each bridge inspection 
organization is to have documented policies and procedures for managing 
bridge inspection reports and files.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(6), which clarifies the 
intent of the current Sec.  650.307(c)(1) that each bridge inspection 
organization is to perform quality control and quality assurance.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(7), which clarifies the 
intent of the current Sec.  650.307(c)(1) that each bridge inspection 
organization is to prepare and maintain bridge inventory data.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(8), which clarifies the 
intent of the current Sec.  650.307(c)(2) that each bridge inspection 
organization is to have documented policies and procedures for load 
rating, load posting, and determining other restrictions. The current 
Sec.  650.307(c)(2) does not include the phrase ``. . . load posting, 
and determining other restrictions;'' however, these are typically 
associated with load ratings, and thus would be added for clarity.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(3)(B), FHWA proposes a new 
Sec.  650.307(e)(9), which would require each bridge inspection 
organization to have documented policies and procedures for managing 
critical finding activities.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(10), which would require 
each bridge inspection organization to have documented policies and 
procedures for managing scour appraisals and associated plans of action 
that may result from such appraisals.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.307(e)(11), which would require 
each bridge inspection organization to perform all other requirements 
of the NBIS that otherwise were not listed in this section.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate Sec.  650.307(d) to Sec.  
650.307(f) and amend the content to clarify the functions that may be 
delegated as well as the documentation required for such delegation to 
occur. The FHWA's observation and experience is that the lack of clear 
and documented delegation of functions leads to situations of 
misunderstanding and disagreement among organizations. For example, 
there have been instances in which the lack of clearly documented 
delegations has led to delinquent inspections, neglected load postings, 
and delayed repairs. The States in these instances did not have a clear 
understanding as to what authority it had over the owners of these 
bridges, which led to inaction to correct these issues. A documented 
and agreed upon delegation of responsibilities could have prevented 
these situations. This proposal is aligned with the NTIS.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate Sec.  650.307(e) to Sec.  
650.307(g) and amend the content to clarify that the intent is not to 
limit an agency to a single program manager. Rather an agency may 
organize itself so that it may have more than one program manager. In 
the event of an agency having more than one program manager fulfilling 
the responsibilities described in these standards, the agency would be 
required to identify a lead program manager to serve as the main point 
of contact. If any Tribal governments delegate their responsibilities 
under this subpart to BIA, a qualified employee of BIA may serve as the 
program manager for all such Tribal governments.
Section 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel
    In Sec.  650.309(a), FHWA proposes to clarify what is intended by 
successful completion of the comprehensive bridge inspection training 
by adding language defining a minimum passing score on an end-of-course 
assessment that is part of the comprehensive bridge inspection 
training, which is consistent with the NTIS. The 70 percent minimum 
passing score is proposed to align with the National Highway 
Institute's (NHI) threshold for issuance of continuing education units 
for students of its training courses. This is not intended to require 
current program managers who have successfully completed prior versions 
of the comprehensive bridge inspection training course to retake the 
course and achieve a minimum score on an end-of-course assessment. 
Completion of this training under prior regulations will satisfy the 
intent of this requirement. The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(a)(3) 
that moves bridge inspection refresher training from current Sec.  
650.313(g). The FHWA proposes that program managers must complete 18 
hours of FHWA-approved bridge inspection refresher training every 60 
months, which is consistent with the NTIS. This is proposed to address 
concerns from stakeholders that the current regulation is not specific 
enough and results in a lack of national uniformity in the duration and 
content of the training. The NHI has a Bridge Inspection Refresher 
training course that offers 18 hours of training, and FHWA believes 
taking this course once every 60 months is reasonable. The FHWA also 
recognizes that some stakeholders have their own bridge inspection 
refresher programs that may comply with the NBIS training requirements.
    The 18 hours of training would not have to be continuous and may be 
accumulated through multiple training events over a 60-month period. 
However, the program manager would be required to have the 18 hours of 
training during any 60-month time period that is reviewed by FHWA. For 
example, a program manager could not take the training at the beginning 
of one 60-month period and then again at the end of the next 60-month 
period as in between those trainings there would be a period of 60 
months that no training was taken.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(a)(4), which would require 
program managers to maintain the documentation needed to ensure that 
the qualifications of this section are met. The FHWA proposes to amend 
Sec.  650.309(a) to allow current program managers who do not meet the 
proposed program manager qualifications to fulfill all requirements of 
this section within 24 months of the effective date of the final rule. 
During this time period, program managers may maintain their current 
role.
    In Sec.  350.309(b), FHWA proposes to reorganize the section by 
clearly defining two requirements that apply to all team leaders and 
then listing four ways to meet the remaining requirements for team 
leaders. The FHWA proposes to clarify what constitutes successful 
completion of the comprehensive bridge inspection

[[Page 61499]]

training by adding language defining a minimum passing score on an end-
of-course assessment. The 70 percent minimum passing score is proposed 
to align with NHI's threshold for issuance of continuing education 
units for students of its training courses, which is consistent with 
the NTIS. This is not intended to require current team leaders who have 
successfully completed prior versions of the comprehensive bridge 
inspection training course to retake the course and achieve a minimum 
score on an end-of-course assessment. Completion of this training under 
prior regulations would satisfy the intent of this requirement.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(b)(2) for team leaders that 
moves required bridge inspection refresher training to this section 
from current Sec.  650.313(g).
    The FHWA proposes that team leaders must complete 18 hours of FHWA-
approved bridge inspection refresher training every 60 months, which is 
consistent with the NTIS. This proposed requirement addresses concerns 
from stakeholders that the current regulation is not specific enough 
and results in a lack of national uniformity in the duration and 
content of the training. The NHI has a Bridge Inspection Refresher 
training course that offers 18 hours of training and FHWA believes that 
taking this course once every 60 months is reasonable. The FHWA also 
recognizes that some stakeholders have their own bridge inspection 
refresher programs which meet NBIS training requirements and may be a 
viable option to team leaders.
    The 18 hours of training would not have to be continuous and may be 
accumulated through multiple training events over a 60-month period. 
However, the team leader must have the 18 hours of training during any 
60-month time period that is reviewed. For example, a team leader could 
not take the training at the beginning of one 60-month period and then 
again at the end of the next 60-month period as in between those 
trainings there would be a period of 60 months that no training was 
taken.
    The FHWA proposes a new option in Sec.  650.309(b)(3)(i) that 
allows a Professional Engineer with 6 months of bridge inspection 
experience to be a qualified team leader, assuming other requirements 
of Sec.  650.309(b) are met. The bridge inspection experience 
requirement is proposed to ensure that all team leaders have some 
experience and are familiar with the collection and recording of bridge 
inspection information as well as the process and procedures associated 
with bridge inspection activities. The FHWA proposes to delete the team 
leader qualification option of using the NICET certification. The FHWA 
does not control the NICET certification process and is not authorized 
to require that it be updated and maintained. The FHWA proposes to add 
engineering technology as an eligible degree to Sec.  
650.309(b)(3)(iii)(A), which is consistent with the language used in 
Sec.  650.309(b)(3)(iv)(A).
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(b)(4) to ensure that the 
program manager receives the documentation from team leaders to verify 
that they meet the qualifications of this section. Part of this 
verification involves the program manager's review and approval of the 
team leader's bridge inspection experience as defined in Sec.  650.305. 
The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.309(b) to allow current team 
leaders who do not meet the proposed team leader qualifications 24 
months from the effective date of the final rule to fulfill all 
requirements of this section. During this time period, team leaders may 
maintain their current role.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(c) that establishes 
additional requirements for team leaders of NSTM inspections. The FHWA 
proposes that team leaders on these inspection types must complete 
additional training on NSTM inspections and achieve a minimum passing 
score on an end-of-course assessment. The proposed Sec.  650.309(c)(2) 
is to ensure that team leaders of NSTM inspections possess the higher 
level of training commensurate with the importance of these members 
within a bridge system. The 70 percent minimum passing score for this 
training is proposed to align with NHI's threshold for issuance of 
continuing education units for students of its training courses. The 
FHWA proposes to allow current team leaders who no longer meet these 
proposed team leader qualifications to fulfill all requirements of this 
section within 24 months of the effective date of the final rule. 
During this time period, team leaders may maintain their current role.
    The FHWA proposes to eliminate current Sec.  650.309(c), which 
required each State DOT and Federal agency to have one person with the 
overall responsibility for load rating because the requirement does not 
align with the structure and function of some organizations. Due to 
this proposed deletion, FHWA proposes to modify the definition for 
program manager in Sec.  650.305 to include responsibilities for load 
rating and load posting because this individual(s) is ultimately 
responsible for everything associated with the bridge inspection 
program.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(d), requiring that load 
ratings be performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a 
registered professional engineer (PE). The FHWA acknowledges that 
bridge inspection organizations can be structured differently, which 
may result in one or more individuals performing these functions. The 
intent of this proposal is not to require everyone involved in the load 
rating and load posting processes to be a PE, but rather to ensure that 
the individuals performing the load rating, or those supervising the 
individuals performing the load rating, are PEs. The FHWA believes the 
PE requirement is necessary because load ratings require engineering 
calculations, evaluations, and judgments and are vitally important to 
the safety of the travelling public. This proposal is aligned with the 
NTIS.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  650.309(e) (current Sec.  650.309(d)), 
to remove the comprehensive bridge inspection training as an option for 
an underwater bridge inspection diver to satisfy the training 
requirement. Robust underwater bridge inspection training was not 
readily available when this regulation was updated in 2004 and the 
comprehensive bridge inspection training was an acceptable alternate. 
Today, underwater bridge inspection training is readily available and 
the level of detail in this training to prepare underwater bridge 
inspection divers is much greater than the comprehensive bridge 
inspection training. In addition, FHWA proposes to add language 
defining a minimum passing score on an end-of-course assessment that is 
part of the underwater bridge inspection training. The proposed 70 
percent minimum passing score aligns with NHI's threshold for issuance 
of continuing education units for students of its training courses. The 
proposed requirement of Sec.  650.309(e) for underwater inspection 
diver applies to personnel performing the physical inspection of the 
underwater portion of the bridge. Non-inspection personnel supporting 
the underwater bridge inspection diver, such as the tender or safety 
diver, are not required to meet the proposed requirement of Sec.  
650.309(e).
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.309(f), requiring State DOTs, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to determine the 
qualifications for the inspection personnel used on damage, service, 
and special inspections. This proposal provides flexibility to bridge 
inspection organizations for determining the personnel to be used on 
damage,

[[Page 61500]]

service, and special inspections as these inspection protocols can vary 
widely. The FHWA proposes this section to clarify that State DOTs, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments are to define the 
qualifications for personnel involved in these inspections.
    The FHWA proposes two options for acceptable bridge inspection 
training that fulfills the requirements for comprehensive bridge 
inspection training, bridge inspection refresher training, underwater 
bridge inspection training, and NSTM inspection training. These options 
are to provide flexibility to bridge inspection organizations. One 
proposed option is the NHI's training courses, and the second proposed 
option allows for State, federally, and tribally developed training 
courses. The FHWA proposes to describe what training elements are 
needed in each of the NHI courses. For the second option, FHWA proposed 
the alternate training materials and end-of-courses assessments must 
include all the topics from the NHI courses and be submitted to FHWA 
for approval to ensure national consistency in course content and 
certification. It is the intent of FHWA that any program manager, team 
leader, or underwater bridge inspection diver who successfully 
completes an alternate course developed by a State, Federal agency, or 
Tribal government will meet the basic training necessary in this 
regulation to perform these roles for any State, Federal agency, or 
Tribal government.
    The FHWA proposes that the program manager must review the approved 
alternate training courses at least once every 5 years to ensure that 
the material being delivered to bridge inspection personnel is still 
current and relevant. The FHWA proposes that any modifications and 
updates to the training material approved under the current regulation 
are to be resubmitted to FHWA for review and approval to ensure 
national consistency. Finally, FHWA proposes to amend this section by 
allowing State DOTs and Federal agencies with currently approved 
alternate training courses 24 months from the effective date of the 
final rule to review and modify, as necessary, course material (and 
end-of-courses assessments) to meet the proposed requirements. When a 
stakeholder determines a previously approved training course needs to 
be modified to maintain compliance, the course material and end-of-
courses assessments must be resubmitted to FHWA for approval within 24 
months of the effective date of the final rule before it can be 
offered.
    The FHWA would make NHI bridge inspection course materials 
available to State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments 
through a formal written agreement. The written agreement would 
establish controls on use of the material and the qualifications of 
those who deliver the training. The listing of the bridge inspection 
courses available would be: FHWA-NHI-130053 Bridge Inspection Refresher 
Training, FHWA-NHI-130054 Engineering Concepts for Bridge Inspectors, 
FHWA-NHI-130055 Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges, FHWA-NHI-
130056 Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges for Professional 
Engineers, FHWA-NHI-130078 Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for 
Steel Bridges, and FHWA-NHI-130091 Underwater Bridge Inspection.
Section 650.311 Inspection Interval
    The FHWA proposes that the current section title ``Inspection 
frequency'' be changed to ``Inspection interval.'' The term interval is 
more accurate than frequency when referring to the time period for 
occurrence of inspections and is aligned with the language in the NTIS.
    Existing regulations require highway bridges to be inspected at 
regular intervals not to exceed 24 months. The regulations also state 
that certain bridges require inspection at less than 24-month 
intervals, and require the establishment of criteria to determine the 
level and frequency to which these bridges are inspected. The 
regulations also allow bridges to be inspected at intervals greater 
than 24 months but not to exceed 48 months with written FHWA approval. 
The 2018 National Bridge Inventory shows that more than 39,000 bridges 
are currently inspected at intervals greater than 24 months based on 
FHWA approval of State developed extended interval policies.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(7), FHWA proposes to amend the 
section to establish risk-based processes to establish intervals for 
routine, underwater, and NSTM inspections. The proposal includes two 
different options for State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments to determine the proper inspection interval. The Method 1 
option presents a simplified assessment approach while the Method 2 
option presents a more rigorous assessment methodology.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate the current Sec.  650.311(a)(1) to 
proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(i)).
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend the current Sec.  
650.311(a)(2), to proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(ii), to require that the 
criteria by which bridges are to be inspected at less than a 24-month 
interval must be documented. The amendment also adds more items to the 
list of criteria to be considered for a routine inspection interval 
less than 24 months. Lastly, the paragraph proposes minimum criteria at 
which routine inspections must be performed at intervals not to exceed 
12 months.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend Sec.  650.311(a)(3), to 
proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii), by removing the FHWA approval 
process, which used FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21 for guidance, and 
replacing it with a set of required criteria for when a bridge can be 
inspected at an extended interval of up to 48 months. The proposal is 
intended to provide a straightforward process for the State DOTs, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to establish a policy for 
extended inspection intervals. State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments may use their intimate knowledge of their bridge inventory 
and any other relevant factors to supplement these minimum criteria. 
The FHWA also proposes to provide State DOTs, Federal agencies, and 
Tribal governments that currently have approved extended interval 
policies 24 months from the effective date of the final rule to revise 
their current policies to meet these proposed criteria.
    The FHWA proposes new Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(A) through (I) to 
provide the minimum criteria for extended intervals for required bridge 
inspections. The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(A) would require 
that a bridge must have a National Bridge Inspection (NBI) condition 
rating for the deck, superstructure, substructure, and culvert of a 
seven or higher to be eligible for extended intervals for inspection. 
This criterion is slightly more restrictive than the current FHWA 
Technical Advisory 5140.21 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/t514021.cfm).
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(B) would require that the 
channel and channel protection NBI condition rating value for a bridge 
to be six or higher for the bridge to be eligible for an extended 
interval for inspection. The FHWA subject matter experts (SMEs) believe 
a condition rating value of six is the lowest acceptable value for a 
bridge to be on an extended interval without additional risk 
assessment. The description of a condition rating value of four (poor) 
states the channel has widespread moderate or isolated major defects 
and the bridge is at risk. The SMEs believe that without additional 
risk assessment, allowing a bridge with a channel or channel protection

[[Page 61501]]

condition rating value of a five to be on extended intervals for up to 
four years would be too long to potentially capture when the condition 
of this item would become poor. This criterion is consistent with the 
current FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21.
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(C) would require that a 
bridge must have an operating rating factor or legal load rating factor 
of at least 1.1 for all vehicles legally permitted to cross the bridge 
to be eligible for an extended interval for inspection. The FHWA SMEs 
believe a factor of 1.1 is the lowest acceptable value for a bridge to 
be on an extended interval without additional risk assessment. A factor 
or 1.0 means the bridge has the same load carrying capacity as the 
legal vehicles that are allowed to use the bridge. The SMEs believe 
that without additional risk assessment, allowing a bridge with a 
factor less than 1.1 to be on extended intervals for up to four years 
would be too long to potentially capture deterioration of critical 
elements that are necessary for the safe load carrying capacity of the 
bridge. This criterion replaces the inventory level load rating 
criteria included in FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21.
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(D) would make steel bridges 
with existing fatigue cracks, details with AASHTO ``LRFD Bridge Design 
Specifications'' fatigue categories E and E', details with a history of 
fatigue cracking, and fracture-prone details ineligible for extended 
intervals for inspection. This is a criterion that does not exist in 
FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21. It is FHWA's position that bridges 
with these types of details are prone to rapid deterioration, similar 
to what the Daniel Webster Hoan Memorial Bridge in Milwaukee, Wisconsin 
experienced in December 2000, when two of the bridge's three support 
girders fractured and the bridge roadway sagged approximately four 
feet. The fractures in the steel girders occurred suddenly and 
propagated through the girders at an explosive rate. Due to the concern 
that sudden fractures could occur, FHWA SMEs believe bridges with these 
types of details are not suitable for an extended interval without the 
more extensive review process required in Sec.  650.311(a)(2).
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(E) would require a bridge to 
have a vertical over or underclearance greater than or equal to 16'-0'' 
for Interstates, freeways, and other arterials or 14'-0'' for local 
roads and collectors and with no history of vehicular damage to be 
eligible for an extended interval for inspection. This criterion has 
been modified from the current FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21 to 
account for different clearances based on the functional classification 
of the highway and is aligned with the vertical clearance standards in 
the AASHTO's ``A Policy of Geometric Designs of Highways and Streets, 
7th Edition.''
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(F) and (G) would require that 
a bridge be of specific design, material, and environments to be 
eligible for an extended inspection interval. The FHWA SMEs believe 
more complex designs and aggressive environments should not be on an 
extended interval without additional risk assessment that is allowed in 
Sec.  650.311(a)(2). This criterion is similar to the current FHWA 
Technical Advisory 5140.21 used to approve extended inspection policies 
but provides specificity to ensure consistent application.
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(H) makes certain bridges 
ineligible for extended inspection intervals. These ineligible bridges 
would consist of scour critical bridges, bridges that have not been 
evaluated for scour (including tidal bridges and bridges with unknown 
foundations), or bridges where scour condition rating is below six. The 
FHWA SMEs believe a condition rating value of six is the lowest 
acceptable value for a bridge to be on an extended interval without 
additional risk assessment. The description of a scour condition rating 
of four (poor) states there is widespread moderate or isolated major 
scour and the bridge is at risk. The SMEs believe that without 
additional risk assessment, allowing a bridge with a scour condition 
rating value of a five to be on extended intervals for up to four years 
would be too long to potentially capture when the condition of this 
item would become poor.
    The original FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21 did not include these 
criteria. The intent of FHWA is to remove structures that are 
vulnerable to scour from consideration for extended inspection 
intervals without the more extensive review process required in Sec.  
650.311(a)(2).
    Finally, the proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(I) provides a list 
of additional criteria that would be considered to know the performance 
of the bridge is not a concern within the next 48 months.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(a)(2), which would provide 
bridge inspection organizations with an optional, more rigorous, risk-
based process for the determination of routine inspection intervals. 
This proposed paragraph is based largely on the recommendations of 
NCHRP Report 782 ``Proposed Guideline for Reliability Based Bridge 
Inspection Practices.'' Although the report makes mention of routine 
inspection intervals up to 96 months, the research recommends that 
routine inspection intervals up to 72 months should be pursued. 
Seventy-two months is the maximum inspection interval being proposed in 
this regulation in alignment with the research recommendation. Bridges 
typically exhibit structural deterioration in a controlled and stable 
manner over time; therefore, risk is considered to be an effective 
measure upon which to base the interval of inspections. When risk 
grows, bridges should be inspected more often, and when risk is 
reduced, bridges may be inspected less often.
    In the development of Sec.  650.311(a)(2), a SME, Dr. Glenn Washer, 
was contracted to review this one section and present comments to FHWA.
    The risk considered herein refers to the development and 
significance of a scenario where structural safety or serviceability is 
lost to the point of requiring immediate action. If a bridge owner is 
aware of special features that may be problematic, the risk for the 
feature would need to be included in the assessment. This includes both 
loss of safe load carrying capacity, which is determined by load rating 
analysis and other damages involving serviceability, such as under-deck 
spalling or bearing support loss. Risk by basic mathematical definition 
is the product of the probability and consequence of an event.\3\ 
Consequence herein focuses on the implications to the structure's 
safety and serviceability, and not necessarily the importance of the 
bridge or impacts to the users. Risk may be based on the frequency of 
events, such as in the quantitative probability of an event occurring, 
or on degree of belief or expectation from a panel of experienced 
professionals. Degrees of belief about probability can be chosen using 
qualitative scales, ranks or categories, such as remote/low/moderate/
high or remote/unlikely/moderate/likely/almost certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 782, 
``Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bridges all have features and attributes that will define the risk. 
Bridges all have a set of damage modes that may occur, which also 
define the risk. The risk of each potential damage mode must be 
evaluated and the one that is most critical is used to select the 
appropriate inspection interval. Additional information can be found in 
the following two documents which are

[[Page 61502]]

available on the docket: NCHRP Report 782 ``Proposed Guideline for 
Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection Practices'' and a report for FHWA 
``A Method for Determining the Interval for Hands-On Inspection of 
Steel Bridges with Fracture Critical Members'' by: Robert J. Connor and 
Michael J. Parr, November, 2008.
    The proposed process in Sec.  650.311(a)(2) for identifying risk-
based intervals involves the identification and use of an interval that 
is commensurate with the risk of safety or service loss in a given 
bridge. It provides additional flexibility to bridge inspection 
organizations by applying their experience and engineering judgment to 
determining the use of limited resources in a more optimal way across 
their inventory.
    The proposed Sec.  650.311(a)(2)(i) through (vi) would establish a 
general framework and process for assessment of risk, and provides 
bridge inspection organizations the latitude for exercising their 
interpretations in determination of probability, consequence, and risk 
for bridges in their inventory.
    The proposed process in Sec.  650.311(a)(2) would require that 
bridges be classified into one of four general risk levels for 
consistency and uniformity with routine inspection intervals not to 
exceed 12, 24, 48, and 72 months. This process allows for risk 
assessment by quantified statistical analysis, when possible, or by 
qualitative expert judgment. The expectation is that this 
classification would result in an appropriate distribution of bridges 
in the four risk categories. These risk assessment criteria would be 
submitted to FHWA for approval.
    As part of the proposed process in Sec.  650.311(a)(2)(i), the 
criteria to be used by the bridge inspection organization to determine 
risk would be developed and documented by consensus of at least three 
experts and a program manager with collective experience in bridge 
design, materials, including ultra-high performance concrete or similar 
highly durable materials, construction, inspection, and evaluation. It 
is recognized that there may be too few quantified measures to make 
mathematical risk calculations; therefore, the experience of engineers 
to make judgments about expected performance and outcomes would be 
acceptable.
    Another part of the proposed process allows for applying the risk-
based interval in Sec.  650.311(a)(2) to individual bridges and a group 
of bridges. A bridge may have unique features or attributes that 
require customized risk assessment. The intent of the proposal is not 
to mandate the application of the rigorous risk-based approach to an 
entire inventory, although it is an option.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(a)(3), which would require 
that any new, rehabilitated, or structurally modified bridge must have 
an initial inspection completed, be in service for 24 months, receive 
its next routine inspection, and have any other required NBIS 
inspection completed before it can be considered for a routine 
inspection interval greater than 24 months. It is FHWA's position that 
the initial inspection is needed to capture unforeseen problems in a 
new, rehabilitated, or modified bridge before it is allowed to be 
inspected at an interval longer than 24 months. This is similar to the 
current FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21 used to approve extended 
inspection policies. The regulation differs in that the 12- to 24-month 
in-service period specified in Technical Advisory 5140.21 is proposed 
to change in the regulation to 24 months and the in-depth inspection 
criterion is omitted in the regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend Sec.  650.311(b)(2) to 
proposed Sec.  650.311(b)(1)(ii), and to require that the criteria used 
to determine the interval by which underwater members are inspected at 
less than 60 months be documented. The proposal also adds more items to 
the list of criteria to be considered for an underwater inspection 
interval less than 60 months. Lastly, the paragraph proposes minimum 
criteria at which underwater inspections must be performed at intervals 
not to exceed 36 months.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend current Sec.  
650.311(b)(3) to proposed Sec.  650.311(b)(1)(iii) by removing the FHWA 
approval process and replacing it with a set of requirements for the 
underwater portions of a bridge to be inspected at an extended interval 
of up to 72 months. These criteria were developed using the current 
guidance from FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21, American Society of 
Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 101, 
Underwater Investigations, Standard Practice Manual and the Waterfront 
Facilities Inspection & Assessment Standard Practice Manual, American 
Society of Civil Engineers Coasts, Oceans Ports & Rivers Institute 
Ports and Harbors Committee Waterfront Inspection Task Committee, 
October 28, 2013.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(b)(2), which allows the use 
of the more rigorous, risk-based process as described in the new Sec.  
650.311(a)(2) in determining appropriate underwater inspection 
intervals. For underwater inspections in this process, bridges are to 
be classified into one of three general risk levels with inspection 
intervals not to exceed 36, 60, and 72 months.
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.311(c) by changing the name of 
the section to ``Nonredundant steel tension member inspections.''
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend Sec.  650.311(c)(2) to 
proposed Sec.  650.311(c)(1)(ii) to require that the State, Federal 
agency, or Tribal government must document the criteria used to 
determine the interval by which NSTMs are inspected at less than 24 
months. The proposal also adds more items to the list of criteria to be 
considered for a NSTM inspection interval less than 24 months. Lastly, 
the paragraph proposes minimum criteria at which NSTM inspections must 
be performed at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(c)(1)(iii), which allows the 
use of the more rigorous, risk-based process as described in the new 
Sec.  650.311(a)(2) in determining appropriate NSTM inspection 
intervals. For NSTM inspections in this process, bridges are to be 
classified into one of three general risk levels with inspection 
intervals not to exceed 12, 24, and 48 months.
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.311(d) to require the State 
DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government to document the criteria used 
to determine the level and interval to which damage, in-depth, and 
special inspections are to completed.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(e)(1), which describes bridge 
inspection interval tolerance. Through discussions with stakeholders 
and FHWA's experience with the National Bridge Inspection Program, it 
was determined that a formalized inspection tolerance period would 
greatly improve the management of inspection scheduling. This proposed 
paragraph provides a tolerance that is the inspection due date plus 3 
months. Although the expectation is that the inspection due date be 
met, this proposed tolerance provides a 3-month time period beyond the 
due date for a bridge inspection organization to begin an inspection 
and still be in compliance with the NBIS. The next inspection due date 
would be established by adding the interval to the actual inspection 
date. Inspections done before the inspection due date would have the 
effect of making the following inspection due date earlier; however, 
with the establishment of an inspection tolerance, this should not 
represent a

[[Page 61503]]

problem. Inspections beyond the inspection due date plus the tolerance 
would not comply with the proposed regulation provisions.
    As an example, if the inspection of a bridge was performed in June 
2017 and the interval for the inspection is 24 months, the next 
inspection due date would be June 2019. With a 3-month tolerance, the 
next inspection could be performed any time before the June 2019 
inspection due date or in July, August, or September of 2019 and still 
meet the inspection tolerance. Below are three examples demonstrating 
how the next inspection due date would be determined for this bridge 
with a 24-month inspection interval depending on when the actual 
inspection occurred.
     If the 2019 inspection occurred in April 2019, ahead of 
schedule, the next inspection due date would be April 2021.
     If the 2019 inspection occurred in September 2019, within 
the tolerance, the next inspection due date would be September 2021.
     If the 2019 inspection occurred in October 2019, then the 
tolerance has been exceeded and the inspection would be out of 
compliance with this regulation unless prior FHWA approval was granted.
    It should be noted that FHWA does not intend the normal inspection 
interval to be the interval plus the 3-month tolerance. The tolerance 
is to cover weather and other inspection program administration 
considerations.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(e)(2). This section provides 
for an exception to the inspection tolerance with prior FHWA approval 
before the current inspection tolerance is exceeded. It is understood 
that unpredictable events, such as extreme weather, may make it 
impossible to seek prior approval, but these cases should be rare.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.311(f). This proposed section 
would require that, at the completion of every inspection, the bridge 
information that is gathered is to be reviewed to determine if the 
current interval is still applicable for all inspection types or if a 
different interval is appropriate. This is a common practice under the 
current regulation; however, with the introduction of risk-based 
processes to establish appropriate inspection intervals into the 
proposed regulation, FHWA believes it is important to emphasize this 
step in the inspection process within the regulation.
Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.313(a) to clarify the expected 
outcomes of an inspection by adding the phrase ``to determine 
condition, identify deficiencies, and document results in an inspection 
report.'' The FHWA proposes to amend the reference to the AASHTO MBE to 
specifically cite Section 1.4, Section 2.1, Section 4, and Section 6. 
The more exact reference would point the reader to the specific 
material within the AASHTO MBE that is applicable to this proposed 
provision. In addition, FHWA proposes to clarify that an inspection 
plan would be required and proposes that the plan should document the 
inspection equipment, including advanced technologies, that are needed 
to complete the inspection.
    Bridge inspections are multisensory operations requiring inspectors 
to see, feel, and listen as they perform inspections. Equipment to 
perform bridge inspections take on many forms, including personal 
safety equipment, access equipment, and tools to complete the 
inspection. Personal safety equipment includes items such as hard hats, 
vests, gloves, safety goggles, and more. Access equipment includes 
items such as ladders, under bridge inspection trucks, boats, and 
diving equipment. Tools for performing the inspection include cleaning 
tools (brushes, scrapers, etc.), sounding tools (hammers, chain drag, 
etc.), visual aid tools (binoculars, flashlights, mirrors, etc.), tools 
for measuring (tape measures, crack gauges, tiltmeter, etc.), and tools 
for documentation (cameras, kiel, clipboards, etc.).
    Advancements in technology have played a critical role in the 
inspection program. Today, inspectors use a variety of advancements 
that were not commonplace decades ago. Laser measuring devices are 
replacing range poles and tape measures to determine bridge clearances 
and component lengths. Non-destructive evaluation equipment are used to 
assist in determining structural integrity without damaging the bridge 
members or to find deficiencies inside bridge members that are not 
visible with the naked eye. Depth measuring and monitoring devices are 
helping inspectors identify scour in waterways. Computers, tablets, and 
other electronic devices readily replace clipboards and paper forms.
    In this day of significant technological advancements, other 
disruptive technologies will be developed that will change the way 
inspectors perform bridge inspection. As they are developed, FHWA will 
continue to evaluate these new tools in partnership with our 
stakeholders and update its bridge inspection guidance document, the 
Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual, to allow these technological 
advancements to make their way into the National Bridge Inspection 
Program (NBIP). Two recent examples of new technologies that FHWA is 
evaluating are sonar technologies for underwater bridge inspection and 
unmanned aerial systems (UAS).
    The FHWA issued a report in 2018 to evaluate the use of sonar 
devices for underwater inspection. The study led to two broad 
conclusions. First, sonar technologies offer significant opportunities 
for improving underwater bridge inspections, especially in adverse 
environments or to inspect extensive areas. Second, sonar inspections 
have not demonstrated the ability to identify some smaller scale 
elements of substructure condition that may be important in assessing 
the bridge and recommending maintenance. The FHWA can now use this 
information to identify the proper uses of this technology to replicate 
typical diver experience to improve diver safety without jeopardizing 
the safety to the public.
    The FHWA is currently performing research on UAS technologies since 
this industry is experiencing significant growth. The ability to fly 
UAS into positions that are difficult to reach by an inspector has the 
potential to save time, reduce costs, and improve safety margins. An 
increasing number of bridge owners are exploring the use of UAS for 
bridge inspections through pilot studies and exploring the potential of 
these versatile systems. The FHWA is aware of the introduction of UAS 
into the bridge inspection process and commissioned this research to 
enhance its understanding of the benefits and limitations of UAS. As 
this research continues, FHWA will be in a better position to provide 
guidance on the proper use of UAS in the NBIP.
    These are just two examples of recent technological advancements 
the FHWA is evaluating to improve the NBIP. The FHWA will continue to 
monitor the advancement of UAS and other technologies and update the 
bridge inspection policies accordingly. The FHWA would like to hear 
from users of these technologies as FHWA continues its evaluation and 
research of these technologies to develop guidance for their use in the 
National Bridge Inspection Program. What bridge inspection environments 
are better suited for these technologies? What are minimum standards 
(device offset, camera resolution, optical and digital zoom 
capabilities, payload capacity, member cleanliness, etc.) FHWA should 
consider for the use of these technologies? How often should an in-
depth inspection (diver be placed in the

[[Page 61504]]

water to check the results of the sonar devices or a hands-on 
inspection be performed for members inspected with a UAS) to verify no 
defects are missed?
    The FHWA proposes to establish the inspection requirements for 
initial, routine, and in-depth inspections in Sec.  650.313(b) through 
(d), respectively, and proposes procedures be developed to inspect 
bridges in phased construction and temporary bridges. For the purposes 
of these sections, the phrase ``entire bridge being open to traffic'' 
means construction is substantially complete and all lanes of the final 
cross section are completed and open to traffic. The term ``phased 
construction'' means building a bridge's cross section in stages and 
opening to traffic as such until the final cross section is completed. 
The FHWA proposes that State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments establish the requirements for the inspection type, 
inspection frequency, and inspector qualifications for bridges during 
phased construction and temporary bridges based upon their knowledge 
and practice. It is FHWA's position that ensuring the safety of the 
travelling public is important during these situations.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.313(e), to discuss underwater 
inspection procedures by using language from current Sec.  650.313(e) 
introductory text and (e)(2). In addition, FHWA is proposing to require 
that the first underwater inspection for new, replaced, and 
rehabilitated bridges occurs within 6 months of the bridge opening to 
traffic. Unlike the initial inspection which is proposed to be 
performed before the bridge is open to traffic, FHWA realizes owners 
may need some discretion in scheduling this type of inspection. 
However, FHWA believes it is important for the safety of the travelling 
public that an underwater inspection occur relatively soon to 
understand the overall condition of the bridge and to develop a 
baseline for the future inspections.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.313(f) to discuss nonredundant 
steel tension member inspection procedures by using language from the 
current Sec.  650.313(e) introductory text and (e)(1). The paragraph 
also proposes to change the term fracture critical member to 
nonredundant steel tension member to be consistent with the other 
proposed changes in Sec. Sec.  650.305, 650.309, and 650.311. This 
paragraph also proposes to clarify that NSTM inspections must be hands-
on inspections. The current regulation addresses hands-on inspection of 
fracture critical members in Sec.  650.305, which FHWA believes is not 
an appropriate location for a procedural process. In addition, FHWA is 
proposing the first nonredundant steel tension member inspection for 
new, replaced, and rehabilitated bridges would occur within 6 months of 
the bridge being open to traffic. Unlike the initial inspection, which 
is proposed to be performed before the bridge is open to traffic, FHWA 
realizes owners may need some discretion in scheduling this type of 
inspection. However, FHWA believes it is important for the safety of 
the travelling public that a nonredundant steel tension member 
inspection occur relatively soon to understand the overall condition of 
the bridge and to develop a baseline for the future inspections.
    The FHWA proposes to establish the requirements for NSTM, 
underwater, in-depth, and complex feature inspection procedures in a 
new Sec.  650.313(g). These requirements were previously covered in 
Sec.  650.313(e)(1) and (2) and (f). The FHWA proposes that inspection 
procedures for NSTM, underwater, in-depth, and complex feature 
inspections be in accordance with Section 4.2 of the AASHTO MBE. It is 
FHWA's position that the intent of Sec.  650.313(f) still be included 
in the NBIS but be more strategically focused on those parts of bridges 
that warrant additional attention due to their inherent complexity 
rather than an entire bridge that may have many noncomplex and complex 
elements. The FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference this section of 
the AASHTO MBE. In addition, this section proposes to clarify that some 
inspection procedures can be contained in an agency-wide procedures 
manual while procedures for unique situations and complex features 
should be bridge specific and contained in the bridge file.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend the current Sec.  
650.313(b), proposed Sec.  650.313(h). The proposal modifies the 
language to highlight the importance of the team leader to participate 
actively in the initial, routine, in-depth, NSTM, and underwater 
inspections.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend the current Sec.  
650.313(c) to be proposed Sec.  650.313(i). The FHWA proposes to 
require State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to 
establish documented procedures for timely completion of load ratings. 
Timely completion of load ratings is important for maintaining the 
safety of the traveling public; therefore, it is proposed that the time 
for completion of load ratings shall not exceed 3 months from the time 
the need for a load rating is identified by such things as a change in 
condition of a structural element, change in dead load, change in live 
load, or completion of construction. The requirement to load rate a 
bridge in 3 months for State and Federal agency bridges is required by 
the current Sec.  650.315. The proposed provision would reduce the time 
for all other bridges to be load rated from 180 days to 3 months, which 
is aligned with the NTIS. In addition, FHWA proposes language to 
clarify the intent that all permit vehicles must be analyzed to ensure 
the bridge can safely carry the load.
    The FHWA proposes to add Sec.  650.313(j), which establishes 
requirements for timely installation of load posting signs aligned with 
the NTIS. The requirement of the proposed Sec.  650.313(j)(1) for load 
posting, which is currently addressed in the existing Sec.  650.313(c), 
is also proposed to be amended by replacing the phrase ``or equivalent 
rating factor'' with ``legal load rating or permit load analysis.'' The 
reason for this proposed change is to clearly account for the Load and 
Resistance Factor Rating method. For the Load and Resistance Factor 
Rating method, a legal load rating or permit load analysis that result 
in a rating factor of less than one is an indication that a bridge 
needs to be posted. The existing regulation also does not identify a 
maximum timeframe for the installation of load posting signs. Timely 
installation of load posting signs is important for maintaining the 
safety of the traveling public; therefore, it is proposed that the 
State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments establish 
procedures for timely installation of load posting signs based upon the 
associated risks and need. The FHWA also proposes that the maximum 
timeframe for proper load posting of a bridge be no more than 30 days 
from the time the need is identified, which is consistent with the 
NTIS.
    The FHWA proposes to add Sec.  650.313(k) for closing of bridges. 
Section 6A.8.1 of the AASHTO MBE describes that a bridge owner must 
close a bridge when it cannot carry three tons and lists some factors 
to consider when closing bridges that can carry more than three tons. 
It is unclear as to the type of vehicle(s) that is to be considered 
when a determination to close a bridge needs to be made. The proposal 
would require State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to 
establish condition thresholds at which a bridge must be closed. This 
includes identifying vehicle types for the rating analysis for the 
minimum load carrying capacity.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend the current Sec.  
650.313(d), to

[[Page 61505]]

proposed Sec.  650.313(l). The FHWA proposes that the preparation and 
maintenance of bridge files are to be in accordance with Section 2.1 of 
the AASHTO MBE. The more exact reference will point the reader to the 
specific material within the AASHTO MBE that is applicable to this 
proposed provision.
    The FHWA proposes to delete current Sec.  650.313(e)(2). The 
requirements for underwater inspection procedures would be addressed in 
proposed Sec.  650.313(g).
    The use of underwater imaging technology for performing an 
underwater inspection is not excluded in the current or proposed NBIS; 
however, FHWA Technical Advisory 5140.21 clarifies minimum level I and 
level II inspection protocols for an underwater inspection. FHWA 
recently completed a research project, ``Underwater Inspection of 
Bridge Substructures Using Underwater Imaging Technology'' (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1328379) to determine the effectiveness of 
underwater imaging technology as a possible alternative to the accepted 
level I underwater inspection protocols. In the meantime, there may be 
instances in which an underwater inspection cannot be safely performed 
using traditional methods. In these instances, underwater imaging 
technologies may be used for a level I underwater inspection. The 
program manager must identify and document all requirements for 
performing underwater acoustic imaging for underwater inspection.
    The FHWA proposes a new Sec.  650.313(m), which requires a ``scour 
appraisal'' for all bridges over water. The FHWA has interpreted 
existing Sec.  650.313(e)(3) to mean that in order to determine whether 
a bridge requires a plan of action, the bridge owner must first perform 
a scour appraisal. The scour appraisal considers both the scour 
evaluation and observed scour. Also, if a bridge has unknown 
foundations, no appraisal can determine scour susceptibility, 
therefore, such a bridge requires a plan of action. The intent of the 
proposed section is to make clear that all bridges over water must have 
a scour appraisal and bridges that are scour critical or have unknown 
foundations must have a plan of action to address the associated risks. 
The proposal also specifies that a plan of action document must 
establish a schedule for repairing or installing physical and/or 
hydraulic scour countermeasures, and/or the use of monitoring 
countermeasures that includes inspecting, closing, and opening of each 
applicable bridge to traffic during and after flood events to protect 
the traveling public. The FHWA recognizes that Hydraulics Engineering 
Circular (HEC) 18, 20, and 23 are the state of knowledge and practice 
for the appraisal, design, evaluation, observation, and inspection of 
stream stability, bridge scour, and scour countermeasures.
    The FHWA proposes to redesignate and amend Sec.  650.313(g) to 
proposed Sec.  650.313(n). A proposed reference to Section 1.4 of the 
AASHTO MBE would be incorporated to improve alignment and consistency 
between the regulations and the AASHTO MBE. In addition, the proposed 
language clarifies that quality assurance is to be performed by 
individuals other than those who completed the initial work. The 
importance of documenting quality assurance activities is also 
emphasized through the proposed language. Documentation is important in 
order to track and implement improvement opportunities.
    The FHWA proposes to move the requirements for periodic bridge 
inspection refresher training for program managers and team leaders in 
the current Sec.  650.313(g) to the proposed Sec.  650.309(a)(3) and 
(b)(2). This requirement is directly related to the qualifications of 
the program manager and team leaders rather than a bridge inspection 
organization's quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) program.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(3)(b), FHWA proposes to 
establish procedures for States to follow in reporting information on 
critical findings by redesignating and amending Sec.  650.313(h) to 
proposed Sec.  650.313(o). The need for clarity in the current Sec.  
650.313(h) was identified in FHWA's Summary Report of Critical Findings 
Reviews for the National Bridge Inspection Standards dated December 
2011 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbip/critical.pdf) and the initial 
FHWA outreach to stakeholders regarding the current NBIS. Under the 
proposed rule, the definition for critical finding does not 
substantially change from the existing regulations; however, State 
DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments would be required to 
identify what it considers a critical finding based upon the minimum 
requirements proposed in Sec.  650.313(o). The FHWA proposes an 
improved reporting process for monitoring activities and corrective 
actions taken in response to critical findings.
    For the proposed reporting procedures, State DOTs are to report 
critical findings information to their respective FHWA Division office. 
Similarly, Federal agencies and Tribal governments should report 
required information to the Federal Lands Highway Division office. 
Although 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(3)(B) only specifies that States are to 
report on critical findings, Federal agencies and Tribal governments 
should also report on critical findings. The FHWA's goal is safety and 
national consistency. Therefore, it is appropriate that Federal 
agencies and Tribal governments should follow the same procedures as 
those proposed for State DOTs.
    Specific requirements of the proposed Sec.  650.313(o) would direct 
State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to include in 
their procedures that a nonredundant bridge member on a bridge on the 
National Highway System with a quantity in condition state 4 \4\ is a 
critical finding. Bridges are composed of many members and some members 
may be nonredundant. The intent of the proposed requirement is to 
report on critical findings that affect structural, nonredundant 
members such as beams and piers, not members that do not affect the 
structural integrity of a bridge such as bridge rails and ancillary 
structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the AASHTO document ``Manual for Element Level 
Inspection.'' Condition State 4 is described for each of the 
individual elements included in the manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(4), FHWA proposes a new Sec.  
650.313(p) to assist in FHWA's assessment of State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, and Tribal governments for compliance with these standards. 
Although the statute only refers to States' compliance with these 
regulations, Federal agencies' and Tribal governments' compliance with 
these regulations is vital to ensuring safety and consistency.
Section 650.315 Inventory
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.315(a) to replace the term 
``Structure Inventory and Appraisal data'' with ``inventory data.'' The 
proposed term ``inventory data'' as defined in Sec.  650.305 provides 
clarity as to the type of information that bridge owners would provide 
to FHWA for bridges subject to the NBIS. The FHWA also proposes to 
amend this section to add Tribal governments to be consistent with 23 
U.S.C. 144(h)(2). The FHWA proposes to revise the language to align 
with current FHWA language requiring annual inventory data submittal.
    The FHWA proposes to replace the reference to the ``Recording and 
Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and

[[Page 61506]]

Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges'' with a reference to the 
``Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory'' in order to align 
with the reference in Sec.  650.317. The FHWA proposes the addition of 
the requirement to include element level bridge inspection data for 
bridges on the NHS as required by 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2).
    The FHWA proposes to have State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments enter changes to inventory data in Sec.  650.315(b) for all 
inspection types.
    The FHWA proposes to amend Sec.  650.315(b) through (d) by 
replacing ``SI&A data'' with ``inventory data.'' The proposed term 
``inventory data'' as defined in Sec.  650.305 provides clarity as to 
the type of information that is to be provided for bridges subject to 
the NBIS. The FHWA proposes to further amend this section to add 
``Tribal governments'' to be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2). The 
FHWA proposes to revise the requirement of submitting inventory data 
within 90 days to 3 months to be consistent with other proposed units 
of time in the NBIS. The FHWA proposes to change the requirement for 
submittal of inventory data for all bridges to 3 months. It is FHWA's 
position that due to current technological capabilities, the current 
requirement of 180 days for non-State DOT- and Federal-owned bridges is 
an excessive amount of time for inventory data to be submitted to a 
centralized database. This is also consistent with the NTIS. A 3-month 
limit would help keep the NBI more current. The FHWA proposes to revise 
the beginning of the referenced timeframe from ``date of inspection'' 
to ``field portion of the inspection is completed'' to clarify when the 
time limit starts.
    The FHWA proposes to add Sec.  650.315(e), requiring State DOTs, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to document processes to track 
and measure their performance in submitting inventory data within the 
required time constraint.
Section 650.317 Reference Manuals
    The FHWA proposes to amend this section by incorporating by 
reference the more current versions of the manuals listed and updating 
the section to be consistent with requirements of the Office of the 
Federal Register.
    The AASHTO's 2008 ``Manual for Bridge Evaluations,'' is proposed to 
be replaced with a more current edition of the ``AASHTO Manual for 
Bridge Evaluation.'' This document was developed by AASHTO to assist 
bridge owners by establishing inspection procedures and evaluation 
practices that meet the FHWA's National Bridge Inspection Standards 
regulatory requirements. The manual is been divided into eight 
sections, with each section representing a distinct phase of an overall 
bridge inspection and evaluation program.
    In addition, FHWA proposes to add the AASHTO's ``Manual for Bridge 
Element Inspection'' (AASHTO MBEI), First Edition, and its Interim 
Revision. This document is a reference for standardized element 
definitions, element quantity calculations, condition state 
definitions, element feasible actions, and inspection conventions. Its 
goal is to capture the condition of bridges in a simple, effective way 
that can be standardized nationwide, while providing enough flexibility 
to be adapted by both large and small agencies. AASHTO designed the 
document for use by State departments of transportation and other 
agencies that perform element-level bridge inspections. This reference 
is proposed to support the Section 1111(a) of MAP-21 for element level 
data to be reported to FHWA for bridges on the NHS. The AASHTO MBEI is 
referenced in FHWA's ``Specification for the National Bridge Inventory 
Bridge Elements,'' and would establish a uniform understanding of the 
inventory data to be reported in order to satisfy the statutory 
requirement.
    The FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference FHWA's 
``Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory'' (SNBI). The SNBI 
details how to code and submit data gathered on highway bridges for the 
national bridge inventory, including items on location, structure type, 
condition ratings, and inspection dates. This document replaces the 
current Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (Coding Guide) and define the 
required inventory data that is submitted to FHWA to fulfill the 
requirements of Sec.  650.315. The FHWA recognizes that bridge owners 
reporting data would incur a one-time cost associated with changing 
from the Coding Guide to the SNBI. However, as many of the data items 
are the same or similar and there is a wide variety of data management 
and reporting systems being used, FHWA was unable to estimate these 
costs. The FHWA requests information regarding any costs associated 
with this proposed change.
    The documents that FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference are 
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and 
local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. The documents 
listed in this section are available on the docket with this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and at the sources identified in the regulatory 
text below. The specific standards are discussed in greater detail 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Subpart D--Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program

    The Highway Bridge Program was not reauthorized by MAP-21. The MAP-
21 restructured core highway formula programs. Activities that were 
carried out under the Highway Bridge Program were incorporated into the 
National Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation 
Program (now Surface Transportation Block Grant Program). The Highway 
Bridge Program was first authorized under Section 124 of the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (initially called the Highway 
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program) and was last 
reauthorized under Section 1114 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. As such, FHWA 
no longer needs the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 
Program regulations found in 23 CFR part 650, subpart D, and proposes 
to rescind the regulations.

Subpart G--Discretionary Bridge Candidate Rating Factor

    The Discretionary Bridge Program was a component of the Highway 
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The Discretionary Bridge 
Program was initially authorized under Section 124 of the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, and was last reauthorized under 
Section 1109 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 
Since no new funds have been authorized for this program, FHWA proposes 
to repeal the regulations found in 23 CFR part 650, subpart G, which 
were used to describe the rating factors FHWA would use when awarding 
Discretionary Bridge Program grants.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), Executive Order 
13771 (Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The proposed rule is a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT regulatory policies and 
procedures. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to 
improve regulation. This action is considered significant because of 
widespread public interest in

[[Page 61507]]

the safety of highway bridges, although not economically significant 
within the meaning of E.O. 12866. The FHWA has filed into the docket a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in support of 
the NPRM on NBIS. The regulatory analysis estimates the economic 
impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and local 
governments, as well as private entities regulated under this action, 
as required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563.
    This section of the NPRM identifies the estimated costs and 
benefits resulting from the proposed rule in order to inform policy 
makers and the public of the relative value of the current proposal. 
The complete RIA may be accessed from the rulemaking's docket (FHWA-
2017-0047) and contains a discussion of the benefits. The proposed 
regulation will result in both qualitative and quantitative benefits. 
On the qualitative side, the rule adds several features that are aimed 
at improving bridge safety including, more consistent inspection 
procedures, better qualified inspection personnel, and reporting of 
structural and safety-related deficiencies. The incorporation of the 
more rigorous, risk-based process for the determination of routine 
inspection intervals can result in quantitiave benefits. By assuming as 
additional one percent of bridges will be inspected at longer 
intervals, the cost analysis performed resulted in an estimated 
annualized savings of more than $250,000 discounted at 7 percent, or 
nearly $2.63 million dollars in the first 10 years. The proposed rule 
is expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. Details on the 
estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's 
economic analysis, which may be accessed from the docket.

Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule

    Table 1 displays the total cost of the proposed rule for the 10-
year study period (2020-29). Total annualized costs are estimated to be 
$1.65 million discounted at 7 percent, and $1.62 million discounted at 
3 percent.

                                    Table 1--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        10-year total cost                Annualized cost
                 Cost components                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       0.07            0.03            0.07            0.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 650.303, 650.307--Applicability.........      $3,948,096      $4,981,212        $562,120        $583,950
Inspection of Bridges on and off Federal-aid          -2,150,904      -2,713,740        -306,240        -318,133
 Highways.......................................
Establish Inspection Organizations..............       6,099,000       7,694,952         868,360         902,083
Section 605.305--Definitions....................               0               0               0               0
Section 650.307--Bridge Inspection Organization        1,749,810       1,930,116         249,134         226,268
 Responsibilities...............................
Establish Agreements for Border Bridges.........       1,520,985       1,641,414         216,554         192,424
Maintain Registry of Certified Inspectors.......         228,824         288,702          32,579          33,845
Section 650.309--Qualifications of Personnel....       2,683,459       3,029,054         382,064         355,098
Refresher Training for Program Managers and Team       1,226,175       1,438,843         174,580         168,676
 Leaders........................................
Training on NSTM Inspections for Team Leaders...       1,271,182       1,371,831         180,988         160,820
Proprietary Training Review.....................         186,102         218,379          26,497          25,601
Section 650.313--Inspection Procedures..........       2,055,326       2,394,884         292,632         280,754
Initial and Routine Inspections for Bridges with         438,203         552,870          62,390          64,813
 Phased Const. or Temp. Bridges.................
Written Policies for Closing Bridges............       1,086,418       1,172,438         154,681         137,446
Critical Findings Reporting and Tracking........         530,704         669,576          75,560          78,495
Section 315--Inventory..........................       1,186,836       1,497,400         168,979         175,541
Bridge Inventory for Tribal Governments.........       1,186,836       1,497,400         168,979         175,541
Total Cost of Proposed Rule.....................      11,623,526      13,832,666       1,654,929       1,621,610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this NPRM on small 
entities. Because the regulations are primarily intended for States and 
Federal agencies, FHWA has determined that the action is not 
anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. States and Federal agencies are not included 
in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, 
FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has determined that this NPRM will not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The NBIS is needed to ensure 
safety for the users of the Nation's bridges and to help protect 
Federal infrastructure investment. As discussed above, FHWA finds that 
this regulatory action will not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $155,000,000 or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In 
addition, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which 
State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their 
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the 
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program 
permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this 
action will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined 
that this action will not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program

[[Page 61508]]

Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further 
information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This action contains 
a collection of information requirement under the PRA that is covered 
under existing OMB Control number 2125-0501.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed this action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.), and has determined that this action would not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the environment and qualifies for 
the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This action will not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This 
proposed rule does not concern an environmental risk to health or 
safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, FHWA identified potential effects on 
federally recognized Indian tribes that might result from this proposed 
rule. Accordingly, on August 7, 2014, a webinar was conducted by FHWA 
in furtherance of its duty to consult with Tribal governments under 
E.O. 13175 ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
governments.'' The webinar dealt with the NBIS and mentioned that FHWA 
was planning to publish an NPRM sometime in the future that would 
include requirements for bridges owned by Tribal governments. The date 
and time of the webinar had been announced to the Tribal governments 
through the seven Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) centers. A 
total of 35 connections were on the webinar with one or more persons on 
each connection. Two Tribal governments were identified on the 
connections and at least one consultant that works with the Tribes was 
on the webinar. A number of the personnel on the webinar were from the 
BIA and FHWA.
    The webinar was conducted by three bridge engineers and one 
attorney all from FHWA. The PowerPoint presentation and narrative 
covered the history of the NBIS, the NBIS general requirements based on 
the current NBIS, and a final section considering the impacts on the 
Tribal governments caused by the 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2) amendments to the 
NBIS. There was a question and answer period after the presentation 
where general questions about the NBIS were discussed as well as 
impacts to bridges owned by Tribal governments. Issues discussed 
included why a NPRM was needed, if trail bridges and pedestrian bridges 
were subject to the NBIS, and what funding was available for the bridge 
inspections. The webinar lasted for nearly an hour and was terminated 
when no more questions were asked. The webinar was recorded and 
uploaded onto the Tribal Transportation Program Bridge website \5\ 
maintained by FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/bridges/bip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA will fully consider tribal views in the development of 
further rulemaking proceedings.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

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

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.85(a)(1).
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 650, as set forth below:

PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS

0
1. The authority citation for part 650 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 119, 144, and 315.

0
2. Revise subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards
Sec.
650.301 Purpose.
650.303 Applicability.
650.305 Definitions.
650.307 Bridge inspection organization responsibilities.
650.309 Qualifications of personnel.
650.311 Inspection interval.
650.313 Inspection procedures.
650.315 Inventory.
650.317 Reference manuals.

Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards


Sec.  650.301  Purpose.

    This subpart sets the national minimum standards for the proper 
safety inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges in accordance 
with 23 U.S.C. 144(h) and the requirements for preparing and 
maintaining an inventory in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(b).


Sec.  650.303  Applicability.

    The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in this subpart 
apply to all structures defined as highway bridges located on all 
public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally-
owned, federally-owned, and privately-owned bridges that are connected 
to a public road on both ends of the bridge.


Sec.  650.305  Definitions.

    The following terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
    AASHTO Manual. The term ``AASHTO Manual'' means the

[[Page 61509]]

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) ``Manual for Bridge Evaluation'' incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  650.317.
    Attribute. Characteristic of the design, loading, conditions, and 
environment that affect the reliability of a bridge or bridge element.
    Bridge. A structure including supports erected over a depression or 
an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track 
or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an 
opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet 
between under copings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or 
extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it includes multiple 
pipes, where the clear distance between openings is less than half of 
the smaller contiguous opening.
    Bridge inspection experience. Active participation in bridge 
inspections in accordance with the NBIS, in either a field inspection, 
supervisory, or management role. Some of the experience may come from 
relevant bridge design, bridge construction, and bridge maintenance 
experience provided it develops the skills necessary to properly 
perform a NBIS bridge inspection.
    Bridge inspection refresher training. The National Highway 
Institute \1\ (NHI) ``Bridge Inspection Refresher Training Course'' or 
other State, federally, or tribally developed instruction aimed to 
improve quality of inspections, introduce new techniques, and maintain 
consistency in the inspection program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NHI training may be found at the following URL: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM). A comprehensive FHWA 
manual on procedures and techniques for inspecting and evaluating a 
variety of in-service highway bridges. This manual may be purchased 
from the U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 and 
from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 
22161, and is available at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bripub.htm.
    Complex feature. Bridge component(s) or member(s) with advanced or 
unique structural elements or operational characteristics, construction 
methods, and/or requiring specific inspection procedures. This includes 
mechanical and electrical elements of moveable spans and cable-related 
elements of suspension and cable-stayed superstructures.
    Comprehensive bridge inspection training. Training that covers all 
aspects of bridge inspection and enables inspectors to relate 
conditions observed on a bridge to established criteria (see the BIRM 
for the recommended material to be covered in a comprehensive training 
course).
    Consequence. A measure of impacts to structural safety and 
serviceability in a hypothetical scenario where a damage mode 
progresses to the point of requiring immediate action. This may include 
costs to restore the bridge to safe operating condition or other costs.
    Critical finding. A structural or safety related deficiency that 
requires immediate action to ensure public safety.
    Damage inspection. An unscheduled inspection to assess structural 
damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions.
    Damage mode. Typical damage affecting the condition of a bridge 
element that may affect the structural safety or serviceability of the 
bridge.
    Element level bridge inspection data. Quantitative condition 
assessment data, collected during bridge inspections, that indicates 
the severity and extent of defects in bridge elements.
    End-of-course assessment. A comprehensive examination given to 
students after the completion of the delivery of a training course.
    Hands-on inspection. Inspection within arms length of the member. 
Inspection uses visual techniques that may be supplemented by 
nondestructive evaluation techniques.
    Highway. The term ``highway'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    In-depth inspection. A close-up, detailed inspection of one or more 
bridge members located above or below water, using visual or 
nondestructive evaluation techniques as required to identify any 
deficiencies not readily detectable using routine inspection 
procedures. Hands-on inspection may be necessary at some locations. In-
depth inspections may occur more or less frequently than routine 
inspections, as outlined in bridge specific inspection procedures.
    Initial inspection. An initial inspection is the first routine 
inspection and first underwater and nonredundant steel tension member 
inspections, when necessary, of a new, replaced, or rehabilitated 
bridge. This inspection serves to record required bridge inventory 
data, establish baseline conditions, and establish the intervals for 
other inspection types.
    Inspection date. The date on which an inspection begins for a 
bridge.
    Inspection due date. The last inspection date plus the current 
inspection interval.
    Inspection report. The document which summarizes the bridge 
inspection findings and recommendations, signed by a team leader.
    Inventory data. All data reported to the National Bridge Inventory 
in accordance with the ``Specifications for the National Bridge 
Inventory'' incorporated by reference in Sec.  650.317.
    Legal load. The maximum legal load for each vehicle configuration 
permitted by law for the State in which the bridge is located.
    Load posting. Regulatory signs installed in accordance with the 
``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices'' and State or local law 
which represent the maximum vehicular live load which the bridge may 
safely carry.
    Load rating. The analysis to determine the safe vehicular live load 
carrying capacity of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by 
measurements and other information gathered from an inspection.
    Nationally certified bridge inspector. An individual meeting the 
team leader requirements of Sec.  650.309(b).
    Nonredundant member. A member without load path redundancy or other 
redundancy demonstrated through an FHWA-approved process.
    Nonredundant steel tension member (NSTM) inspection. A hands-on 
inspection of nonredundant steel members subject to tension.
    Nonredundant steel tension member inspection training. Training 
that covers all aspects of NSTM inspections to relate conditions 
observed on a bridge to established criteria.
    Operating rating. The maximum permissible live load to which the 
structure may be subjected for the load configuration used in the load 
rating.
    Plan of action (POA). Procedures for bridge inspectors and 
engineers in managing each bridge determined to be scour critical or 
that has unknown foundations.
    Procedures. Written documentation of policies, methods, 
considerations, criteria, and other conditions that direct the actions 
of personnel so that a desired end result is achieved consistently.
    Probability. Extent to which an event is likely to occur during a 
given interval. This may be based on the frequency of events, such as 
in the quantitative probability of failure, or on degree of belief or 
expectation. Degrees of belief about probability can be chosen using 
qualitative scales, ranks, or categories such as, remote, low, 
moderate, or high.
    Professional engineer (PE). An individual, who has fulfilled 
education and experience requirements and passed examinations that, 
under State

[[Page 61510]]

licensure laws, permits the individual to offer engineering services 
within areas of expertise directly to the public.
    Program manager. The individual(s) responsible for bridge 
inspection, load rating, load posting, reporting, and inventory. The 
individual(s) provide(s) overall leadership and is available to 
inspection teams and load raters to provide guidance.
    Public road. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    Quality assurance (QA). The use of sampling and other measures to 
assure the adequacy of quality control procedures in order to verify or 
measure the quality level of the entire bridge inspection and load 
rating program.
    Quality control (QC). Procedures that are intended to maintain the 
quality of a bridge inspection and load rating at or above a specified 
level.
    Risk. The exposure to the possibility of structural safety or 
serviceability loss during the interval between inspections. It is the 
combination of the probability of an event and its consequence.
    Risk assessment panel. A group, made up of the NBIS program manager 
and at least three experts with collective experience in bridge design, 
evaluation, inspection, maintenance, materials, and construction, that 
develops the policy for a more rigorous assessment of risk when 
establishing inspection intervals.
    Routine inspection. Regularly scheduled comprehensive inspection 
consisting of observations and measurements needed to determine the 
physical and functional condition of the bridge, identifying changes 
from previously recorded conditions, and identifying critical findings.
    Routine permit load. A live load, which has a gross weight, axle 
weight or distance between axles not conforming with State statutes for 
legally configured vehicles, authorized for unlimited trips over an 
extended period of time to move alongside other heavy vehicles on a 
regular basis.
    Safe load capacity. A live load that can safely utilize a bridge 
repeatedly over the duration of a specified inspection interval.
    Scour. Erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water; 
often considered as being localized around piers and abutments of 
bridges.
    Scour appraisal. A determination of the stability of a bridge from 
scour made using either an evaluation process, an observed condition, 
or both.
    Scour critical bridge. A bridge with a foundation element that has 
been determined to be unstable for the observed or evaluated scour 
condition.
    Service inspection. An inspection to detect major visible safety 
deficiencies, performed by personnel with general knowledge of bridges 
with the results documented in the bridge file.
    Special inspection. An inspection scheduled at the discretion of 
the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected 
deficiency, or to monitor special details or unusual characteristics of 
a bridge that do not necessarily have defects.
    Special permit load. A live load, which has a gross weight, axle 
weight or distance between axles not conforming with State statutes for 
legally configured vehicles and routine permit loads, typically 
authorized for single or limited trips.
    State transportation department. The term ``State transportation 
department'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    Team leader. The on-site, nationally certified bridge inspector in 
charge of an inspection team and responsible for planning, preparing, 
performing, and reporting on bridge field inspections.
    Temporary bridge. A bridge which is constructed to carry highway 
traffic until the permanent facility is built, repaired, rehabilitated, 
or replaced.
    Underwater bridge inspection training. Training that covers all 
aspects of underwater bridge inspection to relate the conditions of 
underwater bridge elements to established criteria (see the Bridge 
Inspector's Reference Manual section on underwater inspection for the 
recommended material to be covered in an underwater bridge inspection 
training course).
    Underwater inspection. Inspection of the underwater portion of a 
bridge substructure and the surrounding channel, which cannot be 
inspected visually at low water or by wading or probing, and generally 
requiring diving or other appropriate techniques.


Sec.  650.307  Bridge inspection organization responsibilities.

    (a) Each State transportation department must perform, or cause to 
be performed, the proper inspection and evaluation of all highway 
bridges that are fully or partially located within the State's 
boundaries, except for bridges that are owned by Federal agencies or 
tribal governments.
    (b) Each Federal agency must perform, or cause to be performed, the 
proper inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges that are fully 
or partially located within the respective Federal agency's 
responsibility or jurisdiction.
    (c) Each tribal government, in consultation with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA), must perform, or cause to be performed, the 
proper inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges that are fully 
or partially located within the respective tribal government's 
responsibility or jurisdiction.
    (d) Where a border bridge crosses between a State transportation 
department, Federal agency, or tribal government jurisdictions, all 
bordering entities must determine through a joint written agreement the 
inspection responsibilities of each entity for that bridge.
    (e) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, and 
tribal government must include a bridge inspection organization that is 
responsible for the following:
    (1) Developing and implementing written Statewide, Federal agency 
wide, or tribal government wide bridge inspection policies and 
procedures;
    (2) Documenting inspection intervals for the inspection types 
identified in the standards in this subpart;
    (3) Documenting the roles and responsibilities of personnel 
involved in the bridge inspection program;
    (4) Maintaining a central registry of nationally certified bridge 
inspectors that work in their State or for their Federal agency or 
tribal government that includes, at a minimum, a method to positively 
identify each inspector, inspector's qualification records, inspector's 
current contact information, and detailed information about any adverse 
action that may affect the good standing of the inspector;
    (5) Managing bridge inspection reports and files;
    (6) Performing quality control and quality assurance activities;
    (7) Preparing, maintaining, and reporting bridge inventory data;
    (8) Load rating, load posting, and determining other restrictions;
    (9) Managing the critical finding activities;
    (10) Managing scour appraisals and plans of action; and
    (11) Managing other requirements of the standards in this subpart.
    (f) Functions identified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this 
section may be delegated to other individuals, agencies, or entities. 
The delegated roles and functions of all individuals, agencies, and 
entities involved must be documented in a formal written agreement by 
the responsible State transportation department, Federal agency, or 
tribal government. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, 
such delegation does not relieve the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or tribal government of any of its responsibilities 
under this subpart. A tribal government may, with BIA's concurrence via 
a formal written agreement, delegate its functions and

[[Page 61511]]

responsibilities under this subpart to the BIA.
    (g) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or tribal 
government bridge inspection organization must have a program 
manager(s) with the qualifications defined in Sec.  650.309(a). An 
employee of the BIA having the qualification of a program manager as 
defined in Sec.  650.309(a) may serve as the program manager for a 
tribal government if the tribal government delegates this 
responsibility to the BIA in accordance with paragraph (f) of this 
section. When there is more than one program manager, a lead program 
manager who is responsible for coordinating the Statewide, Federal 
agency wide, or tribal government wide policies and procedures must be 
identified.


Sec.  650.309  Qualifications of personnel.

    (a) A program manager must, at a minimum:
    (1) Be a registered professional engineer, or have ten years of 
bridge inspection experience;
    (2) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training course as described in paragraph (g) of this section and score 
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of 
comprehensive bridge inspection training under prior regulations 
satisfy the intent of the requirement in this paragraph (a));
    (3) Complete a cumulative total of 18 hours of FHWA-approved bridge 
inspection refresher training over each 60 month period;
    (4) Maintain documentation supporting the satisfaction of 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section; and
    (5) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (a) within 24 months 
from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] if serving as a program manager who 
was qualified under prior regulations.
    (b) A team leader must, at a minimum:
    (1) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training course as described in paragraph (g) of this section and score 
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of 
comprehensive bridge inspection training under prior regulations 
satisfies the intent of the requirement in this paragraph (b));
    (2) Complete a cumulative total of 18 hours of FHWA-approved bridge 
inspection refresher training over each 60 month period; and
    (3) Meet one of the four qualifications listed in paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section:
    (i) Be a registered professional engineer and have six months of 
bridge inspection experience;
    (ii) Have five years of bridge inspection experience;
    (iii) Have all of the following:
    (A) A bachelor's degree in engineering or engineering technology 
from a college or university accredited by or determined as 
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 
Technology; and
    (B) Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for 
Engineering and Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination; and
    (C) Two years of bridge inspection experience; or
    (iv) Have all of the following:
    (A) An associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology 
from a college or university accredited by or determined as 
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 
Technology; and
    (B) Four years of bridge inspection experience.
    (4) Provide documentation supporting the satisfaction of paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section to the program manager of each State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or tribal government for 
which they are performing bridge inspections.
    (5) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (b) within 24 months 
from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] if serving as a team leader who was 
qualified under prior regulations.
    (c) Team leaders on nonredundant steel tension member inspections 
must, at a minimum:
    (1) Meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (2) Complete an FHWA-approved training course on the inspection of 
nonredundant steel tension members as defined in paragraph (g) of this 
section and score 70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment.
    (3) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (c) within 24 months 
from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] if serving as a team leader for 
inspections of NSTMs under prior regulations.
    (d) Load ratings must be performed by, or under the direct 
supervision of, a registered professional engineer.
    (e) An underwater bridge inspection diver must complete FHWA-
approved underwater bridge inspection training as described in 
paragraph (g) of this section and score 70 percent or greater on an 
end-of-course assessment.
    (f) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and tribal 
governments must establish and document inspection personnel 
qualifications for damage, service, and special inspections.
    (g) The following are considered acceptable bridge inspection 
training:
    (1) National Highway Institute (NHI) training. Acceptable NHI 
courses include:
    (i) Comprehensive bridge inspection training which must include 
topics on importance of bridge inspection; bridge mechanics and 
terminology; personal and public safety issues associated with bridge 
inspections; properties and deficiencies of concrete, steel, timber and 
masonry; inspection equipment needs for various types of bridges and 
site conditions; inspection procedures, evaluations, documentation, 
data collection and critical findings for bridge decks, 
superstructures, substructures, culverts, waterways (including 
underwater elements), joints, bearings, drainage systems, lighting, 
signs, and traffic safety features; inspection procedures, evaluations, 
documentation, data collection; nondestructive evaluation techniques; 
load path redundancy and fatigue concepts; and practical applications 
of the concepts listed in this paragraph (g)(1)(i);
    (ii) Bridge inspection refresher training, which must include 
topics on documentation of inspections, commonly miscoded items, 
recognition of critical inspection findings, recent events impacting 
bridge inspections, and quality assurance activities;
    (iii) Underwater bridge inspection training, which must include 
topics on the need for and benefits of underwater bridge inspections; 
typical defects and deterioration in underwater members; inspection 
equipment needs for various types of bridges and site conditions; 
inspection planning and hazard analysis; and underwater inspection 
procedures, evaluations, documentation, data collection and critical 
findings; and
    (iv) Nonredundant steel tension member inspection training, which 
must include topics on the identification of NSTMs and related 
problematic structural details, the recognition of areas most 
susceptible to fatigue and fracture, the evaluation and recording of 
defects on NSTM, and the application of nondestructive evaluation 
techniques.
    (2) FHWA approval of alternate training. Alternates to the NHI 
training courses listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section must 
include all the topics described in paragraph (g)(1) and be submitted 
to the FHWA by a State transportation department, Federal

[[Page 61512]]

agency, or tribal government. The FHWA must approve alternate course 
materials and end-of-course assessments for national consistency and 
certification purposes. Alternate training courses must be reviewed by 
the program manager every five years to ensure the material is current. 
Updates to approved course materials and end-of-course assessments must 
be resubmitted to the FHWA for approval. Instructors of alternate 
training courses shall meet the qualification requirements for a 
program manager or team leader as defined in this section.
    (3) Existing FHWA-approved alternate training. Agencies that have 
alternate training courses approved by the FHWA prior to [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE] have 24 months to review the prior training 
materials and certify to the FHWA that the training satisfies the 
requirements as defined in Sec.  650.305.


Sec.  650.311  Inspection interval.

    (a) Routine inspections. Inspect each bridge at regular intervals 
not to exceed the maximum intervals established using the risk-based 
processes outlined in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Method 1. In the method in this paragraph (a)(1), inspection 
intervals are determined by a simplified assessment of risk to classify 
each bridge into one of three risk levels with an inspection interval 
not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
    (i) Inspect each bridge at regular intervals not to exceed 24 
months.
    (ii) Certain bridges must be inspected at intervals less than 24 
months. State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or tribal 
governments must develop and document criteria used to determine the 
interval to which these inspections will occur considering such factors 
as structure type, design characteristics, materials, age, condition, 
scour characteristics, environment, traffic characteristics, history of 
vehicle impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known 
deficiencies. Bridges meeting any of the following criteria must have a 
maximum inspection interval of 12 months:
    (A) The lowest condition rating for the deck, superstructure, 
substructure, or culvert items as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) is coded three (3) or less;
    (B) Scour condition rating as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) that is coded three (3) or less; or
    (C) Details, loading, conditions, or inspection findings that are 
known to affect the performance of the bridge or its elements within 
the next 24 months.
    (iii) Certain bridges may be inspected at intervals greater than 24 
months, not to exceed 48 months. State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, or tribal governments must have a documented extended 
interval policy and notify the FHWA in writing prior to implementation. 
All FHWA approved extended inspection interval policies prior to the 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] must be reviewed and updated, if 
necessary, within 24 months to meet the criteria in this section. 
Bridges with a maximum inspection interval of more than 24 months must 
meet all of the following criteria:
    (A) Condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, substructure, 
and culvert items as recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (see 
Sec.  650.315) are coded seven (7) or greater;
    (B) Condition ratings for the channel and channel protection items 
as recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) are 
coded six (6) or greater;
    (C) Operating rating factor or legal load rating factor greater 
than or equal to 1.1 for all vehicles legally allowed to cross the 
selected bridges, including any routine permit loads;
    (D) Steel bridges with existing fatigue cracks which have been 
arrested, no details with AASHTO fatigue categories E and E', no 
details with a history of fatigue cracking, or no fracture-prone 
details in primary members;
    (E) Have no history of overheight vehicular damage and have a 
minimum vertical over or underclearances of 16'-0'' for interstates, 
freeways, and other arterials or 14'-0'' for local roads and 
collectors;
    (F) Designs limited to a concrete slabs, multi-girders, frames, or 
culverts or steel multi-girders or frames;
    (G) Substructure materials limited to concrete in all environments; 
steel or timber in dry environments;
    (H) Evaluated for scour, is not scour critical, and has a scour 
condition rating as recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (see 
Sec.  650.315) that is coded six (6) or greater; and
    (I) Details, loading, conditions, and inspection findings that are 
not expected to affect the performance of the bridge or its elements 
within the next 48 months.
    (2) Method 2. In the method in this paragrpah (a)(2), inspection 
intervals are determined by a more rigorous assessment of risk to 
classify each bridge, or a group of bridges, into one of four risk 
levels with an inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, 48, or 72 
months. The risk assessment process, criteria, and resulting intervals 
must be documented and submitted by the State transportation 
department, Federal agency, or tribal government with a request for 
FHWA approval. Changes to the risk assessment process or criteria must 
be resubmitted for FHWA approval. The request must include paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section:
    (i) Endorsement from a Risk Assessment Panel (RAP), which must be 
used to develop a formal policy.
    (ii) Definitions for risk levels, categories, and the probability 
and consequence levels that are used to define the risk for each bridge 
to be assessed.
    (iii) Damage modes and attributes that are used in classifying 
probability and consequence levels, depending on their relevance to the 
bridge being considered. A system of screening, scoring, and thresholds 
are defined by the RAP to assess the risks. Scoring is based on 
prioritizing attributes and their relative influence on damage modes.
    (A) A set of screening criteria must be used to determine if a 
bridge should be considered in the assessment and to establish maximum 
inspection intervals. The screening criteria must include:
    (1) Requirements for flexure and shear cracking in concrete primary 
load members;
    (2) Requirements for fatigue cracking and corrosion in steel 
primary load members;
    (3) Requirements for other details, loadings, conditions, and 
inspection findings that are known to affect the performance of the 
bridge or its elements;
    (4) Bridges classified as in poor condition cannot have an 
inspection interval greater than 24 months; and
    (5) Bridges classified as in fair condition cannot have an 
inspection interval greater than 48 months.
    (B) The attributes in each assessment must include material 
properties, loads and safe load capacity, and condition.
    (C) The damage modes in each assessment must include:
    (1) For steel elements: section loss, fatigue, and fracture;
    (2) For concrete elements: flexural cracking, shear cracking, and 
reinforcing steel corrosion;
    (3) For superstructure elements: seismic, overload, and vehicle/
vessel impact; and
    (4) For substructure elements: seismic, scour, and settlement.
    (D) A set of criteria to assess risk for each bridge element in 
terms of probability and consequence of structural safety or 
serviceability loss in the time between inspections.
    (iv) A set of risk assessment criteria, written in standard logical 
format amenable for computer programming.

[[Page 61513]]

    (v) Supplemental inspection procedures and data collection that are 
aligned with the level of inspection required to obtain the data to 
apply the criteria.
    (vi) A list classifying each bridge into one of four risk levels 
with a routine inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, 48, or 72 
months.
    (3) Service inspection. A service inspection must be performed 
every 24 months when a risk-based, routine inspection interval exceeds 
48 months. The results of the service inspection must be documented in 
the bridge file.
    (4) Additional routine inspection interval eligibility. Any new, 
rehabilitated, or structurally modified bridge must receive an initial 
inspection, be in service for at least 24 months, and receive its next 
routine inspection before being eligible for inspection intervals 
greater than 24 months.
    (b) Underwater inspections. Inspect each bridge at regular 
intervals not to exceed the maximum intervals established using the 
risk-based processes outlined in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Method 1. In the method in this paragraph (b)(1), inspection 
intervals are determined by a simplified assessment of risk to classify 
each bridge into one of three risk levels with an interval not to 
exceed 36, 60, or 72 months.
    (i) Inspect underwater structural elements and the surrounding 
channel of bridges at regular intervals not to exceed 60 months.
    (ii) Certain underwater structural elements and the surrounding 
channel of bridges must be inspected at intervals less than 60 months. 
State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or tribal 
governments must develop and document criteria used to determine the 
interval to which these inspections will occur considering such factors 
as structure type, design characteristics, materials, age, condition, 
scour characteristics, environment, traffic characteristics, history of 
vehicle/vessel impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other 
known deficiencies. Bridges meeting either of the following criteria 
must have a maximum underwater inspection interval of 36 months:
    (A) The lowest rating for the substructure, culvert, channel, and 
channel condition ratings items as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) is coded three (3) or less; or
    (B) Scour condition rating as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) that is coded three (3) or less.
    (iii) Certain underwater structural elements and the surrounding 
channel of bridges may be inspected at intervals greater than 60 
months, not to exceed 72 months. States, Federal agencies, or tribal 
governments must have a documented underwater extended interval policy 
and must notify the FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Bridges 
with a maximum underwater inspection interval of more than 60 months 
must meet all of the following criteria:
    (A) Benign freshwater environments;
    (B) Condition rating values for the substructure, culvert, channel, 
and channel protection items as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) that are coded six (6) or greater;
    (C) The bridge has been evaluated for scour, is not scour critical, 
and has a scour condition rating as recorded in the National Bridge 
Inventory (see Sec.  650.315) that is coded six (6) or greater; and
    (D) Details, loading, conditions, and inspection findings that are 
not expected to affect the performance of the bridge or its elements 
within the next 72 months.
    (2) Method 2. In the method in this paragraph (b)(2), inspection 
intervals are determined by a more rigorous assessment of risk. The 
risk assessment process, criteria, and resulting intervals must be 
documented and submitted by the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or tribal government with a request for FHWA approval. 
The process and criteria must be similar to that outlined in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this setion except that each bridge must be classified into 
one of three risk levels with an underwater inspection interval not to 
exceed 36, 60, and 72 months.
    (c) Nonredundant steel tension member inspections. Inspect each 
member at regular intervals not to exceed the maximum intervals 
established using the risk-based processes outlined in paragraph (c)(1) 
or (2) of this section.
    (1) Method 1. In the method in this paragraph (c)(1), inspection 
intervals are determined by a simplified assessment of risk to classify 
each bridge into one of three risk levels with an interval not to 
exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
    (i) Inspect nonredundant steel tension members at intervals not to 
exceed 24 months.
    (ii) Certain nonredundant steel tension members must be inspected 
at intervals less than 24 months. State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, or tribal governments must develop and document 
criteria used to determine the interval to which these inspections will 
occur considering such factors as structure type, design 
characteristics, materials, age, condition, scour characteristics, 
environment, traffic characteristics, history of vehicle impact damage, 
loads and safe load capacity, and other known deficiencies. 
Nonredundant steel tension members meeting any of the following 
criteria must have a maximum inspection interval of 12 months:
    (A) Primary member with fatigue cracks which have not been 
arrested;
    (B) Primary member with significant corrosion; or
    (C) Primary member with details, loading, conditions, or inspection 
findings that are known to affect the expected fatigue performance.
    (iii) Certain nonredundant steel tension members of bridges may be 
inspected at intervals greater than 24 months, not to exceed 48 months. 
State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or tribal 
governments must have a documented extended interval policy, and notify 
the FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Bridges with a maximum 
nonredundant steel tension member inspection interval of more than 24 
months must meet all of the following criteria:
    (A) Bridge was constructed after 1978 in accordance with a fracture 
control plan;
    (B) Member has no fatigue details with finite life;
    (C) Member has no history of fatigue cracks; and
    (D) Member has details, loading, conditions, and inspection 
findings that are not expected to affect the fatigue performance within 
the next 48 months.
    (2) Method 2. In the method in this paragraph (c)(2), inspection 
intervals are determined by a more rigorous assessment of risk. The 
risk assessment process, criteria, and resulting intervals must be 
documented and submitted by the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or tribal government with a request for FHWA approval. 
The process and criteria must be similar to that outlined in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section except that each bridge must be classified into 
one of three risk levels with a nonredundant steel tension member 
inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
    (d) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. State transportation 
department, Federal agency, or tribal government must document the 
criteria to determine the level and interval for these inspections in 
its bridge inspection policies and procedures.
    (e) Bridge inspection interval tolerance. (1) The acceptable 
tolerance

[[Page 61514]]

for the next inspection is up to three months after the inspection due 
date.
    (2) Exceptions to the inspection interval tolerance due to rare and 
unusual circumstances must be approved by FHWA in advance of the 
inspection due date.
    (f) Next inspection. Review intervals for every inspection type 
after each inspection to ensure the proper interval is assigned. 
Establish the next inspection due date for each inspection type based 
on the established interval and the last inspection date.


Sec.  650.313   Inspection procedures.

    (a) General. Inspect each bridge to determine condition, identify 
deficiencies, and document results in an inspection report in 
accordance with the inspection procedures in Section 4, AASHTO Manual 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317). Any portion of the 
bridge not visible using standard access methods must be assessed via 
another method. Appropriate equipment to complete the inspection must 
be documented in the inspection plan. The equipment may include 
advanced technologies listed in the Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual 
to access and determine the condition of the bridge.
    (b) Initial inspection. (1) Perform an initial inspection for each 
new, replaced, and rehabilitated bridge after all construction is 
completed and prior to the entire bridge being open to traffic. Submit 
NBI data after the initial inspection of the entire bridge being open 
to traffic.
    (2) Develop and implement inspection procedures for bridges in 
phased construction and temporary bridges open to traffic. The portion 
of the bridge under phased construction must be inspected prior to it 
being open to traffic.
    (c) Routine inspection. (1) Each routine inspection must include 
observations of all areas and elements of the bridge including viewable 
access from the deck, ground surfaces, water surfaces by boat, and by 
wading or probing underwater elements. Any portion of the bridge not 
visible using the standard access methods in the preceding sentence 
must be accessed or viewed by other methods to determine the condition 
of the bridge for all areas and elements.
    (2) Develop and implement routine inspection procedures for bridges 
in phased construction and temporary bridges open to traffic. The 
routine interval for inspections for the portions of a bridge open to 
traffic shall not be greater than the intervals established in Sec.  
650.311. Submit NBI data for temporary bridges which are to remain open 
for more than 24 months.
    (d) In-depth inspection. Identify the location of bridge members 
that need an in-depth inspection in the bridge files. Perform in-depth 
inspections in accordance with the procedures developed in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (e) Underwater inspection. Identify the locations of underwater 
elements in the bridge files that cannot be inspected using wading and 
probing during a routine inspection. Perform underwater inspections in 
accordance with the procedures developed in paragraph (g) of this 
section. Perform the first underwater inspection for each new, 
replaced, and rehabilitated bridge after all construction is completed 
and within 6 months of the entire bridge being open to traffic.
    (f) Nonredundant steel tension member inspection. Identify the 
location of the NSTMs in the bridge files. Perform hands-on inspections 
of NSTMs in accordance with the procedures developed in paragraph (g) 
of this section. Perform the first NSTM inspection for each new, 
replaced, and rehabilitated bridge after all construction is completed 
and within 6 months of the entire bridge being open to traffic.
    (g) NSTM, underwater, in-depth, and complex feature inspection 
procedures. Develop and document inspection procedures for bridges 
which require NSTM, underwater, in-depth, and complex feature 
inspections in accordance with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  650.317). Exceptions to traditional inspection 
methods must be approved by FHWA. State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, and tribal governments can include general procedures 
applicable to many bridges in their procedures manual. Specific 
procedures for unique and complex structural elements must be developed 
for each bridge and contained in the bridge file.
    (h) Team leader. Provide at least one team leader, who meets the 
minimum qualifications stated in Sec.  650.309, at the bridge and 
actively participating in the inspection at all times during each 
initial, routine, in-depth, NSTM, and underwater inspection.
    (i) Load rating. (1) Rate each bridge as to its safe load capacity 
in accordance with Section 6, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  650.317).
    (2) Develop and document procedures for completion of new and 
updated bridge load ratings. Load ratings must be completed as soon as 
practical, but no later than 3 months after the initial inspection and 
when a change is identified that warrants a re-rating, such as, but not 
limited to, changes in condition, reconstruction, new construction, or 
changes in dead or live loads.
    (3) Analyze routine and special permit loads for each bridge that 
these loads cross to verify the bridge can safely carry the load.
    (j) Load posting. (1) Implement load posting for a bridge in 
accordance with Section 6, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  650.317), when the maximum unrestricted legal loads or State 
routine permit loads exceed that allowed under the operating rating, 
legal load rating, or permit load analysis.
    (2) Develop and document procedures for timely load posting based 
upon the load capacity and characteristics such as average daily 
traffic (ADT), average daily truck traffic (ADTT), and loading 
conditions. Posting shall be made as soon as possible but not later 
than 30 days after a valid load rating determines a need for such 
posting. Implement load posting in accordance with these procedures.
    (k) Closed bridges. Develop and document criteria for closing a 
bridge which considers condition and load carrying capacity for each 
legal vehicle. Bridges that meet the criteria must be closed 
immediately. Bridges must be closed when the gross live load capacity 
is less than 3 tons.
    (l) Bridge files. Prepare and maintain bridge files in accordance 
with Section 2.1, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
650.317).
    (m) Scour. (1) Perform a scour appraisal for all bridges over 
water. The appraisal shall be based upon the least stable of either the 
evaluation process or observed scour condition.
    (2) For bridges which are determined to be scour critical or have 
unknown foundations, prepare a plan of action for deployment of scour 
countermeasures for known and potential deficiencies and to address 
safety concerns. The plan of action must address a schedule for 
repairing or installing physical and/or hydraulic scour 
countermeasures, and/or the use of monitoring countermeasures that 
includes, inspecting, closing, and opening of each applicable bridge to 
traffic prior to, during and after flood events to protect the 
traveling public.
    (3) Execute action in accordance with the plan.
    (n) Quality control and quality assurance. (1) Assure systematic 
quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures identified 
in Section 1.4,

[[Page 61515]]

AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317) are used 
to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in the inspection 
program.
    (2) Document the extent, interval, and responsible party for the 
review of inspection teams in the field, inspection reports, NBI data, 
and computations, including scour appraisal and load ratings. QA 
reviews should not be performed by the personnel who completed the 
original work.
    (3) Perform QC/QA reviews and document the results of the QC/QA 
process, including the tracking and completion of actions identified in 
the procedures.
    (4) Address the findings of the QC/QA reviews.
    (o) Critical findings. (1) Document procedures to address critical 
findings in a timely manner. Procedures must:
    (i) Define critical findings considering the magnitude, location 
and consequence of a deficiency. Deficiencies include, but are not 
limited to scour, impact, corrosion, section loss, settlement, 
cracking, deflection, distortion, delamination, loss of bearing, and 
invalid or missing load posting signs. At a minimum, include findings 
which result in the following:
    (A) Full or partial closure of any bridge;
    (B) A program manager recommendation for full or partial closure of 
any bridge;
    (C) A nonredundant member with any quantity in condition state 4, 
as defined in the AASHTO MBEI (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
650.317);
    (D) Superstructure or substructure condition rating of serious (3) 
or worse;
    (E) Immediate load restriction or posting, or immediate repair work 
to a bridge, including shoring, in order to remain open; and
    (F) Missing required load posting signage.
    (ii) Develop and document timeframes to address critical findings 
identified in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) Periodically, or as requested, provide written reports to FHWA 
for all critical findings and actions taken to resolve or monitor 
critical findings. Notification and reporting procedures are as 
follows:
    (i) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and tribal 
governments must report, or cause to be reported, to the FHWA within 24 
hours of discovery of any critical finding that involves:
    (A) Full or partial closure of any bridge;
    (B) Program manager recommends full or partial closure of any 
bridge; or
    (C) A National Highway System (NHS) bridge with a nonredundant 
member with any quantity in condition state 4, as defined in the AASHTO 
MBEI.
    (ii) The initial report must include the owner, NBI structure 
number, date of discovery of the critical finding, and a description.
    (iii) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and 
tribal governments must submit a monthly status report to FHWA for all 
critical finding as identified in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section. 
The report must contain:
    (A) Owner;
    (B) National Bridge Inventory Structure Number;
    (C) Date of finding;
    (D) Description and photos (if available) of critical finding;
    (E) Description of completed, temporary and/or planned corrective 
actions to address critical finding;
    (F) Status of corrective actions: Active/Completed;
    (G) Estimated date of completion if corrective actions are active; 
and
    (H) Date of completion if corrective actions are completed.
    (iv) All critical findings must remain on the monthly report until 
permanently resolved.
    (p) Review of compliance. Provide information annually or as 
required in cooperation with any FHWA review of compliance with the 
NBIS.


Sec.  650.315  Inventory.

    (a) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or tribal 
government must prepare and maintain an inventory of all bridges 
subject to the NBIS. Inventory data must be collected, updated, and 
retained by the responsible State transportation department, Federal 
agency, or tribal government and submitted to FHWA on an annual basis 
or whenever requested. Specifications for collecting and reporting this 
data are contained in the ``Specifications for the National Bridge 
Inventory'' (incorporated by reference in Sec.  650.317) together with 
subsequent interim changes or the most recent version. Inventory data 
must include element level bridge inspection data for bridges on the 
NHS.
    (b) For all inspection types, enter changes to the inventory data 
into the State transportation department, Federal agency, or tribal 
government inventory within three months of when the field portion of 
the inspection is completed.
    (c) For modifications to existing bridges that alter previously 
recorded inventory data and for newly constructed bridges, enter the 
inventory data into the State transportation department, Federal 
agency, or tribal government inventory within three months after 
opening to traffic.
    (d) For changes in load restriction or closure status, enter the 
revised inventory data into the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or tribal government inventory within three months 
after the change in load restriction or closure status of the bridge is 
implemented.
    (e) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or tribal 
government must establish and document a process that ensures the time 
constraint requirements of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
are fulfilled.


Sec.  650.317   Reference manuals.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this 
subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available 
for inspection at the Department of Transportation Library, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 in Room W12-300 and may be 
obtained from the sources listed in paragrahs (a) and (b) of this 
section. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability 
of these documents at NARA email [email protected] or go to /
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (a) American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), Suite 249, 444 N Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 
20001. Tel: 1-800-231-3475, https://bookstore.transportation.org.
    (1) AASHTO Manual: ``Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Second 
Edition, 2011, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  650.305 and 650.313. The 
Manual includes the following interim revisions:
    (i) 2011 Interim Revisions.
    (ii) 2013 Interim Revisions.
    (iii) 2014 Interim Revisions.
    (iv) 2015 Interim Revisions.
    (v) 2016 Interim Revisions.
    (2) AASHTO MBEI: ``Manual for Bridge Element Inspection,'' First 
Edition, 2014, including 2015 Interim Revisions, IBR approved for Sec.  
650.313.
    (b) The following documents are available from the Federal Highway 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, tel: 
202-366-4000, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm.
    (1) ``Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory,'' FHWA, 
2019 IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  650.305 and 650.315.
    (2) [Reserved]

[[Page 61516]]

Subpart D--[Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve subpart D.

Subpart G--[Removed and Reserved]

0
4. Remove and reserve Subpart G.
[FR Doc. 2019-23929 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P