[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27396-27437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09512]
[[Page 27395]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 88
May 6, 2022
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 650
National Bridge Inspection Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 27396]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule updates the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS) for highway bridges. The Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) to update the NBIS. Through this final rule, FHWA updates
the NBIS to address MAP-21 requirements, incorporate technological
advancements including the use of unmanned aircraft systems, and
addresses ambiguities identified since the last update to the
regulation in 2009. FHWA also is repealing two outdated regulations:
the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and the
Discretionary Bridge Candidate Rating Factor.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 6, 2022. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Drda, P.E., Office of
Bridges and Structures, HIBS-30, (919) 747-7011, 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, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at
http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic
copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the
Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the
Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This final rule updates the national standards for bridge
inspections consistent with the provisions of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141,
126 Stat. 405), which included 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 applies 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, NBIS applies to private 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. 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 updating the NBIS.
This regulatory action also eliminates 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
This final rule revises the existing NBIS relative to the National
Bridge Inventory (NBI), including the requirement to collect element
level data for National Highway System (NHS) bridges. The 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
include several new terms to provide consistency and clarity in the
implementation of the regulations. This revision includes renaming some
existing terms in a more descriptive way, such as fracture critical
member being renamed nonredundant steel tension member (NSTM).
The final rule requires 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. Training requirements for program
managers and team leaders have been modified by defining a required
amount of refresher training for both roles and defining training
needed to be a team leader on a NSTM inspection.
The regulations prescribe the permissible inspection intervals for
bridges, including options for more rigorous, risk-based intervals
based on the consideration of certain factors. They provide options for
establishing inspection intervals for each inspection type. An
inspection interval tolerance of 3 months beyond the inspection date is
included. Specific criteria have been established to allow for extended
routine inspection intervals up to 48 months, and 72 months for
underwater inspections. Similarly, 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 nonredundant steel tension member inspections that
would allow some inspection intervals to be up to 72 months.
The final rule requires 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 require that a bridge inspection organization provide
information to FHWA for annual compliance reviews.
The updated regulations include new time frames for updating
inventory data, and a process for tracking the updates of inventory
data. In addition, they include a new document to identify data items
for the NBI. This document, ``Specifications for the National Bridge
Inventory (SNBI),'' replaces the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (Coding
Guide).'' The final SNBI document is included in the docket.
III. Costs and Benefits
The total cost of the final rule is calculated over the 10-year
analysis period (2022--2031) assuming that either 30 or 65 percent of
eligible bridges will use the Method 1 risk-based 48-month inspection
interval rather than the 24-month inspection interval. The total cost
savings of the rule for the 10-year study period (2022--2031) is
[[Page 27397]]
between -$4.6 and -$195.4 million discounted at 7 percent.
The provisions required by MAP-21 (Sections 650.303, 650.309, and
650.313) have total cost of $7.1 million over the 10-year analysis
period when discounted at 7 percent. The other discretionary provisions
that impose costs have a 10-year discounted value of -$11.7 to -$202.5
million. The cost savings associated with the provision related to
expanded inspection intervals has a plausible range for 10-year
discounted costs of -$131.0 to -$321.7 million.
The FHWA believes the final rule will be net beneficial to society
but is unable to monetize or quantify the benefits of this rulemaking.
More detail on the costs and benefits of the rule can be found later in
this document and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis posted to the
docket for this rulemaking.
Background and Legal Authority
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 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. 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 is making a number of
changes to 23 CFR part 650.
The framework of this 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 intervals, and inspection procedures. The current and new
regulation end with sections on inventorying bridges, submitting data,
and incorporated references. Specific discussions on each section are
detailed later.
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 includes 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 activities and corrective
actions taken in response to a critical finding.
Under the authority delegated to FHWA in 49 CFR 1.85 and the above
mentioned statutory authority, FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 12, 2019, at 84 FR 61494. Based on the
comments received on the NPRM, FHWA is issuing this final rule to
update the NBIS for highway bridges.
Summary of Comments
FHWA received 265 submissions to the docket resulting in more than
3000 individual comments in response to the NPRM. FHWA received
comments from the American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), American Council of Engineering Companies, American
Society of Civil Engineers, National Steel Bridge Alliance, American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation, 41 State DOTs, the National
Transportation Safety Board, 4 Federal agencies, city and county
governmental agencies, consulting firms, and individual private
citizens. FHWA has considered these comments in the development of the
final rule. Docket comments and summaries of FHWA's analyses and
determinations are discussed as follows.
Summary of Significant Changes Made in the Final Rule
The final rule was developed in response to comments received on
the NPRM. The following paragraphs summarize the most significant of
those changes. Editorial or slight changes in language are not
addressed in this document.
Section 650.307(f) was revised to require that delegated roles and
functions be documented. The proposed NPRM requirement for formal
written agreements was removed.
Sections 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and 650.311(b)(1)(ii) were modified to
allow a special inspection in lieu of routine or underwater inspection
reduced interval inspections. This modification provides an option to
monitor areas of concern, rather than requiring inspection of the
entire bridge at reduced intervals.
Section 650.311(a)(1)(iii) was modified so that the extended
routine inspection interval criteria more closely aligns with current
FHWA approved extended inspection interval policies.
Section 650.313(q) was revised to change the critical finding
condition rating threshold from serious (3) to critical (2) as defined
in the 0-9 scale for superstructure and substructure condition ratings
in the SNBI. FHWA has also included the Deck Condition and Culvert
Condition ratings in these criteria.
Section 650.317(a)(1) was updated to incorporate only specific
sections of the ``AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Third Edition,
(AASHTO Manual) and the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions.
Section-by-Section Discussion
The final rule was developed in response to comments received on
the NPRM. The following paragraphs summarize major comments received
and any substantive changes made to each section in the final rule.
Editorial
[[Page 27398]]
or slight changes in language are not addressed in this document. For
sections where no substantive changes are discussed, the substantive
proposal from the NPRM has been adopted in the final rule.
Section 650.303 Applicability
Thirty-five commenters requested clarification of the definition
for a private bridge for determining applicability of this regulation.
Three commenters were in support of inspecting private bridges
connected to a public road on both ends of the bridge.
FHWA Response: Because of the seamless nature of the transportation
infrastructure across the Nation, FHWA believes that 23 U.S.C. 144 is
intended to apply to all highway bridges carrying public roads. The
inventory and inspection of all highway bridges open to public travel
is essential to protect the safety of the traveling public and allow
for the efficient movement of people and goods on which the economy of
the United States relies. In certain cases, a public road is connected
to a private highway bridge. The applicability of the NBIS to such
private bridges is limited to where the public road directly carries
the traveling public to the bridge, the public road continues on the
other side, and the bridge is open to public travel.
Sixteen commenters indicated there may be State specific
legislation restricting access to private property therefore preventing
the ability of the State to perform inspections.
FHWA Response: The NBIS requires inspection of certain private
bridges; however, it is not a requirement that the inspection be
performed by State DOT inspectors. Rather, State DOTs, Federal
agencies, and Tribal governments must cause inspections and evaluations
of private bridges to be performed in accordance with the NBIS.
One commenter indicated support if the ``private bridge'' was
referring to toll bridges.
FHWA Response: The vast majority of toll bridges identified in the
National Bridge Inventory are publicly owned, often by a publicly
chartered toll authority; therefore, they are subject to the NBIS. In
the case of a privately owned toll bridge, the applicability of the
NBIS is limited to where a public road directly carries the traveling
public to the bridge, the public road continues on the other side, and
the bridge is open to the public travel.
Three commenters requested clarification on the inspection
requirements of pedestrian and bicycle bridges.
FHWA Response: The NBIS is only applicable to ``highway bridges''
located on ``public roads.'' Bridges that only carry pedestrian and
bicycle traffic are not highway bridges and therefore are not subject
to the NBIS. Similarly, the NBIS does not apply to railroad, pipeline,
or other types of non-highway bridges, sign support structures, high
mast lighting, retaining walls, noise barriers structures, and overhead
traffic signs. Owners are strongly encouraged to inspect these non-
highway bridges and other significant structures.
The FHWA adopts the private bridge portion of this section as
proposed in the NPRM without further modification.
Section 650.305 Definitions
AASHTO Manual--The definition of the AASHTO Manual is updated in
the final rule to include the sections incorporated by reference. This
change reflects the effort that AASHTO has made to limit the provisions
needed to implement the NBIS to specific sections. The intent of this
effort was to avoid inadvertently creating unnecessary additional
requirements on highway bridge owners by incorporating all of the
AASHTO Manual as a reference.
Bridge inspection experience--Seven commenters suggested clarifying
how much of an inspector's experience should be from performing bridge
inspections. Two commenters recommended adding bridge load rating
evaluations to the list of relevant bridge inspection experience.
FHWA Response: FHWA recognizes that there are many factors involved
in evaluating an individual's bridge inspection experience and believes
that the definition allows for some flexibility in this area. The
individual's experience must include development of the necessary
skills to properly perform NBIS bridge inspections. However, the
predominate amount, or more than 50 percent, should come from NBIS
bridge safety inspection experience. Other experience in bridge design,
bridge load rating, bridge maintenance, or bridge construction may be
used to provide the additional required experience. FHWA agrees that
load rating experience is valuable and should be considered as
acceptable in determining bridge inspection experience. FHWA suggests
that a program manager evaluating an individual's experience for
compliance with the requirements for a team leader could consider,
among other things, the following factors:
1. The relevance of the individual's actual experience, i.e., has
the other experience enabled the individual to develop the skills
needed to lead properly a bridge safety inspection.
2. Exposure to the problems or deficiencies common in the types of
bridges being inspected by the individual.
3. Complexity of the structures being inspected in comparison to
the knowledge and skills of the individual gained through their prior
experience.
4. The individual's understanding of the specific data collection
needs and requirements.
5. Demonstrated ability, through some type of a formal
certification program, to lead bridge safety inspections.
6. The level of oversight and supervision demonstrated by the
individual in prior experience.
Complex feature--Three commenters liked the definition change from
complex bridge to complex feature since it placed the focus on portions
of the bridge which are complex, while one commenter expressed concern
the change will result in more complex inspections.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees the change will place the focus of these
types of inspections on the parts of bridges that warrant additional
attention due to their inherent complexity, rather than an entire
bridge that may have many other noncomplex elements and are addressed
during routine inspections. FHWA does not anticipate an increase in
complex inspections as a result of the change. Owners will have the
ability, as they do now, to identify any complex feature beyond those
in the regulation. The regulation is only clarifying that the focus of
this inspection type is on the complex features, not the entire bridge.
Damage mode--Two commenters recommended clarifying the definition
of damage mode by changing it to ``deterioration mode'' as
deterioration is a more common defect than damage.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that use of deterioration mode would be
a better description for use in determining risk-based inspection
intervals. The definition has been changed in the final rule from
damage mode to deterioration mode. Also, the definition was modified to
include damage and deterioration.
Initial inspection--One commenter questioned how the initial
inspection is a separate inspection as identified in Sec. 650.313, but
the proposed definition identifies the initial inspection as the first
routine, underwater, or NSTM inspection.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that an initial inspection is a separate
inspection type and the definition was modified to clarify this
distinction in the final rule.
Inspection date--One commenter stated the NPRM specifies that the
[[Page 27399]]
inspection date is the date the inspection begins for a bridge, but
that expectations for the timeframe in which to complete the inspection
are unclear and need to be defined. The commenter noted that the
proposed change may be reasonable for most bridges but is not
reasonable for large, complex bridges that take several months to
inspect.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that for large, complex bridges it would
be better to define the inspection date as the date on which the field
portion of the bridge inspection is completed. The definition has been
updated to capture the inspection date as the last day of field
inspection.
Inspection report--One commenter suggested that the inspection
report identify the team leader. Two commenters suggested that the team
leader signature should not be required.
FHWA Response: FHWA understands the need to clarify this
definition, and that owners have many different methods, including
electronic signature, to identify the team leader responsible for the
inspection and report. FHWA is modifying the regulation to align with
section 2.2 of the AASHTO Manual, which is incorporated by reference.
The definition now includes the following language: ``identify the team
leader responsible for the inspection and report.''
Legal load rating--In response to comments for inspection interval
criteria in Sec. 650.311(a)(1), FHWA added a new definition to the
final rule for legal load rating, which is a term used in the Load and
Resistance Factor Rating method.
Nonredundant member--Two commenters questioned why there was a
definition in the NPRM for nonredundant member. Two commenters
suggested adding a definition for NSTM. Two commenters suggested adding
internal and system redundancy to the definition for nonredundant
member in accordance with the AASHTO guide specification. Six
commenters suggested the move away from the term fracture critical (FC)
is unnecessary and will cause confusion. Two commenters stated
replacing the FC terminology is beneficial because it avoids the
mistaken assumption that a bridge under the FC or fracture critical
member categories are dangerous and should not be used.
FHWA Response: The NPRM utilized the term ``nonredundant member''
in critical findings criteria and to support the definition of
``nonredundant steel tension member inspection.'' Based on comments
received, the criteria for critical findings has been modified in the
final rule and criteria related to the term ``nonredundant member'' has
been removed, eliminating the need for this definition.
FHWA agrees with adding a new definition for NSTM in the final rule
to provide clarity in implementation of the regulation and moving away
from the term ``fracture critical'' as it is commonly misunderstood to
those not familiar with the NBIS. As explained in the NPRM, replacing
the general term of ``fracture critical member'' with a more
descriptive term of NSTM is necessary to enable the risk-based approach
to determining the frequency of inspection required by 23 U.S.C.
144(h)(7). Accordingly, a definition for NSTM has been added to the
final rule that includes consideration of system and internal
redundancy.
FHWA agrees that primary members without load path redundancy but
with system or internal redundancy as demonstrated through a nationally
recognized process do not require NSTM inspections. Nationally
recognized means published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal; or
developed, endorsed and disseminated by a national organization with
affiliates based in two or more States; or currently adopted for use by
one or more State governments or by the Federal Government; and is the
most current version. Also, definitions for load path, system, and
internal redundancy have been added to the regulation for clarity. The
requirement for demonstration of system and internal redundancy has
been added to Sec. 650.313(f). Comments on this topic are addressed
under that section.
Operating rating--Three commenters suggested the definition for
operating rating should more closely align with the AASHTO Manual.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees the definition should better align with
the AASHTO Manual and has updated the definition accordingly.
Plan of action (POA)--Two commenters recommended changing name of
``plan of action'' to ``scour plan of action'' to make it clear that
this term only applies to bridge scour.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with this recommendation and has changed
the term to ``scour plan of action'' to clarify it is only related to
scour.
Private bridge--35 commenters requested the addition of a
definition for private bridge.
FHWA Response: A definition has been added to the final rule for
private bridge.
Professional engineer (PE)--Four commenters requested that licensed
structural engineers (SE) be considered qualified for program manager,
team leader, and be responsible for load ratings in lieu of a PE.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that SEs who practice in the fields in
which they are qualified would have acceptable credentials. The
definition has been updated to acknowledge SE licensure.
Program manager--Two commenters supported the definition change to
allow for multiple program managers. One commenter stated that their
organization and other States are set up so that the program manager
does not directly oversee load rating engineers. The commenter noted
that since these two employees/positions are not interchangeable, and
both have completely different skill sets and responsibilities, this
would result in non-compliance. In addition, some commenters questioned
whether a program manager would be required to be a PE if responsible
for load ratings.
FHWA Response: Because of the issues identified by the commenters
that some States do not have load rating engineers and the program
manager under the same office, the responsibility for load rating was
removed from the definition of program manager. FHWA clarifies in the
final rule that the program manager has the overall responsibility to
ensure conformity with the NBIS.
Rehabilitation--One commenter suggested adding a definition for
rehabilitation, as it is used in multiple places in the regulation but
is not defined, though the commenter did not suggest a particular
definition.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that adding a definition to the final
rule will provide clarity to what is considered rehabilitation for NBIS
as use of the term varies by owners. This new definition is consistent
with the SNBI. Rehabilitation typically includes deck or superstructure
replacement, structure widening, or major modification to substantial
portions of the bridge.
Routine inspection--One commenter suggested that the definition of
routine inspection should not include the identification of critical
findings because they can be identified in any type of inspection.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that critical findings can be identified
in other inspection types. It was not the intent to require a routine
inspection to determine a critical finding. The definition has been
modified by removing the term critical finding and adding language from
the existing regulation about ensuring that the structure continues to
satisfy present safety requirements.
[[Page 27400]]
Routine permit load--One commenter questioned the need for this
definition. Another commenter similarly asked about the intent of this
definition and raised concern that it might interfere or restrict a
State's ability to control permit movements.
FHWA Response: The NPRM proposed to use the same definition used in
the existing NBIS regulation. The definition makes clear what is
considered a routine permit in support of Sec. 650.313(k). The
requirement to load rate routine permit loads has not changed from the
current NBIS to the final rule. This requirement ensures the safety of
the travelling public by verifying that permit vehicles can safely
cross the bridge, and is not intended to interfere or restrict States'
use of routine permits.
Safe load capacity--One commenter stated safe load capacities are
typically not being redone after each inspection and expressed concern
that the definition implies that the load rating is only safe until the
next inspection.
FHWA Response: The definition is the same definition used in the
AASHTO Manual. Sections 2.2.7 and 4.2.5 of the AASHTO Manual indicate
that load ratings are to be updated as needed to reflect changes in the
condition, configuration, strength of members, or changes in loads.
Owners should verify load ratings are still valid after each inspection
to meet this requirement. It is not uncommon for bridge load rating to
be valid for multiple inspection cycles.
Scour appraisal--One commenter requested FHWA define ``evaluation
process'' and clarify whether the intent is for the analysis to be
performed in accordance with Hydraulic Engineering Circulars, (HEC).
FHWA Response: FHWA has modified the definition of scour appraisal
to clarify that a scour evaluation or scour assessment is to be used to
complete the scour appraisal. Definitions for scour evaluation and
scour assessment are added in the final rule to support the scour
appraisal definition. The final rule clarifies that scour appraisals
are to be consistent with the HEC documents.
Scour assessment--A definition has been added for scour assessment,
which is a risk-based process that considers stream stability and scour
potential.
Scour evaluation--A definition for scour evaluation has been added,
which is the application of hydraulic analysis to estimate scour
depths.
Service inspection--Six commenters stated that the definition is
ambiguous which can lead to interpretations which do not meet the
intent. These commenters requested that the qualifications and intent
of service inspections be clarified.
FHWA Response: The definition has been updated to clarify the
intent is to identify major deficiency and safety issues performed by
bridge maintenance or inspection staff. This type of inspection does
not require a team leader. The inspections are meant to be performed by
bridge maintenance or inspection staff from the ground and are not
intended to be as rigorous as routine inspections. Bridges that would
require a service inspection are bridges with inspection intervals
greater than 48 months, so the bridges would be classified as in good
condition and classified in a lower risk category. FHWA utilized NCHRP
Report 782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection
Practices \1\ in the development of this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Bridge Inspection Training--One commenter indicated that
there is very little inspection material related to the underwater
inspection of bridges.
FHWA Response: FHWA has amended the definition of underwater bridge
inspection training to include reference to the publication Underwater
Bridge Inspection (FHWA-NHI-10-027). The purpose of this manual is to
provide guidelines for underwater bridge inspection; acquaint those
responsible for bridge safety with underwater inspection techniques and
equipment; and present commonly found defects. It should be of interest
to bridge and maintenance engineers, divers, and inspectors.
Underwater bridge inspection diver--One commenter suggested a
definition be added for underwater bridge inspector diver as it is not
defined in the regulation.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with this comment and a definition has
been added to clarify who is considered an underwater bridge inspection
diver. This language also clarifies that a tender and safety diver are
not considered underwater bridge inspection divers.
Unknown Foundations--After addressing comments related to scour
plans of action, FHWA realized providing a definition for unknown
foundations further clarifies the regulation and will lead to
consistent implementation. The definition was developed based upon
previous FHWA guidance, Frequently Asked Questions--Bridges over
waterways with unknown foundations and Geotechnical Engineering
Notebook GT-16, Determination of Unknown Subsurface Bridge
Foundations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Frequently Asked Questions--Bridges Over Waterways with
Unknown Foundations may be found at the following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/090603.cfm, and Determination of
Unknown Subsurface Bridge Foundations can be found at the following
URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/090603.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection Organization Responsibilities
General Comments
Two commenters were concerned that Sec. 650.307(a), (b), and (c)
contradict each other and, as written, would require inspection and
reporting of a single bridge by multiple agencies.
FHWA Response: Section 650.307(a) states that a State DOT is only
responsible for all highway bridges that are located within their
State's boundaries, except for those that are owned by Federal agencies
and Tribal governments. Section 650.307(b) and (c) identify the bridges
that are under the responsibility or jurisdiction of Federal agencies
or Tribal governments and aligns with the language in the current
regulation. The bridge inspection and reporting responsibility of a
bridge falls within one agency (State DOT, Federal, or Tribal).
One commenter stated that removing the term ``public roads'' from
Sec. 650.307(a) and (b) creates inconsistency with Sec. 650.303,
where the NBIS applies to all highway bridges located on all public
roads.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes that both Sec. Sec. 650.303 and
650.307 complement each other; accordingly, FHWA does not believe
removing the term public roads from Sec. 650.307 creates any
inconsistencies with Sec. 650.303. Section 650.307(a) and (b) outline
the responsibilities of States and Federal agencies respectively,
whereas Sec. 650.303 outlines the applicability of the standards.
Section 650.307(d)
Twenty-two commenters expressed their support for written
agreements for border bridges, but stated that only one agency should
be responsible for submitting border bridge data to FHWA.
FHWA Response: The National Performance Management Measures, 23 CFR
part 490, subpart D, requires all border bridges to be included with
State NBI data submissions. Bordering States submit border bridge
information because they are both responsible for that bridge in their
performance measure statistics. In response to the comment, the SNBI
has been modified to identify the Designated Lead State
[[Page 27401]]
that is responsible for submitting a full bridge record, and the
Neighboring State will submit an abbreviated bridge record.
One commenter stated that they have two sister bridges that are
owned and maintained by a local agency and cross a river with a
bordering State. The commenter asked for clarification and whether
these bridges fall into this category.
FHWA Response: In the scenario described, one written agreement
between the three entities (the two State DOTs and the local owner) to
delineate the responsibilities of each entity would be required. This
agreement may also include the delegation requirements between the
State DOT and local agencies in Sec. 650.307(f).
One commenter asked whether the border bridge agreement should
include both maintenance and inspection responsibilities rather than
just ``inspection'' responsibilities.
FHWA Response: FHWA encourages that a border bridge agreement
include not just NBIS inspection responsibilities, but all aspects
involved with the bridge such as maintenance and financing. However,
Sec. 650.307(d) only pertains to determining NBIS inspection
responsibilities.
One commenter questioned the need for a joint written agreement.
FHWA Response: FHWA's experience is that in some instances there
has not been a clear delineation of the inspection responsibilities of
border bridges. 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 language requires the affected agencies to have a written
agreement in place to clarify the NBIS-related responsibilities of each
entity for that particular bridge and help ensure that timely bridge
inspections and follow-up actions are accomplished in accordance with
these standards. Section 650.307(d) addresses 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.
Section 650.307(e)
Twenty commenters expressed concern about the requirement for State
DOTs to maintain a registry of nationally certified bridge inspectors
and most suggested that FHWA assume the responsibility of maintaining
such registry.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes it is important for each State DOT,
Federal agency, or Tribal government to maintain their own specific
registry of certified inspectors who perform or have performed
inspections on their bridges. This requirement is consistent with the
NTIS regulation. There are many reasons that each State should maintain
its own registry. Recognizing that Federal regulations represent the
minimum standards and that, in many instances, State DOT requirements
exceed that of Federal regulations, maintaining a registry of qualified
inspectors by State DOTs would be more appropriate. The registry can be
used to communicate with inspectors who work in that State to announce
such things as anticipated work, training requirements, and training
opportunities. State specific requirements for inspectors can be
incorporated, and data quality is more easily maintained at the State
level. For clarity and consistency with the NTIS, the word ``central''
was removed in the final rule.
Several commenters asked if FHWA would assign a unique inspector
identifier if each inspector would have their own number to be used in
any State.
FHWA Response: FHWA will not assign a unique inspector identifier.
The minimum requirements for the registry include a method to identify
positively each inspector. The method is left to the State to
determine. For example, a State may use a unique numbering system or
naming convention as an element of identification method of qualified
inspectors within their respective State.
Several commenters stated that they are currently maintaining or
able to maintain a State based registry with State specific
requirements. Some of these commenters indicated that they would not be
aware of specific requirements in other States and would not be able to
provide information on whether an inspector qualified in their State
would also be qualified in an another. Other commenters indicated that
individual States do not have governance for bridge inspectors in other
States. Some of these commenters stated that there is a likelihood of
significant redundant work in certifying consultant inspectors by
multiple States.
FHWA Response: The NBIS does not require State DOTs, Federal
agencies, or Tribal governments to share their registry of nationally
certified bridge inspectors with other entities, nor does it require
reciprocity between entities for these registries. The requirement of
the registry is for each State DOT, Federal agency, and Tribal
government to identify those inspectors that meet the minimum national
qualification and perform bridge inspections work in their
jurisdiction, as defined in Sec. 650.307(a), (b), and (c). FHWA
recognizes that in some instances, qualification for bridge inspectors
may exceed the minimum standards, resulting in a qualified team leader
in one entity not being qualified in another.
Nine commenters expressed concerns about the requirement to
maintain information about adverse actions that may affect the good
standing of bridge inspectors. Some asked for clarification and others
recommended the removal of this requirement.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes adverse actions indicate an inability
of a bridge inspection team leader to perform quality inspections in
accordance with the NBIS. As such, including detailed information in
the registry about adverse actions is intended to ensure that the
ability to perform assigned inspection activities is not in question.
Only adverse actions that occur within the State DOT, Federal agency,
or Tribal government's jurisdiction are intended to be included in
their own registry. The level of detail to be included in the registry
is left to the judgment of the program manager.
One commenter requested clarification as to whether the
documentation requirements for inspection intervals of less than 24
months are for individual bridges or on a general inventory level for
all bridges.
FHWA Response: The requirement is to document the criteria for
inspection intervals for the several inspection types identified in
Sec. 650.311. Section 650.307(e)(3) is clarified by adding the term
``criteria.''
Section 650.307(f)
Fifteen commenters expressed disagreement with formal written
agreements citing additional undue burden placed on agencies. Some of
the commenters indicated that States already delegate these
responsibilities to local governments by State law or through their
bridge inspection policies and further stated that requiring a formal
written agreement would be a substantial burden.
FHWA Response: FHWA NBIS compliance reviews have shown that, in
some situations, delegated agencies do not have a full understanding or
commitment to performing the NBIS functions that are delegated to them.
FHWA understands the concerns raised about the potential administrative
[[Page 27402]]
burden of formal written agreements. As such, Sec. 650.307(f) has been
revised to replace ``formal written agreement'' with the requirement
that delegated roles and functions must be documented in State DOT,
Federal agency, or Tribal government bridge inspection policies. It is
essential that all parties involved have a clear understanding of what
bridge inspection functions are being delegated. Ultimate
responsibility for the inspection of highway bridges rests with the
delegating State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government.
Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the concept of
multiple agency program managers in Sec. Sec. 650.305 and 650.307.
FHWA Response: FHWA has reconsidered its position on multiple
program managers, reverting to requiring a single lead program manager
as required in the current regulation. With this revision to the final
rule, a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government may have more
than one individual with program manager responsibilities. But to
alleviate confusion with the intent of the regulation, there must be
one individual who has the overall responsibility for the program. The
intent is that the program manager provides overall leadership and
guidance for the inspection organization, and is available to
inspection teams and load rating personnel to provide guidance.
Section 650.307(f) and (g)
The NPRM language made clear that a Tribal government may delegate
its responsibilities under this subpart to Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), if BIA agrees, resulting in BIA acting as the program manager
for the Tribes. However, FHWA's Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Office also
can be delegated responsibilities to act as program manager for Tribes
under the Tribal Transportation Program Agreement. FHWA has been
carrying out these responsibilities for FHWA Agreement Tribes since
2019. Language has been added to clarify that these delegations to FHWA
continue to be permissible under these regulations and to correct this
oversight in the NPRM language. A Tribal government that does not
delegate its responsibilities to BIA or FHWA continues to need to
maintain a bridge inspection organization.
Section 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel
Section 650.309(a)
Two commenters stated that program managers should be a licensed PE
because they are responsible for load ratings. One commenter stated
their organization and other States are set up so that the program
manager does not directly oversee load rating engineers. The commenter
noted that since these two employees/positions are not interchangeable,
and both have completely different skill sets and responsibilities,
this would result in the State being non-compliant.
FHWA Response: FHWA maintains its position on the longstanding
success the NBIS has had using program managers qualified by experience
in lieu of a PE. Because of the issues identified by the commenter that
some States do not have load rating and the program manager in the same
office and the positions have different skill sets, the responsibility
for load rating was removed from the definition of program manager.
Five commenters suggested that the qualifications for a program
manager with PE should also have a minimum of 6 months bridge
inspection experience. Two commenters highlighted that a team leader
with a PE requires more bridge inspection experience than a program
manager.
FHWA Response: FHWA has included the bridge inspection experience
requirement for PE team leaders 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. FHWA encourages program
managers to have bridge inspection experience, however the NBIS has had
longstanding success with PE program managers. It is not the intent of
FHWA to require a program manager also to be a certified bridge
inspection team leader. The NBIS provides minimum national standards
and organizations can make their standards more stringent than the
NBIS.
Four commenters suggested the option for a licensed SE to qualify
in lieu of a PE where applicable in Sec. 650.309 for a program
manager, team leader, and for load ratings.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that licensed SEs who practice in the
fields in which they are qualified would have acceptable credentials.
The definition of PE in Sec. 650.305 has been updated to acknowledge
SE.
Six commenters asked for clarification regarding grandfathering of
the training under prior regulations. Twelve commenters raised concern
regarding the 24-month timeframe for program managers and team leaders
to satisfy qualification requirements for comprehensive bridge
inspection and refresher training for individuals serving in those
positions under prior regulations. Three commenters expressed that the
60-month interval for obtaining 18 hours of refresher training was too
stringent.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the minimum criteria established
in Sec. 650.309 for program managers and team leaders with respect to
comprehensive and refresher training are necessary to ensure that
bridge inspectors are qualified to inspect bridges. The 60-month
timeframe for refresher training is also consistent with the NTIS. FHWA
believes the requirement to complete the training within 24 months of
the effective date of the final rule is reasonable.
Several commenters noted that the effective date of the final rule
will increase demand for National Highway Institute (NHI) courses.
FHWA Response: Training for bridge inspection is a critical part of
the NBIS program and NHI is actively working to revise training to
conform with the final rule. Required training will be available
shortly after the final rule is published, which should provide
sufficient time for all deadlines to be met.
One commenter questioned how the 24-month timeframe to satisfy the
training requirements would be enforced.
FHWA Response: The program manager of each State DOT, Federal
agency, or Tribal government has the duty and responsibility to ensure
the inspection organization is serviced by qualified individuals per
Sec. 650.309. FHWA additionally assesses compliance with the NBIS on
the national level via the NBIS oversight process per Sec. 650.313(r).
Section 650.309(b)
Eighteen commenters touched on the bridge inspection experience
required for team leaders. Most of these comments were on the
requirement for team leaders who qualify based on PE licensure also to
have 6 months bridge inspection experience. Of the 18 commenters, 6
supported the revision requiring team leaders who qualify based on a PE
also to have 6 months bridge inspection experience, and 1 commenter
proposed increasing the required experience. Five other commenters were
opposed to the experience requirement for PE.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes experience is a very important factor
in being a successful team leader. The revision to include the bridge
inspection experience requirement will ensure that all team leaders
have some experience and are familiar with the collection and recording
of bridge inspection
[[Page 27403]]
information as well as the process and procedures associated with
bridge inspection activities. FHWA believes that minimum experience
requirements for all team leaders will bring increased national
consistency to bridge inspections, evaluations, data collection, and
data submission.
Section 650.309(c)
Eight commenters supported the requirement for team leaders of NSTM
inspections to successfully complete training on NSTM inspections. Four
commenters felt the new requirement was not necessary for various
reasons such as the additional cost to get personnel trained, the
difficulty in getting in-State NHI training, or that the training might
be valuable for more complex or larger NSTM bridges but was not needed
for simpler NSTM bridges such as short span truss bridges. Three
commenters pointed out that the proposed rule made no allowance for
grandfathering NSTM (Fracture Critical Member) training which was
completed under prior regulations.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes the variability and complexity of
structures with NSTMs requires training that will bring national
consistency to NSTM bridge inspections, evaluations, and data
collection/submission. It is important to ensure that team leaders of
NSTM inspections possess the higher level of training commensurate with
the importance of these members. FHWA acknowledges that some
organizations will have some additional burden related to training, but
many team leaders have already completed the training even though it
was not required. The final rule has been updated to clarify that
completion of FHWA-approved NSTM training (ex. FHWA-NHI-130078) under
prior regulations satisfies this new requirement, which will reduce the
burden.
Section 650.309(e)
Three commenters asked if divers who completed the underwater
bridge inspection diver training under prior regulations would be
deemed to have satisfied the requirement to complete the diver training
proposed in the NPRM. Two commenters suggested a timeframe of 24 months
to satisfy the qualification requirement if serving as an underwater
bridge inspection diver under prior regulations.
FHWA Response: The changes proposed in the NPRM were not intended
to require underwater bridge inspection divers who qualified under
prior regulations to requalify. FHWA has clarified in the final rule
that completion of FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection
training or FHWA-approved underwater bridge inspection training under
prior regulations satisfies the requirement in Sec. 650.309(e). Given
this clarification, there is no need to set a timeframe to satisfy
requirements for individuals who qualified as underwater bridge
inspection divers under prior regulations.
One commenter highlighted the need for a definition of an
underwater bridge inspection diver.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that adding a new definition for
underwater bridge inspection diver in the final rule will clarify who
is required to have the training. The regulation clarifies the required
training for an underwater bridge 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 requirement of Sec. 650.309(e).
Two commenters pointed to the potential challenge to complete the
underwater bridge inspection training because the course is not offered
very often and generally there are not enough people to meet NHI's 20-
person minimum class size.
FHWA Response: Because of the new requirement, FHWA anticipates
more demand for this course. FHWA encourages States that do not have
enough demand to partner with other agencies, States, or entities to
meet the minimum class size.
Section 650.309(f)
Three commenters indicated they use team leaders for all
inspections and questioned the need to establish separate
qualifications for the Damage, Special, and Service Inspection types.
One commenter recommended FHWA clarify the minimum expectations for
personnel performing these inspections.
FHWA Response: FHWA is intentionally not establishing minimum
qualifications for personnel performing Damage, Special, or Service
Inspection types. Inspection protocols and qualifications for these
inspection types can vary widely between States, Federal agencies, and
Tribal governments. FHWA is providing flexibility to bridge inspection
organizations for determining the personnel to be used. FHWA believes
bridge inspection organizations are in a better position to determine
qualifications based on the way they conduct work related to these
inspection types. This section provides agencies and governments the
flexibility to establish personnel qualifications with a focus on
ensuring safety of the traveling public under their jurisdiction. An
inspection organization should have an appropriate process in place to
be able to verify and ensure that individuals performing these types of
inspections are qualified per organizational requirements.
Section 650.309(g)
Three commenters questioned the need for adding the new ``Service
Inspection'' type.
FHWA Response: Written personnel qualifications for the Service
Inspection type are only required for agencies that establish
inspection intervals exceeding 48 months for routine inspections per
Sec. Sec. 650.311 and 650.309(g). FHWA utilized NCHRP Report 782 \3\--
Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection Practices in
the development of this inspection type. The service inspection type is
defined in Sec. 650.305. These provisions provide flexibility to
bridge inspection organizations for determining the personnel to be
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter noted that there is no consideration for performance-
based qualifications for inspectors using unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS). The commenter recommended performance requirements to ensure
there is sufficient training and testing for accuracy, visual acutance,
image quality, and documentation involving the use of UAS for
inspections.
FHWA Response: UAS are a tool to access visually hard to reach
areas of a bridge. UAS operators in both the public and private sectors
must adhere to statutory and regulatory requirements. Public aircraft
operations (including UAS operations) are governed under the statutory
requirements for public aircraft established in 49 U.S.C. 40102 and
40125. A bridge inspection team leader is required to be on site for
the duration of the bridge inspection and is subject to the
requirements as outlined in this final rule. The requirements for a
routine inspection that includes a UAS-assisted visual inspection are
the same as a standard visual inspection. FHWA has been researching
opportunities for the appropriate use of UAS in the bridge inspection
program and monitoring the research of others. FHWA will continue to
look for opportunities and integrate these tools when it is believed
they will contribute to the continued success of the bridge inspection
program.
[[Page 27404]]
Section 650.309(h)
Five commenters raised concern for the proposed requirement that
instructors of alternate training courses meet program manager or team
leader qualifications, because valuable supplemental instruction may
come from hydraulic engineers, structural engineers, load raters,
software personnel, construction staff and others.
FHWA Response: FHWA has reconsidered its position for instructors
of alternate training and has removed this requirement from the final
rule. The intent of the qualifications requirement was to ensure
knowledgeable personnel teach the course. FHWA agrees valuable
supplemental instruction may come from hydraulic engineers,
geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, load raters, software
personnel, construction staff, and others. Removing instructor
qualification requirements from the final rule is also consistent with
the NTIS.
Fourteen commenters stated that further clarification is needed on
the FHWA approval process of alternate training and how NHI materials
will be made available. Several commenters requested clarification
regarding grandfathering of NHI and FHWA-approved training per prior
regulations.
FHWA Response: The regulation provides two options for acceptable
bridge inspection training. The purpose of the options is to provide
flexibility and consistency in the delivery of training. The first
option is the approved NHI training courses identified in the NBIS, and
the second option allows for State, federally-, and tribally-developed
training courses. For the second option, FHWA outlines that alternate
training materials and end-of-course assessments must include all the
topics from the NHI courses and be submitted to FHWA for approval. FHWA
intends to make NHI bridge inspection course materials available to
State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments through a formal
written agreement in accordance with applicable requirements. The
written agreement will establish controls on use of the material and
the qualifications of those who deliver the training.
For agencies that have existing FHWA-approved alternate training,
the NBIS requires that agencies review and update the prior approved
training materials and resubmit for FHWA approval to ensure the
training satisfies the requirements as defined in Sec. Sec. 650.305
and 650.309. FHWA has revised Sec. 650.309(h)(3) from the proposed
regulation to clarify the requirements. Agencies may have the need to
train personnel during the 24-month transition period and before they
are able to revise fully prior approved materials and obtain FHWA
approval. During the 24-month transition period, existing FHWA-approved
training (i.e., approved by FHWA prior to the effective date of the
final rule) can still be used to train inspection personnel. Bridge
inspection organizations will also have available to them the
opportunity to schedule NHI training to meet the training requirements.
One commenter suggested that FHWA maintain a registry of all
acceptable FHWA-approved (non-NHI) bridge inspection training that
fulfill the requirements as outlined in the new regulation, to include
various State, federally-, and tribally-developed training courses; the
commenter noted this might streamline approval of inspector training
qualifications when individuals seek employment in different States.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that maintaining a list of approved non-
NHI courses could be beneficial for owners and individuals who need
training. FHWA will continue to consider this suggestion, but does not
believe it to be appropriate to include in the final rule as training
is just one component of the qualifications requirements. State DOTs,
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments are responsible to ensure all
qualifications are met.
Section 650.311 Inspection Interval
General Comment
There were numerous comments on risked-based inspection intervals
in Sec. 650.311 of the NPRM. As background and support of FHWA
responses to NPRM comments, the following is an overview of the basis
and approach FHWA used in the NPRM and this final rule.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(7), FHWA has outlined a risk-
based processes for determining the frequency of bridge inspections.
There are two different options for State DOTs, Federal agencies, and
Tribal governments to determine the inspection interval. Method 1
offers a simplified assessment approach, while Method 2 offers a more
rigorous assessment methodology to determine inspection intervals. The
methods for establishing risk-based intervals are based on the NCHRP
Report 782 Proposed Guideline for Reliability Based Bridge Inspection
Practices \4\ and FHWA's current practice for establishing 48-month
inspection intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridges typically exhibit structural deterioration in a controlled
and stable manner over time; therefore, risk is considered 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. The process 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
knowledge to determine the use of limited resources in a more optimal
way across their inventory. The general framework and process for
assessment of risk provides bridge inspection organizations the
latitude to exercise their interpretations to determine probability,
consequence, and risk for bridges in their inventory. The intent of the
rule is not to mandate the application of the rigorous risk-based
approach to an entire inventory, although it is an option. Rather, the
final rule allows State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments
to use Method 1 or Method 2 to determine the inspection interval for
each type of inspection and for each bridge.
Section 650.311(a)
Sixteen commenters stated that a complete routine inspection for
serious but localized conditions is unnecessary and would result in
excessive costs, a waste of public resources, and unnecessary impacts
to traffic. They stated that special inspections are typically used to
monitor areas of concern between routine inspections and suggested that
the regulation be revised to allow the use of special inspections.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that special inspections are appropriate
in certain situations. Sections 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and 650.311(b)(1)(ii)
of the final rule are revised to allow a special inspection limited to
monitoring localized deficiencies and, in accordance with Sec.
650.313(h), in lieu of a full routine inspection or full underwater
inspection when one or more condition ratings are coded three (3) or
less due to those localized deficiencies.
One commenter requested that FHWA explicitly state that either the
simplified (Method 1) or the rigorous (Method 2) assessments of risk
may be used, or that a mix of both methods may be used to determine
inspection intervals. Another
[[Page 27405]]
commenter stated that the flexibility would be beneficial, particularly
since it will take States time to determine the best approach to
determining inspection intervals.
FHWA Response: The final rule allows the State DOT, Federal agency,
or Tribal government to use Method 1 or Method 2 to determine the
inspection interval for each type of inspection and for each bridge.
This flexibility allows for the better allocation of inspection
resources in consideration of risk. The SNBI has an item for recording
which method is being used for each type of inspection for each bridge.
Fifteen commenters criticized the Method 2 approach of determining
risk-based intervals for routine, underwater, and NSTM inspections as
``complicated,'' ``cumbersome,'' ``difficult,'' ``confusing,''
``subjective,'' ``resource intensive,'' and ``unable to implement.''
One commenter expressed concerns that Method 2 would result in more
frequent inspections and added cost burden. Five commenters expressed
support and one commenter expressed strong support for Method 2.
FHWA Response: State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments
may utilize Method 1 or Method 2 to establish inspection intervals.
FHWA utilized NCHRP Report 782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-
Based Bridge Inspection Practices \5\ as a nationally recognized
approach in the development of the optional Method 2. The FHWA believes
the level of consideration and rigor identified in the underlying
research are appropriate to maintain adequate highway bridge safety for
intervals of inspection determined using this method. Several State
DOTs have explored how to incorporate this approach in the current
regulation and FHWA disagrees that it cannot be implemented. The Method
2 approach is intended to allow for better allocation of limited
program resources; it is not intended as only a means for cost savings
or reduced inspections. FHWA believes that the cost of development and
management of the Method 2 approach will provide improvements in
resource allocations and safety as described in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters stated that requiring a bridge with a deck condition
of three (3) or less to be inspected every 12 months is excessive for
little gain.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes bridge decks rated in serious
condition, as with other major bridge components, necessitate more
frequent monitoring to protect public safety until corrective actions
are taken.
Two commenters suggested that the 12-month interval criteria should
be a condition rating of a four (4) or less for deck, superstructure,
substructure, or culvert. One of the commenters, an inspector, stated
that 24-months between routine inspections on bridges in poor condition
is too long. The other commenter stated that a case can be made for a
condition of four (4) or less on high traffic roads such as State
highways.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that there may be other cases that could
suggest shorter intervals between inspection. The rule defines the
minimum cases for which FHWA requires 12-month interval; additional
criteria to determine intervals, considering factors including
condition ratings and known deficiencies, must also be developed and
documented.
One commenter stated that the 12-month interval criteria condition
code of 3 is too conservative for all bridges and suggested that the
determination of inspection intervals should be left to the judgement
of the agency and program manager. Another commenter stated that they
have an objective method to determine when inspection frequencies less
than 12 months are required and do not need further constraints on
their inspection cycles.
FHWA Response: FHWA disagrees and has established minimum criteria
to maintain a uniform level of safety.
Eight commenters expressed confusion or requested clarification
regarding the new SNBI Scour Condition Rating item and how it would be
used in setting routine and underwater intervals. One of the commenters
had concerns about bridges with unknown foundations requiring 12-month
inspection intervals. Another of the commenters suggested a scour
critical bridge POA alone should dictate the inspection interval.
Another commenter was concerned about requiring a 12-month interval
because a bridge is coded as scour critical.
FHWA Response: Both Sec. 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) use the
new SNBI Scour Condition Rating item as criteria for determining
reduced routine and underwater inspection intervals. This is a new item
that is only based on observed scour; it is not equivalent to the
Coding Guide's Item 113. Therefore, whether a bridge has been appraised
as scour critical or the foundation is unknown has no effect on the
inspection intervals required. The criteria for reduced intervals in
both sections is for a condition rating of three (3) or less. The SNBI
defines a rating of three (3) as serious or worse condition, meaning
that major scour exists and the strength and/or stability of the bridge
is seriously affected, typically necessitating more frequent
monitoring, load restrictions, and/or corrective actions.
Seven commenters stated that the criteria in Sec.
650.311(a)(1)(ii)(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,'' is vague and unknowable. Two
commenters suggested adding the word ``safe'' before ``performance,''
and one suggested replacing the word ``known'' with ``expected.''
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague and it has been
removed from the criteria.
One commenter was concerned that the Method 1 routine criteria has
too many constraints, making the method too conservative and not
worthwhile.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes minimum constraints are necessary to
maintain consistency in the levels of inspection. The Method 1 criteria
has been revised to be simpler, to align better with current extended
frequency policy, and to relate more directly to SNBI items.
Twenty-nine commenters stated that the proposed Method 1 NBI
routine inspection condition code of seven (7) or greater for extended
intervals is too restrictive. Many of these commenters explained that
this threshold is more restrictive than the current criteria approved
by FHWA for extended frequencies, resulting in significantly fewer
bridges being eligible for extended intervals than currently approved.
FHWA Response: The extended inspection interval condition criteria
has been revised to be based on NBI condition ratings greater than or
equal to 6. This change, along with the change to base the load rating
factor criteria on the NBI inventory rating with a rating factor value
greater than or equal to 1.0 for HS-20 or HL-93, reverts to the
criteria currently used for FHWA approval of extended intervals. We
anticipate these changes will result in a similar number of bridges
being eligible for extended intervals as under the existing regulation.
However, the actual number of bridges with extended inspection
intervals is expected to increase as FHWA approval is no longer
required.
Fifteen commenters suggested that the operating rating or legal
load rating factor of 1.1 criteria for eligibility for extended
inspection intervals be revised to be based on a rating factor greater
than or equal to 1.0. Common reasoning
[[Page 27406]]
offered is that an operating rating factor of 1.0 indicates that a
bridge is already able to carry those loads with a built-in safety
factor, that the Load and Resistance Factor operating rating was
calibrated to a rating factor of 1.0 at an inspection interval of 5
years, and that requiring a more conservative operating rating provides
no added benefit.
FHWA Response: The extended inspection interval load rating factor
criteria has been revised to be based on an NBI inventory rating factor
of greater than or equal to 1.0. This change, along with the change to
the NBI condition rating criteria of greater than or equal to 6,
reverts to the criteria currently used for FHWA approval of extended
intervals, which we expect to result in a similar number of bridges
being eligible for extended intervals as under the existing regulation.
However, the actual number of bridges on extended inspection intervals
is expected to increase, as FHWA approval is no longer required.
One commenter proposed that the routine 48-month interval load
rating criteria in Sec. 650.311(a)(1)(iii)(C) be tied to the SNBI
Routine Permit Loads item.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the comment, as the tie to the SNBI
Routine Permit Loads item was intended. The Sec. 650.311(a)(1)(iii)(C)
criteria has been revised to require that SNBI Routine Permit Loads,
item B.LR.08, be coded either an A for load capacity is adequate for
all routine permit loads, no routine permit loads are restricted, or N
for bridge does not carry routine permit loads, agency does not issue
routine permits.
One commenter stated that there are steel bridges with AASHTO
category E and E' fatigue details that have performed safely for more
than 50 years and that restricting inspection intervals based on those
details alone does not reflect a realistic consideration of risk.
Another commenter suggested that the steel bridge detail criteria
should eliminate bridges with non-redundant steel tension members.
FHWA Response: The steel bridge fatigue detail criteria for Method
1 extended inspection intervals is intended to be simple and
conservative; additional criteria would greatly complicate the
determination of the proper inspection interval. For bridges with
NSTMs, criteria for determining inspection intervals for those specific
NSTM members are provided in Sec. 650.311(c). FHWA realizes this could
result in different routine and NTSM inspection intervals for the same
bridge, with a 48-month routine interval and a 24-month NSTM interval
being common.
Twelve commenters were concerned with the vertical clearance
criteria for extended inspection intervals. Some were concerned with
not allowing extended intervals for bridges with a history of over
height vehicular damage and recommended that this provision be removed,
while others were concerned with excluding bridges with vertical
clearances of less than 16'-0'' over interstates, freeways, and other
arterials, stating that this is more restrictive than currently
approved criteria.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees. The criteria for extended inspection
intervals has been revised to remove the criterion that bridges have no
history of over height vehicular impact damage and to change the
minimum vertical clearance requirement to 14'-0'' over all roadways.
Fourteen commenters recommended removal of the substructure
material and environment extended inspection intervals criteria,
stating that the substructure condition rating is sufficient in
determining the inspection interval and that no data exist for the
criteria and would be difficult to obtain.
FHWA Response: The substructure material and environment extended
inspection intervals criteria has been removed. However, Sec.
650.311(a)(1)(iii)(B) is modified and requires State DOTs, Federal
agencies, or Tribal governments that implement extended intervals to
develop and document a policy for determining the inspection interval,
considering factors including materials and environments.
Four commenters stated that they thought the scour condition code
criteria of 6 or greater for extended inspection intervals is too
conservative and recommended changing to 5 or greater, with the
reasoning that a code of 5 says the strength and stability of the
bridge are not affected.
FHWA Response: A scour condition code of 5 is fair, moderate scour.
Though the strength and stability of the bridge are not yet affected,
FHWA believes an extended interval should not be allowed in such a
condition, which is one code away from being severe enough potentially
to affect the strength or stability of the bridge, and declines to make
the suggested change in the final rule.
Seven commenters stated that the criteria in Sec.
650.311(a)(1)(iii)(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'' is vague or ambiguous and
suggested it be removed.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague and inclusion
of this criteria did not add essential information contributing to the
requirements of this section, so the language has been removed from the
final rule.
Two commenters noted that in the definition of risk assessment
panel (RAP), the term ``expert'' is undefined, and the level of
collective experience is unspecified. One commenter thought that some
clarification would be useful, including education, licensing, and
professional work experience in requisite fields in order to rely
justifiably on the panels' judgments on risk assessments and inspection
intervals. Another commenter suggested removing the word expert from
the definition and replacing it with ``well experienced.''
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the
language in the definition of risk assessment panel to use the term
``well experienced'' in lieu of ``expert.'' The requirement previously
contained in the NPRM definition to require two PEs be part of the
panel, has been relocated to Sec. 650.311(a)(2) to better consolidate
all requirements of the RAP to one location. Requiring PEs to be part
of the panel establishes the professional expectation while providing
flexibility for well experienced individuals who may not be PEs. Laws
governing PE licensure within each State ensure that PEs only practice
engineering in the fields in which they are qualified and experienced.
One commenter stated that the Method 2 process needs to have a
timeframe for approval or disapproval.
FHWA Response: FHWA expects to review Method 2 submissions and
provide approval in a timely manner. A specific timeframe is not
provided, as the complexity of submissions will likely vary quite
broadly.
One commenter stated that the regulation language should include
``deterioration'' modes.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and ``deterioration mode'' has been
added to the final regulation.
One commenter stated that the Method 2 approach is resource
intensive, difficult to implement, more stringent, and may result in
more bridge inspections as compared to current regulations. However,
other commenters expressed support.
FHWA Response: This regulation is intended to provide better
allocation of limited bridge inspection resources. The Method 2
approach for determining intervals is an option that provides the
ability to decide if the cost of development of the risk-based approach
is worthwhile in comparison to return
[[Page 27407]]
in improvements in resource allocations and safety.
One commenter stated that the Method 2 approach does not explain if
the interval is set by the highest risk element, and does not explain
if different intervals are allowed for different elements.
FHWA Response: It would not be practical or manageable to have
different intervals for different members of the bridge, so FHWA will
continue to require one interval for the bridge which is governed by
the members with the highest risk, as proposed.
One commenter questioned whether 72 months is too long an
inspection interval under the risk-based approach outlined in Method 2
of the proposed rule.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the regulation in total,
including the requirement for FHWA review and approval of the process
used to justify a 72 month interval, will provide adequate safeguards
for the safety of the Nation's network of bridges.
One commenter questioned whether timber structures could be
included in the Method 2 approach.
FHWA Response: The regulations do not preclude timber structures
from Method 2. Common deterioration modes in timber structures should
be considered.
One commenter suggested that for deterioration modes in concrete
elements, post-tensioning steel should also be included.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has added ``prestressing'' steel in
the final regulation, which is the steel used in both pre-tensioning
and post-tensioning methods of fabrication or construction.
Sixteen commenters expressed concerns about the service inspection
requirement. Comments were critical of the frequency of the inspection
(24 months) and the undefined scope and data collection, and suggested
that it defeats the purpose of the Method 2 risk-based approach when
going beyond 48 months. One commenter expressed particular concern for
service inspection of culverts because this inspection may take just as
much effort as a routine inspection.
FHWA Response: The service inspection is needed to identify
critical safety issues and can be performed by personnel with general
knowledge of bridge maintenance or bridge inspection. It is intended to
be much less rigorous and costly as compared to routine inspection. The
service inspection has been revised to clarify that only ``inspection
date and any follow up actions'' are required to be documented in the
bridge file. Also, the interval has been changed to half of the routine
inspection interval when that interval is greater than 48 months.
Section 650.311(b)
Six commenters expressed concern with automatically requiring
underwater inspections at reduced intervals for a substructure
condition rating of 3 or less, stating that the rating includes above
water portions of the substructure. One of the commenters suggested
that the requirement be modified to specify conditions that would be
evaluated during an underwater inspection. Another commenter added that
the number of bridges impacted would be minimal, but the requirement
would cause the additional burden of having to have off-cycle
contracts.
FHWA Response: The proposed substructure condition criteria for
underwater inspections has been replaced in the final rule with
criteria based on the underwater condition. With this change, the
reduced underwater inspection interval criteria will only apply to
those portions of the bridge evaluated during an underwater inspection.
An item has been added to the SNBI to record the underwater condition
rating.
Two commenters suggested that underwater components in poor or
worse condition should have 12-month inspection intervals, since the
likelihood of failure should be identical regardless of whether located
above or below water.
FHWA Response: The underwater inspection interval for bridges with
underwater components in serious or worse condition has been revised
from the proposed rule to not exceed 24-months. This interval is a
maximum for those bridges meeting the criteria of Sec.
650.311(b)(1)(ii)(B). State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal
governments are additionally required to develop and document
supplemental criteria for reduced underwater inspection intervals. FHWA
anticipates that the supplemental criteria will often result in this
subset of bridges having an interval of 12-months or less.
Two commenters requested that benign environment needed to be
defined with more objective language.
FHWA Response: The proposed benign freshwater environment criteria
has been removed from Sec. 650.311(b)(1)(iii) in the final rule.
However, State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments that
implement revised Sec. 650.311(b)(1)(iii)(A) are required to develop
and document an underwater extended interval policy, which should
consider factors including the benign or aggressive nature of the
environment.
Section 650.311(c)
Two commenters stated that the proposed regulation is too
conservative and restrictive for NSTM Inspections, and suggested that
intervals of 72 and 96 months should be allowed. The commenters cited
research findings by Purdue University.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Michael J. Parr; Robert J. Connor; and Mark Bowman, M.ASCE,
Proposed Method for Determining the Interval for Hands-on Inspection
of Steel Bridges with Fracture Critical Members, may be found at the
following URL: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0000057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Response: FHWA is aware of the cited research, that suggests
that greater intervals for NSTMs are possible in low risk cases. This
rule provides a step from the currently required 24-month interval
toward those greater intervals. This risk-based approach for NSTM
intervals will allow for many bridges to move to a 48-month interval,
which is substantial relief as compared to current requirements. FHWA
will continue to evaluate research in this area and the performance of
this step and may consider longer intervals in future regulation.
Two commenters stated that bridges with NSTMs should not be
eligible for intervals beyond 24 months.
FHWA Response: FHWA is basing NSTM interval requirements on
published research \7\ that suggests that greater intervals for NSTMs
are acceptable for low risk cases. Risk is the combination of
likelihood and consequence. While the consequence of failure of an NSTM
is high, the risk can be mitigated in cases when the likelihood is very
low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter asked about how the new AASHTO Guide Specifications
for Internal Redundancy of Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members
\8\ will be implemented with the new regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members, 1st Edition may be
found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=4149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Response: Section 650.313(f) allows for a State DOT, Federal
agency, or Tribal government to demonstrate to FHWA that a member has
system or internal redundancy through the use of nationally recognized
methods. The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members \7\ and AASHTO Guide
Specifications for Analysis and Identification of Fracture
[[Page 27408]]
Critical Members and System Redundant Members \9\ are considered
acceptable nationally recognized methods for determining system or
internal redundancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten commenters questioned the meaning of ``significant corrosion''
as it relates to the NSTM inspection interval requirements.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that this terminology was vague; the
criteria is revised to be based on the NSTM Inspection Condition, a new
SNBI item.
One commenter suggested that ``fracture prone details'' should be
considered for reduced NSTM intervals.
FHWA Response: FHWA did not include fracture prone details in the
criteria as many of the bridges identified with these details have
been, and continue to be, evaluated and, if necessary, retrofitted in
accordance with the FHWA July 10, 2001, memorandum \10\ on the subject
of the Hoan Bridge Investigation. Therefore, FHWA does not believe it
is necessary to include in the final rule. State DOTs, Federal
agencies, or Tribal governments that are aware of bridges with these
details should include such details as a risk factor in the documented
reduced interval criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FHWA July 10, 2001, memorandum on the subject of the Hoan
Bridge Investigation may be found at the following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/010710.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter suggested that ``in accordance with the fracture
control plan'' should be defined.
FHWA Response: FHWA disagrees that fracture control plan needs to
be defined in the regulation as it is a commonly recognized term, which
was implemented by AASHTO in 1978, and is well defined.\11\ The term is
used in bridge fabrication and construction to describe elevated
material and fabrication requirements applied to NSTMs to reduce the
likelihood of fracture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Clause 12 of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5, Bridge Welding
Code, 6th Edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters suggested that ``details, loading, conditions, or
inspection findings that are known to affect the expected performance''
is vague.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague. The language
is revised in the final rule with the intent that knowledge about
unique aspects of the inventory known to affect performance is
considered in the development of interval policies. The language has
been incorporated in the Sec. 650.311(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) narratives.
Two commenters stated that they prefer the NTIS tolerance--a window
for performing inspections--and that the proposed tolerance will result
in inspection date creep.
FHWA Response: During the development of the NPRM, FHWA considered
using the NTIS tolerance method, which requires a fixed target
inspection date to be set and allows a plus or minus 2-month tolerance.
However, the NTIS method, unlike the NBIS final rule, does not allow
for inspections to be conducted early; this is undesirable for the
significantly larger bridge inventory. Therefore, FHWA declines the
commenters' suggestion to use the NTIS tolerance method for the NBIS.
Section 650.311(e)
One commenter indicated the 3 month tolerance should not apply to
bridges on an interval less than or equal to 12 months.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees; Sec. 650.311(e) has been revised to
reduce the tolerance to 2 months for inspection intervals of less than
24 months.
Two commenters were concerned that it is not usually possible to
know of rare and unusual circumstances in advance of the inspection due
date and suggest allowing an extension request up to the tolerance
date. Another commenter requested clarification as to when a request
would need to be made.
FHWA Response: The exceptions to the inspection interval tolerance
due to rare and unusual circumstances, such as a hurricane, which
impact the ability of the owner to perform bridge inspections, have
been revised to require that a request must be approved in advance of
the inspection due date plus the tolerance. For example, for an
inspection due on June 17, 2021, an exception request must be provided
to FHWA with adequate time for review and approval before the end of
the 3-month tolerance on September 30, 2021; accordingly, exception
requests should be made as soon as a delay is known to be a
possibility.
Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures
Section 650.313(a)
Seven commenters stated that the references in Sec. 650.313
identify a version of the AASHTO Manual that is no longer current.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees. New editions of the AASHTO Manual have
been released since the development of the NPRM. This final rule adopts
specific sections of the current version of the AASHTO Manual as stated
in Sec. 650.317. References to specific sections of the AASHTO Manual
throughout Sec. 650.313 have been updated accordingly. The NBIS
specifically references Section 1.4, Section 2.2, Section 4.2, Section
6, and Section 8.
Fifteen commenters had questions and concerns about inspection
requirements for portions of a bridge that are not visible. Several
commenters stated that in some situations, non-visual methods to
inspect these portions are unnecessary, costly, or not proven to be
reliable.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges that portions of bridges are not
visible during inspections; for example, buried foundations and
reinforcing bars in concrete elements. It was not FHWA's intent in the
NPRM to require the inspection of such elements as part of a routine
inspection. The statement requiring non-visible portions to be assessed
via another method has been removed from the final rule. The intent of
this requirement is to ensure all areas of the bridge to be inspected
are properly accessed as identified in the AASHTO Manual. The Bridge
Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM) and NHI training courses identify
methods for accessing portions of the bridge to be inspected.
Eleven commenters did not support documenting equipment needs in an
inspection plan for all bridges. The commenters questioned if a written
inspection plan was required for all inspection types, especially
routine inspections of common bridge types, e.g. reinforced concrete
culvert.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that documenting equipment, while a good
practice, does not need to be written in a plan or a procedure for all
inspection types and has removed that statement from this section of
the final rule. Inspection plans are not required for all types;
however Sec. 650.313(g), which addresses NSTM, underwater, in-depth,
and complex feature inspection types does require documented inspection
procedures for these inspection types.
Seven commenters sought clarification on whether advanced
technologies such as UAS or structural monitoring, could be used in
bridge inspection. One commenter suggested FHWA continue to monitor
technological advancements, evaluate their use in bridge inspection,
and update policies which allow their use accordingly.
FHWA Response: FHWA encourages bridge owners to evaluate use of
advanced technologies in bridge inspection. FHWA, through research and
other programs, also evaluates advanced technologies and encourages
their use where proven to be effective tools and methods for assessing
bridge
[[Page 27409]]
safety and condition. FHWA's position is that proven advanced
technologies may be used to supplement but not supplant bridge
inspection personnel and inspection methods. These technologies are not
a replacement for personnel performing inspections nor are they
intended to replace visual and physical methods. Advanced technologies
may be useful when their use enables an inspection to be done more
efficiently without compromising the thoroughness and effectiveness of
the inspection or when visual and physical methods are not able to
assess fully a bridge component.
UAS may be used by qualified personnel to supplement portions of a
bridge inspection, but it cannot address all aspects of an inspection
(i.e. live load response, auditory cues, sounding of members). For
example, UAS cannot currently perform physical (tactile) examination
such as sounding or hammering on the surface of a bridge member. This
type of examination is needed because it establishes the soundness of
the material and if present, the dimensions of the defect for tracking
deterioration over time and for determining strength or capacity when
calculating a load rating. Use of UAS may also be subject to practical
considerations such as lighting, the need for cleaning the portion
inspected, and the potential for driver distraction.
When used effectively to supplement a bridge inspection, the use of
UAS has the potential to provide efficiencies for some inspections such
as limiting the amount of time access equipment is used and reducing
the time working adjacent to live traffic. UAS may be used to
supplement a bridge inspection when its capabilities are able to meet
the requirements of a specific task in the bridge inspection. For
example, a UAS may be an efficient tool for taking birds-eye view
photography of a bridge site so that qualified personnel can observe
and document changes in the channel since the last inspection. But even
where UAS are used, if the photography shows concerning changes, the
inspector must utilize physical (tactile) techniques to investigate
further.
Technologies will continue to be developed that will change the way
inspectors perform bridge inspection. FHWA will continue to evaluate
these new tools in partnership with our stakeholders and update its
bridge inspection guidance document, the BIRM, to allow these
technological advancements to make their way into the National Bridge
Inspection Program (NBIP).
Section 650.313(b)
Two commenters asked for clarification on what type of construction
work constitutes ``rehabilitation'' as this triggers the need to
perform an initial inspection.
FHWA Response: FHWA added the term ``rehabilitation'' and defines
the term in Sec. 650.305 of the final rule. Performing maintenance,
repairs, or preservation work would not trigger a need to perform an
initial inspection.
Two commenters questioned the need to perform an initial inspection
on a rehabilitated bridge because the construction work was designed by
a licensed engineer and overseen by qualified construction personnel.
FHWA Response: While many bridge construction projects are designed
in accordance with State standards by licensed engineers and overseen
by qualified construction personnel, not all work on bridges is
designed to standards or administered by personnel meeting these
professional qualifications. Further, the focus of design and
construction personnel is different from that of personnel performing
an NBIS safety inspection. Design and construction personnel strive to
build a quality and durable bridge. The focus of personnel performing
an initial inspection is to assure safety, update inventory data,
establish baseline conditions of the bridge, and to establish the
timeline for all other types of inspections.
Thirty-three commenters had concern with completing an initial
inspection prior to opening a bridge to traffic. These commenters cited
several reasons including difficulty coordinating with construction
contractors, a pressing need to open a bridge to alleviate traffic
congestion, rigorous oversight during construction, minimal benefit,
and costs associated with delaying an opening. One commenter supported
completing an initial inspection prior to opening a bridge to traffic.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges the concerns raised by many
commenters that timing an inspection with the completion of a
construction project can be challenging, could unnecessarily delay use
of a new bridge by the public, and that many bridge construction
projects are overseen by construction engineers and inspectors to
ensure a quality bridge is properly built. For these reasons, FHWA has
revised the requirement so that owners have 3 months from the date the
bridge is opened to traffic to complete the initial inspection.
However, FHWA continues to encourage owners to complete the initial
inspection before the structure is open to traffic when possible, which
allows for an inspection under more convenient circumstances for both
the inspector and the travelling public.
Fourteen commenters had questions about the statement ``[s]ubmit
NBI data after the initial inspection of the entire bridge being open
to traffic,'' and whether this would require an additional submission
above and beyond the annual data submission to the NBI that is required
in other parts of the NBIS.
FHWA Response: FHWA does not require an additional data submission
to the NBI for an initial inspection of a bridge. This statement has
been removed from the final rule. FHWA requires that the data from the
initial inspection be recorded in the State DOT, Federal agency, or
Tribal government's inventory as specified in Sec. 650.315, and to be
submitted to the NBI in the next annual data submission.
Twenty-eight commenters had concerns with performing initial and
routine inspections on phased and temporary bridges. The commenters
cited several reasons including difficulty coordinating with
construction contractors, concerns with inspecting contractor owned
temporary bridges, monitoring performed during construction by on-site
personnel, and costs associated with performing these inspections,
particularly if the project is accelerated and has many phases.
FHWA Response: Inspection of temporary bridges and bridges in
phased construction that are open to public traffic is not a new
requirement. See FHWA's Q&A 303-7 listed in 2011, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/index.cfm for clarification of the
existing regulation. FHWA continues to require inspection of these
types of bridges. The statements in the NPRM were to clarify this
requirement as FHWA has received many questions about these types of
bridges over the years. Questions have been asked about how specific
sections of the NBIS would apply to various situations. Given the
seamless nature of the Nation's highway system and the public's
expectation for a uniform level of safety and reliability, it is FHWA's
position that when these bridges are open to public traffic, they are
to follow the requirements of the NBIS to ensure public safety.
Regarding inspection of contractor-owned bridges and monitoring
during construction, many factors influence the in-service performance
of contractor-owned bridges and the thoroughness of monitoring that
occurs during a construction project. To ensure a uniform level of
safety and reliability
[[Page 27410]]
when they are carrying public traffic, these bridges must be inspected
to the requirements of the NBIS.
In the final rule, FHWA removed the specific language for these
types of bridges in the initial and routine inspection types in Sec.
650.313 and added language in Sec. 650.303 `Applicability' to clarify
that these types of bridges are subject to all requirements of the
NBIS. The first requirement is to complete the initial inspection,
which is due within 3 months of being opened to public traffic. The
timeline for all other applicable inspection types are established from
this inspection.
If a temporary bridge is opened to traffic, then subsequently
removed or permanently closed to public traffic less than 3 months
later, it would not be subject to the NBIS. If a bridge is being built
in phases, the initial inspection is required within 3 months of the
first phase that opens all or a portion of the bridge to traffic. On
projects with many phases or rapid progression through phases (e.g.
nightly or weekend closures), it is possible for up to 3 months of
construction work to occur and multiple phases to have elapsed before
the initial inspection is due. FHWA understands the possible challenges
with performing initial and routine inspections on phased and temporary
bridges; however, inspection of these bridges that are open to public
traffic is not a new requirement and FHWA retains this requirement in
the final rule.
Six commenters had questions about what constitutes a phase of
construction.
FHWA Response: Phased construction is intended to address bridges
which are partially built in stages with portions opened to traffic
until the final full cross section is completed and all lanes are
opened to traffic.
Section 650.313(c)
Eighteen commenters had questions about the scope of a routine
inspection. These commenters also had questions about two statements in
this section, specifically ``any portion[s] of the bridge not visible
using standard access methods . . .'' and ``an area of the structure
requires a closer, more detailed inspection . . .''. Commenters
demonstrated wide interpretation of inspection requirements that could
result from these statements.
FHWA Response: FHWA has removed these statements from the final
rule. A routine inspection is defined in Sec. 650.305, and a specific
reference to AASHTO Manual Section 4.2 has replaced the removed
statements to point the reader to specific material that explains what
is required to perform a routine inspection. Additional information is
available in the BIRM and NHI training courses to explain access
techniques and inspection methods utilized on a routine inspection that
when utilized, satisfy the requirements of this regulation.
Three commenters had questions about submitting NBI data for
temporary bridges and whether this would require an additional
submission above and beyond the annual data submission to the NBI that
is required in other parts of the NBIS. The commenters also raised
concerns with creating and removing records in the inventory for
bridges that are only in service for a short period of time.
FHWA Response: FHWA does not require additional data submissions to
the NBI for a temporary bridge. This statement has been removed from
the final rule. In response to concerns with adding and removing data
for temporary bridges in a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal
government's inventory, FHWA has added in Sec. 650.315 a provision
which gives these entities the option not to submit inspection data for
a temporary bridge as part of the annual data submission to the NBI
until it has been open to traffic for 24 months. This is to provide
some relief to owners in adding and removing bridges from their
inventory, and preparing and submitting data to the NBI for those
bridges which are truly temporary and only in service for a short
period of time.
Section 650.313(e)
Twenty-five commenters had concern with completing an underwater
inspection within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic. Commenters
cited several reasons including climatic factors such as winter
weather, timing of seasonal high-water, rigorous oversight during
construction, and availability of specialized inspectors, e.g. divers.
Two commenters expressed support for completing an inspection within 6
months of opening a bridge to traffic.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges owners need some discretion in
scheduling this type of inspection due to the timing of when a bridge
opens to traffic, use of specialized personnel and equipment, and
climactic or environmental restrictions. However, it is the position of
FHWA that an underwater inspection occur soon after the bridge is open
to traffic to ensure the safety of the travelling public and establish
a baseline for future inspections. FHWA has modified the proposed
requirement in the NPRM for completing the first underwater inspection
within 6 months, to completing it within 12 months after a bridge is
opened to traffic. This allows a bridge owner a full seasonal cycle to
perform the first underwater inspection because of the issues
identified.
Eight commenters questioned the need to perform an underwater
inspection on a rehabilitated bridge when the scope of rehabilitation
work did not affect the underwater portions of the bridge.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the
NBIS to clarify that a rehabilitated bridge only needs an underwater
inspection within 12 months if work was performed on portions of the
bridge that are underwater. Any underwater portions that were not
rehabilitated do not need an underwater inspection within 12 months and
can remain on their current underwater inspection interval. For bridges
being rehabilitated in phases, those portions must receive an
underwater inspection within 12 months of the phase opening to traffic
or the phase being completed if the bridge was never closed to traffic
during the rehabilitation work.
Two commenters requested FHWA approval to use underwater imaging
technology such as sonar on underwater inspections.
FHWA Response: The use of underwater imaging technology for
performing an underwater inspection is not excluded in the current NBIS
or this final rule. Also, the AASHTO Manual Section 4.2, which is
incorporated by reference, requires diving or `other appropriate
techniques' to complete an underwater inspection. FHWA recognizes there
may be instances in which an underwater inspection cannot be safely
performed using traditional diving methods. The program manager must
identify and document all requirements for performing underwater
imaging for underwater inspection.
Section 650.313(f)
Nine commenters had concern with completing an NSTM inspection
within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic. Commenters cited
several reasons including climatic factors such as winter weather,
rigorous oversight during construction, and availability of specialized
NSTM inspectors. Two commenters expressed support for completing an
inspection within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic.
FHWA Response: Similar to requirements for an underwater
inspection, FHWA acknowledges owners need some discretion in scheduling
this type of inspection due to the timing of when a bridge opens to
traffic, use of specialized personnel and
[[Page 27411]]
equipment, seasonal constraints, and other restrictions. However, FHWA
believes it is important for the safety of the travelling public that
an NSTM inspection occur relatively soon after it is opened to traffic
to understand the overall condition of the bridge and to develop a
baseline for the future inspections. Therefore, FHWA has modified the
proposed requirement in the NPRM for completing the first NSTM
inspection within 6 months, to completing it within 12 months after a
bridge is opened to traffic. This allows a bridge owner a full seasonal
cycle to optimize the timing of the first NSTM inspection.
Four commenters questioned the need to perform an NSTM inspection
on a rehabilitated bridge when the scope of rehabilitation work did not
affect NSTM members on the bridge.
FHWA Response: Similar to the requirements for an underwater
inspection, FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the NBIS
to clarify that a rehabilitated bridge only needs an NSTM inspection
within 12 months if the work was performed on a NSTM. Any NSTMs that
were not rehabilitated do not need an NSTM inspection within 12 months
and can remain on their current NSTM inspection interval. For bridges
with NSTMs being rehabilitated in phases, the rehabilitated NSTMs must
receive an NSTM inspection within 12 months of the phase opening to
traffic or the phase being completed if the bridge was never closed to
traffic during the rehabilitation work.
Eight commenters listed several types of redundancy and questioned
which ones required demonstration of redundancy through an FHWA
approved process. Three commenters asked for information explaining
what is required for an FHWA approved process.
FHWA Response: A provision has been added in Sec. 650.313(f) of
the final rule which allows for a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal
government to demonstrate to FHWA that a member has system or internal
redundancy through the use of nationally recognized methods. The AASHTO
Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of Mechanically-Fastened
Built-Up Steel Members \12\ and AASHTO Guide Specifications for
Analysis and Identification of Fracture Critical Members and System
Redundant Members \13\ are examples of nationally recognized methods.
FHWA has added criteria to the regulation on what should be submitted
by a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government, such as design
and construction details, and we will review the policies and
procedures for approval based upon conformance with the nationally
recognized methods. If the owner demonstrates either system or internal
redundancy, a hands-on, NSTM inspection of the member is not required.
The bridge would still be subject to all other inspection types as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members, 1st Edition may be
found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=4149.
\13\ AASHTO Guide Specifications for Analysis and Identification
of Fracture Critical Members and System Redundant Members, 1st
Edition may be found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=41491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 650.313(g)
Four commenters requested clarification for what traditional
inspection methods are, and how FHWA would grant approval of
exceptions.
FHWA Response: Inspection methods are explained in the AASHTO
Manual, the BIRM, and training courses. FHWA does not intend to approve
exceptions to traditional inspection methods and has removed this
statement in the final rule. If an owner proposes to use methods that
are not described in these sources, such as an emerging technology, the
owner should perform the inspection with proven methods and may also
utilize the emerging technology to supplement the inspection or to
compare results.
Section 650.313(h)
Twelve commenters requested that a special inspection of a bridge
be allowed which focuses on the areas of deterioration or damage in
lieu of routine and underwater inspections when the routine and
underwater inspection intervals as described in Sec. 650.311 are
reduced below 24 months and 60 months, respectively.
FHWA Response: The intent of reducing an inspection interval is to
increase monitoring and scrutiny in areas that are deteriorating,
damaged, or otherwise of concern. When the routine and underwater
inspection intervals are reduced below 24 and 60 months respectively,
FHWA agrees a special inspection may be performed in lieu of a routine
or underwater inspection of the full bridge. Provisions were added to
Sec. Sec. 650.311 and 650.313 allowing this option for bridge owners.
When this option is invoked, routine and underwater inspections of the
full bridge are still required at least every 24 and 60 months,
respectively. For this type of inspection, the NBIS requires a
qualified team leader and documented inspection procedures which
identify the area(s) to be inspected, methods to be used, and other
pertinent information necessary to ensure an adequate special
inspection is performed. Special inspections are to be focused in the
area(s) of concern on the bridge that are causing the inspection
interval(s) to be reduced.
Section 650.313(i)
Six commenters stated the requirements of a service inspection are
unclear and requested that service inspection requirements be
clarified.
FHWA Response: FHWA has clarified the purpose of a service
inspection and personnel that would perform these inspections in the
discussion for Sec. 650.305, Definitions. FHWA utilized NCHRP Report
782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection
Practices \14\ in the development of this inspection type. FHWA has
added a paragraph to Sec. 650.313 to explain that all bridges with a
routine inspection interval greater than 48 months require a service
inspection and that inspection results, including the date of
inspection and any required follow-up actions, are to be documented in
the bridge file when this inspection type is performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 650.313(j)
One commenter suggested a team leader be required to perform
special inspections.
FHWA Response: The purpose of a special inspection is to monitor a
known or suspected deficiency, or to monitor special details or unusual
characteristics of bridges that do not necessarily have defects. As a
result, the scope of special inspections can vary widely between owners
and bridges. Many of the parameters for performing a special inspection
are to be defined by the owner and documented in special inspection
procedures. The NBIS only requires a qualified team leader for a
special inspection as described in Sec. 650.313(h) and (j). Since
there are a number of reasons why special inspections are performed,
FHWA is not requiring that a Team Leader perform all special
inspections. There may be situations where it is not necessary for a
Team Leader to lead the inspection, but this must be documented in the
special inspection procedures.
[[Page 27412]]
Section 650.313(k)
Twenty-one commenters stated 3 months is not enough time to load
rate some bridges or address changes which affect large portions of a
bridge inventory. Two commenters expressed support for a 3-month
timeframe to load rate bridges.
FHWA Response: Timely completion of load ratings is important to
understand the live load carrying limits of a bridge and maintain the
safety of the traveling public. Therefore, FHWA maintains the
requirement to complete load ratings within 3 months from the time the
need for a load rating is identified. This requirement is aligned with
the NTIS. In the rare and unusual circumstance that certain bridges,
such as those with especially complex features, may require more than 3
months to complete a load rating, bridge owners should contact FHWA
staff promptly.
When a large portion of the inventory requires load rating because
of changes in Federal law or regulation, FHWA will continue to work
with the States to address these situations through appropriate
methods. We note that FHWA and States faced a similar challenge with
respect to accommodating load ratings for emergency vehicles after
those vehicles were made legal loads in the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act.
When a large portion of a State's inventory requires load rating
because of changes in State law or regulation, FHWA will work with the
State to develop a plan to address this issue.
Six commenters had questions about when a bridge needs to be re-
rated for loads. Commenters also requested that owners have discretion
to set criteria for when a bridge needs to be re-rated and the priority
for completing the load rating.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has clarified in the final rule when
a bridge should be re-rated. Change in condition of a structural
element, change in dead load, change in live load, or completion of
construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation are the most common
reasons a bridge needs to be re-rated. These are typically found during
an inspection, and as a result, the need to re-rate a bridge is often
in response to an inspection finding. However, there are other reasons
a bridge may need to be re-rated, such as new legal vehicles introduced
or damage resulting from an unexpected event. The AASHTO Manual and the
BIRM provide additional information. Bridge owners have discretion to
set criteria and priorities for re-rating bridges which are more
stringent than the NBIS.
Ten commenters questioned why a bridge needs to be load rated for a
permit load. Commenters also stated they have tools and processes
developed that enable them to efficiently process permit requests they
routinely receive.
FHWA Response: Because permit loads utilize public roads,
verification that bridges can carry the load is required to ensure the
safety of the travelling public and hauler; as such, FHWA has retained
the requirement to analyze permit loads in the final rule. FHWA
recognizes some owners have developed screening tools and other
processes for analyzing permit loads for which they routinely receive
permit requests. These tools and processes are acceptable methods of
analyzing permit loads, provided they are founded upon actual modeling
and analysis of bridge responses under permit vehicles and loads that
envelope the hauling vehicle and load that is requesting a load permit.
Section 650.313(l)
Fifteen commenters expressed concerns about posting for routine
permit loads. Commenters cited driver confusion, costs, and
infeasibility of installing posting signs at bridges for a potentially
infinite number of permit vehicles. Commenters stated their permitting
processes address whether a permit load can cross a bridge.
FHWA Response: For unrestricted legal loads, load posting is a
public safety issue. Bridges must be posted informing the travelling
public of the maximum load that bridges can safely carry. However, for
routine permitted vehicles that do not fall within the general posted
weight limit, and where load posting for these vehicles is not
feasible, the FHWA has historically said that the permit process is an
acceptable means for bridge owners to verify that bridges on designated
routes can safely carry the permitted vehicles. Permit vehicles are
restricted from travelling off of designated routes. Because of this,
FHWA agrees that load posting of bridges for routine permit vehicles is
not required. The final rule has been revised to clarify that
restriction is acceptable in lieu of posting bridges for permit
vehicles. This is consistent with previous NBIS regulations.
Thirty-six commenters expressed concerns about the feasibility of
load posting bridges in 30 days or less. Commenters cited several
reasons including the time needed to fabricate signs, lengthy processes
required in some State or local laws, postings of varying urgency, and
weather and site restrictions.
FHWA Response: Load posting informs the travelling public of the
maximum load that bridges can safely carry. As discussed above, for
unrestricted legal loads, lack of load posting signs is a public safety
issue, which some bridge owners consider to be a critical finding
requiring immediate follow-up action. Due to the safety issue and other
factors, owners must establish procedures that prioritize installation
of load posting signs based upon the associated risks and need. In some
situations, the urgency to implement a load posting is much less than
30 days. FHWA acknowledges that posting within 30 days or less in very
urgent situations may require some bridge owners to change their
business practices. The NBIS establishes requirements for timely
installation of load posting signs that align with the load posting
requirements in the NTIS.
Section 650.313(m)
Six commenters expressed concerns with developing criteria for
closing a bridge. Commenters stated that closing a bridge is often
dependent upon parameters that are specific and unique to a specific
bridge and therefore it is difficult to develop standard criteria.
FHWA Response: Similar to the general procedures described in Sec.
650.313(g), FHWA is requiring general procedures for closing bridges be
documented. General procedures are applicable to many bridges and
describe criteria for when a bridge must be closed and the process
which describes the steps and timelines for closing a bridge. FHWA
acknowledges that all factors requiring bridge closure cannot be
anticipated; therefore, these procedures are expected to be general in
nature and should be applicable to many bridges.
Two commenters expressed concern that a 3-ton gross live load is
too low for bridge closure. Commenters stated that many vehicles in the
general non-commercial vehicle fleet are heavier than 3 tons and
preferred a closure weight of 4-5 tons.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges there are some vehicles in the
general passenger vehicle fleet, and many commercial trucks, that have
an empty vehicle weight of more than 3 tons. FHWA has set 3 tons as the
absolute minimum gross live load capacity as this is consistent with
the AASHTO Manual. FHWA encourages owners to adopt more stringent
closure criteria. This may include requiring closure at higher gross
live load weights than 3 tons.
[[Page 27413]]
Section 650.313(n)
Based on seven comments previously discussed in Sec. 650.313(a)
which desired incorporation of a more current version of AASHTO Manual
into the NBIS, FHWA has revised the section reference for bridge files
to AASHTO Manual Section 2.2.
FHWA has only adopted Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the AASHTO Manual
to describe components of a bridge file. This more exact reference
points the reader to the specific components listed in Chapter 2 of the
AASHTO Manual that are required to be in a bridge file. Other portions
of Chapter 2 describe other excellent components that may be useful to
an owner and could be contained in a bridge file. FHWA encourages
maintaining these in the bridge files as well; however, those outside
of Section 2.2 are not required as part of the NBIS.
Section 650.313(o)
Three commenters requested FHWA explain the ``scour appraisal''
process. One commenter requested FHWA explain the ``scour evaluation''
process. One commenter requested FHWA explain the ``scour assessment''
process. Five commenters asked if these processes are to be performed
in accordance with HECs.
FHWA Response: Based on the comments in this section and Sec.
650.305, the definitions related to the identified scour processes and
this section have been revised to provide clarity of the requirements
of the NBIS. FHWA recognizes that HECs 18, 20, and 23 are the state of
practice for the appraisal, design, and inspection of bridge scour,
stream stability, and scour countermeasures. As stated in the final
rule, the scour appraisal and scour evaluation processes should be
consistent with HEC 18 and 20. The scour assessment process should be
consistent with HEC 20. The development of a scour POA for a bridge
should be consistent with HEC 18 and 23.
Five commenters requested clarification for how scour appraisal,
scour evaluation, and the scour assessment processes work together.
FHWA Response: This section and the scour related definitions have
been updated to clarify scour appraisal is the overarching process that
includes three methods for determining the worst case scour at a
bridge; observed scour, scour evaluations, or scour assessments. The
bridge owner must perform a scour appraisal for each bridge over water
to determine if the bridge is scour-critical and whether it requires a
scour POA. The scour appraisal determination for a bridge is to be
based upon the least stable of observed scour, evaluated scour, or
assessed scour.
Eight commenters requested clarification for when scour POAs are
needed for bridges over water. Several commenters specifically
questioned whether a bridge with an unknown foundation requires a scour
POA.
FHWA Response: All bridges that are scour critical or have unknown
foundations require a scour POA. The existing NBIS regulations state
that owners must develop a scour POA for each bridge that is scour
critical. There are several guidance documents and reference manuals
available on FHWA's Hydraulic Engineering web page that address these
requirements and provides guidance for developing a scour POA.
If a bridge has unknown foundations, no scour appraisal can fully
determine vulnerability to scour; therefore, such a bridge requires a
scour POA to manage scour risks associated with that bridge. The FHWA
memo, ``Additional Guidance for Assessment of Bridges Over Waterways
with Unknown Foundations,'' dated October 29, 2009,\15\ as well as
other guidance documents and reference manuals, provide information for
developing a scour POA specifically for a bridge with an unknown
foundation type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Additional Guidance for Assessment of Bridges Over
Waterways with Unknown Foundations may be found at the following
URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/091029.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten commenters requested FHWA clarify that a scour POA can be based
solely upon monitoring and does not need to describe installation of
physical or hydraulic countermeasures.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that for certain bridges, a scour POA
may be based on a monitoring program to manage the risks associated
with scour. As HEC 18 and 23 and other guidance documents explain,
bridges with the greatest risk from scour-induced failure should have a
scour POA that describes installation of physical or hydraulic
countermeasures, or even replacement, and also include a monitoring
program that allows time to implement these physical or hydraulic
countermeasures. Bridges that present a lesser risk may be considered
candidates for a scour POA based solely on a monitoring program as an
acceptable countermeasure.
Two commenters asked if existing scour evaluations completed prior
to this regulation need to be redone.
FHWA Response: The final rule only requires existing scour
evaluations or scour assessments to be updated when the assumptions,
bridge conditions, channel conditions, or other pertinent factors used
in the existing scour evaluation or scour assessment are no longer
representative of current conditions or are determined to be invalid.
Section 650.313(p)
Two commenters had questions about whether quality control (QC) and
quality assurance (QA) must be performed by independent personnel.
Commenters were concerned that additional qualified personnel would be
required to observe inspection teams at a bridge site, effectively
doubling personnel needs.
FHWA Response: As described in AASHTO Manual Section 1.4, which is
incorporated by reference in Sec. 650.317 of this final rule, QC and
QA reviews are to be performed by a person other than the originating
person(s). However, the specific parameters of a QC and QA program,
including the extent and interval for observing inspection teams to
ensure quality are defined by the program manager. The NBIS language
has been updated to emphasize this. While this has been clarified, the
basic requirements are in the existing regulation, so there should be
no additional personnel needs.
Section 650.313(q)
General
The critical findings section received over 125 comments and FHWA
has incorporated many of the suggested changes made by commenters.
Specific changes are described in greater detail below following an
overview of the general changes to this section.
The definition for ``critical finding'' does not substantially
change from the existing regulation; however, State DOTs, Federal
agencies, and Tribal governments are required to identify what they
consider a critical finding based upon the minimum requirements in
Sec. 650.313(q) of the final rule. Paragraph (q) contains only the
minimum requirements; FHWA encourages bridge owners to adopt more
stringent criteria as appropriate that align with the characteristics
of their organization and the issues they experience in their bridge
inventory.
The reporting process for notifying FHWA of critical findings and
corrective actions taken in response to critical findings is updated in
the final rule. State DOTs are to report critical findings information
to their respective FHWA Division office. Similarly, Federal agencies
and Tribal governments are to report required
[[Page 27414]]
information to the FHWA FLH office. FHWA's goal is safety and national
consistency. Federal agencies and Tribal governments are to follow the
same procedures as those required for State DOTs.
Section 650.313(q)(1)(i) lists several deficiencies that result in
a critical finding. This section also identifies that any condition
posing an imminent threat to public safety is a critical finding.
Owners are required to develop procedures that identify critical
findings based upon their inventory. Critical findings procedures have
two main objectives: First, the procedures must clearly establish
criteria for those deficiencies which are critical findings and require
immediate action to preserve public safety; and second, the procedures
must describe a process to resolve immediately the critical finding.
Four commenters expressed concern with the duplication of ``full or
partial closure of a bridge'' and a ``recommendation for a full or
partial closure of a bridge by the program manager'' as critical
findings.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has removed the duplicative criteria
of a program manager recommending closure.
Twenty-one commenters expressed concern with the minimum critical
finding criteria for Superstructure Condition and Substructure
Condition ratings of serious (3) as too conservative. The commenters
also felt that over time, such conservative criteria could desensitize
staff to the significance and urgency of critical findings. The
commenters stated this would significantly increase the number of
critical findings and would require significant additional resources to
follow-up on issues that, while serious, may not be critical.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters. The threshold has
been revised from serious (3) to critical (2) as defined in the 0-9
scale for condition ratings in the SNBI. FHWA has added Channel
Condition and Scour Condition ratings of critical (2) or worse as
defined in the SNBI to the minimum criteria defining critical findings.
This is consistent with other deficiencies described in the general
description of critical findings. FHWA has also included the Deck
Condition and Culvert Condition ratings, as it is our position that
critical findings on these components pose a threat to public safety.
Twenty-seven commenters expressed concern with the minimum criteria
for a nonredundant member with any quantity in Condition State 4 (CS4).
Commenters cited several reasons why implementing this criteria could
be problematic, including that element level data is not required and
therefore not available on all bridges (non-NHS bridges); element data
is typically used for bridge management purposes, not safety
inspection; the sometimes temporary nature of an element being in CS4;
the inclusion of non-critical conditions included in the CS4
definition; and questions concerning how a nonredundant member is
defined.
FHWA Response: FHWA has changed this criteria in the final rule by
removing the nonredundant term and adding the NSTM to the critical
findings section. This change requires owners to consider redundancy or
lack of redundancy in steel tension members as part of the general
criteria for a critical finding.
Twenty-seven commenters expressed concern with missing load posting
signage as critical findings criteria. The primary concern was with the
amount of resources that would be needed to report on these issues as
they work to resolve them.
FHWA Response: Missing or illegible signs are a public safety
issue, and must be replaced according to the owner's posting procedure.
FHWA acknowledges that owners have a wide range of processes for
addressing missing or damaged load posting signage. We have moved this
criteria from the critical findings process to load posting in Sec.
650.313(l)(3) of the final rule. Consistent with our 2019 policy
memorandum and to align with the NTIS, a 30-day maximum timeframe, from
when the need is identified, to replace missing or damaged load posting
signs is in the final rule.
Thirteen commenters asked whether a critical finding occurs if
immediate restrictions, postings, repairs, or other follow-up actions
are performed and the deficiency is immediately resolved.
FHWA Response: Whenever there is an imminent threat to public
safety that demands an immediate response, the deficiency is considered
a critical finding regardless of whether it was resolved immediately
upon discovery or not. These deficiencies are to be reported as
required in the NBIS.
Two commenters asked whether planned versus unplanned closures and
restrictions result in a critical finding.
FHWA Response: The final rule requires that when deficiencies are
found that result in a full or partial closure, this is to be
identified as a Critical Finding. It is not possible to address every
possible situation; however, generally planned closures and
restrictions are not critical findings and unplanned closures and
restrictions are critical findings. For example, a planned bridge
closing because of a construction project starting is usually not a
critical finding. However, if that same bridge was open to traffic
during a construction project and was unexpectedly closed or restricted
because of a newly discovered deficiency, that would be a critical
finding and should be reported as such.
Eighteen commenters expressed concern with reporting critical
findings to FHWA within 24 hours of discovery. They stressed that
during the first 24 hours, an owner is urgently focused on resolving
the critical finding and that reporting is not the highest priority.
FHWA Response: A similar requirement for notifying FHWA within 24
hours is in the NTIS. Consistent with the NTIS, the regulation does not
require a formal report or a developed resolution, but only simple
notification of the local FHWA Division Office. FHWA believes this can
easily be accomplished through a telephone conversation or an email
message. Due to the critical nature of these conditions, FHWA does not
believe that these requirements are excessive. The intent of these
requirements is to create a reporting mechanism to FHWA of the critical
items that could be a threat to the traveling public's safety. Further,
this specific portion of the final rule seeks to ensure that severe
conditions are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner through
oversight and partnership with FHWA, which was specifically required in
MAP-21.
Twenty-one commenters asked for clarification on what is meant by
reporting until the critical finding is ``permanently resolved.''
FHWA Response: FHWA revised the final rule to require reporting
until ``resolved'' to align with the NTIS. Similar to the NTIS, FHWA
expects bridge owners to report and provide updates on each critical
finding until it is resolved. Resolved means an action has been taken
and completed to mitigate the deficiencies and protect public safety.
This could involve lane or load restriction, shoring, repair, closure,
or replacement of the bridge. Increased inspection frequency alone does
not fully resolve a critical finding if the underlying safety issue is
not rectified. A critical finding is to be reported monthly until the
threat to public safety is no longer present.
Four commenters requested clarification on whether all critical
findings are to be reported monthly, or if reporting is only intended
for new critical findings that have occurred since the previous report.
[[Page 27415]]
FHWA Response: FHWA requires all critical findings be reported
monthly, or as requested, until each critical finding is resolved. It
is expected that critical findings be resolved as soon as possible,
typically in less than 30 days, which would mean most critical findings
are reported on for only the initial month and possibly a second month,
depending upon the dates when the critical finding occurs and is
resolved within a monthly reporting interval.
Section 650.315 Inventory
Ten commenters indicated the reduction from 180 days to 3 months
for local bridge data submission of revised data is too constrictive
and local agencies may not be able to meet the time constraint. One
local agency commenter indicated they already submit data within 3
months.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes that with current technological
capabilities, the requirement of 3 months for reporting bridge
inspection data to be recorded in the State, Federal agency, or Tribal
government database is reasonable. FHWA only collects this data once a
year and any delay in the data being properly inventoried would not
provide FHWA the most current data available. Up-to-date information is
vital to program oversight, management, and stewardship for the State
and FHWA. It is also important that FHWA have current data because this
data is used to: (1) Track bridge performance measures, (2) provide
reports to Congress, and (3) make critical decisions regarding the
bridge program. This necessitates adherence to a firm 3-month
collection period and is also consistent with the NTIS.
Three commenters indicated opposition to collecting element level
data for non-NHS bridges. One commenter supported the collection of
element level data to provide bridge owners improved planning and
decisionmaking data. One commenter wanted clarification of when element
level data is required to be collected.
FHWA Response: As required by Congress in 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2), each
State and Federal agency shall report element level data for all
highway bridges on the NHS. Section 650.315(a) of this final rule
supports this requirement. The NBIS does not require States to submit
element level data for bridges off the NHS. However, FHWA and its NBI
will accept element level data for bridges off the NHS if a State DOT
chooses to submit it. As identified in Sec. 650.315(c), element level
data is to be updated for all inspection types if there is a change in
condition.
Section 650.317 Incorporation by Reference
The AASHTO recommended the contact information for AASHTO
publications be updated.
FHWA Response: The contact information has been updated.
The AASHTO commented that they understand FHWA must reference a
specific edition of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation and Manual for
Bridge Element Inspection and that the regulation cannot simply say
``most current edition.'' Since both publications are updated more
frequently than the NBIS, it forces States to use outdated guidance.
Since 23 CFR 625.4 contains a list of other standards, policies, and
specifications and is subject to more frequent updates, AASHTO
recommends adding these two publications to the next update of 23 CFR
625.4, and including in this section language referencing these
specific editions or the most current ones as shown in 23 CFR 625.4.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges the procedural challenges with
updating material incorporated by reference. FHWA follows the
regulations and procedures of the Office of the Federal Register for
this process. The documents incorporated by reference represent the
minimum standards required for compliance with the NBIS. As in the
past, when a new edition of an incorporated by reference document is
available, FHWA has recognized through policy memo where changes in the
new edition exceed the minimum standards and can be used while
maintaining compliance with NBIS.
Four commenters commented that the 3rd edition of the AASHTO Manual
be incorporated into the NBIS. Fourteen commenters suggested
referencing the latest edition, and not stating a specific edition.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has adopted specific sections of the
current 3rd edition version of the AASHTO Manual available at the time
the final rule is published. References to specific sections of the
AASHTO Manual throughout NBIS have been updated accordingly. The NBIS
specifically references Section 1.4, Section 2.2, Section 4.2, Section
6, and Section 8, excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1. This
paragraph was excluded because FHWA is not aware of any research that
served as the basis for the practice described in this paragraph and as
such does not align with the requirements of the NBIS. Office of the
Federal Register regulations at 1 CFR 51.1(f) provide that
incorporation by reference of a publication is limited to the edition
of the publication that is approved and that future amendments or
revisions of the publication are not included. A specific edition of
the manual must be referenced in the regulation. This provides
certainty to the users of the regulation which standards apply, in
addition to insuring for notice and comment as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act. Where differences exist, the NBIS takes
precedence over the AASHTO Manual. The FHWA will continue to update, as
necessary, the materials incorporated by reference in its regulations
on a regular basis.
Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory
With the publication of the final rule, the SNBI will supersede the
FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (Coding Guide), 1995. The final SNBI
document in portable document format (PDF) is available for download on
the docket for this rulemaking and as noted in Sec. 650.317.
Bridge inventory information collected by each State DOT, Federal
agency and Tribal government is reported to FHWA, as requested, in
accordance with the NBIS reporting requirements. The resulting
information is maintained in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
database. The reporting of inventory data for all highway bridges
subject to the NBIS, and their related features, are based on the
definitions, explanations, and data items supplied in the SNBI. State
DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments use the data items and
instructions in the SNBI when reporting NBI data to FHWA.
General
One commenter proposed that the SNBI document provide for scheduled
revisions, similar to the AASHTO manuals.
FHWA Response: The processes that FHWA must follow for updating a
document incorporated by reference are discussed above and are
different from AASHTO's. FHWA will continue to work through established
processes when updates are needed. Updates are completed through the
rulemaking process.
Many commenters indicated concerns with the number of added items
in the proposed SNBI, and questioned their purpose and value.
FHWA Response: The items in the SNBI serve the following practical
purposes and benefits: Ensuring highway bridge safety; enabling
[[Page 27416]]
oversight of the NBIP; reporting to Congress; emergency response;
administering a risk-based, data driven, performance management program
in accordance with MAP-21, the FAST Act, and 23 CFR part 490; and
providing quality data through clarity and ease of use.
Element level data for NHS bridges, as required by 23 U.S.C. 144,
have been reported to FHWA since April 2015 and are not considered new
data for this rule; the 2014 Specification for the National Bridge
Inventory--Bridge Elements (SNBIBE) has been merged with the SNBI.
Fifty-seven of the 154 data items in the SNBI are considered new with
respect to the Coding Guide and SNBIBE; 4 of these are calculated by
FHWA and States are not required to be collected or reported to FHWA.
Thirty-five of the 57 items are collected at a frequency indicated as
``I'' (Initial), where data is recorded initially and updated when
necessary, but will not typically change from inspection to inspection.
Only fifteen of the 57 new items are collected at a frequency indicated
as ``EI'' (Each Inspection), where data is verified and/or updated by
the inspector during each inspection. Items that are no longer used by
FHWA have been removed.
Sixteen commenters indicated concerns with the number of item code
changes proposed for those data items that have been brought forward
from the Coding Guide into the SNBI. Three State DOTs suggested that
there might be confusion when comparing data items between the two
specifications, and expressed concern over the resources that will be
required to populate and submit the SNBI data. One commenter requested
that when the final rule is published, FHWA at that time also publish
the new data submission format and details, as well as the updated
processing logic for agencies. Agencies will need this information to
update their software to support the SNBI data. Six commenters
indicated a need for a migration process.
FHWA Response: FHWA recognizes that the transition from the Coding
Guide to the SNBI will be a significant effort, and aims to reduce the
burden on bridge owners. Many SNBI data items are identical to those in
the Coding Guide, and coding options have been revised where practical
to align more closely with codes in the Coding Guide, thereby
facilitating the transition to the SNBI. FHWA will provide a crosswalk
in the coming months that defines the relationship between the Coding
Guide and the SNBI. The anticipated data submission format and data
checking protocols will also be provided. In addition, FHWA will
develop a computer-based tool to transition data from the Coding Guide
format to the SNBI format, where the data can be accurately
transitioned; this tool should be available at FHWA's website for use
within 12 months of the effective date of the final rule.
Twenty commenters were concerned about the timeframe for
implementation of the SNBI due to the need for updating databases,
migrating existing data, training personnel, and collecting and
reporting the required data. These commenters recommended
implementation timeframes between 24 to 48 months before the first data
submission, with full implementation taking up to 10 years, given
extended inspection frequencies.
FHWA Response: An implementation timeline is under development with
an expectation of collecting initial SNBI data in the March 2026 data
submittal. Based on analysis, this will allow sufficient time for FHWA
and State DOTs to develop, test, install, and set up new data
collection and management systems. The initial dataset will largely
consist of transitioned data (data that can be accurately converted
from the Coding Guide format to the SNBI format), as well as those
limited data items that do not transition accurately, but are required
for administering FHWA programs. The remaining items that do not
transition accurately may be populated, and the transitioned items may
be verified, during the following inspection cycle, with the
expectation that all data for all bridges be populated and verified by
the March 2028 data submittal. FHWA considers this timeline to be fair
and achievable based on FHWA developing and providing tools for data
transition, training, and data reporting format, and the need to
collect specific data required by the final rule for extended
inspection intervals.
One State DOT requested a data dictionary for the SNBI.
FHWA Response: The SNBI document provides information for a data
dictionary, specifically Figure 1 and the tables in Appendix B.
Several commenters questioned whether event-related data items
(i.e. Work Performed) will require reporting of events that occurred
prior to implementation of the SNBI.
FHWA Response: FHWA will not require the reporting of event-related
data that occurred prior to implementation of the SNBI.
Some commenters requested the inclusion of additional illustrations
to communicate how item values are to be determined.
FHWA Response: Multiple illustrations were added or revised where
clarification was needed based on comments received and FHWA internal
reviews. Language was also revised to address situations where the
intent may not be conveyed sufficiently by the included language or
illustrations.
Cost
In response to the request by FHWA, eleven State DOTs provided data
for costs associated with the proposed change from the Coding Guide to
the SNBI. The reported costs ranged from approximately $200,000 to
$18,000,000.
FHWA Response: FHWA recognized that bridge owners 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 cost information
received from the commenters was used to update the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Discontinued Items
One commenter indicated that the discontinued Parallel Structure
Designation item (Item 101) in the Coding Guide was useful for
designating twin bridges.
FHWA Response: The Parallel Structure Designation item has been
discontinued, as it is no longer needed by FHWA. Bridge owners can
continue to collect the data for their use, but will not report the
data to FHWA.
New Items Proposed
One commenter proposed an Approach Roadway Surface item that
distinguishes between roadway surface types that impact bridge
management or bridge design. For example, preservation actions for a
bridge can be completely different due to the deicing treatments that
are used on paved roads, but not gravel. Concrete roads require
consideration for roadway expansion effects on bridge approaches.
FHWA Response: FHWA appreciates this suggestion but does not
require these data to fulfill its stewardship and oversight roles and
responsibilities.
SNBI Analysis
Table of Contents
Four commenters suggested adding the Item ID to the Expanded Table
of Contents (TOC) as a cross reference to the item name, to make the
TOC more useful and easy to use.
[[Page 27417]]
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that this change would assist in
navigating the SNBI and has added Item IDs to the Expanded TOC. Item
IDs have also been provided in the index tables of appendix B for
useful cross references between the item names, IDs, format, and
document sections. The condensed and expanded TOCs are hyperlinked
throughout the document for ease of navigation; as are the item names
in the index tables of appendix B.
Introduction
One commenter referenced the data relationship diagram (Figure 1).
This commenter indicated that the element level data should be tied to
each inspection event, rather than to each submission, thereby allowing
the tracking of element condition over time, similar to the current
practice for component condition ratings.
FHWA Response: Element level condition data and component condition
rating data are considered inclusive of the results of all inspections
performed since the last data submission to FHWA. All condition data
can be tracked historically, as both element level and component
condition data are collected during each data submission.
Definitions
As a result of changes made to the definitions for these terms in
the final rule definitions were modified in the SNBI for Bridge,
Inspection Date, Operating Rating, Routine Inspection, and Safe Load
Capacity, and a definition was added for Unknown Foundations. Due to
the addition of the NSTM Inspection Required and Inspection Due Date
items, definitions were added for Nonredundant Steel Tension Member
Inspection and Inspection Due Date. Because of changes made to the
handling of border bridges, definitions were added for Designated Lead
State and Neighboring State. To provide clarity for several items in
the Highways subsection, a definition was added for Divided Highway. To
provide clarity for the Legal Load Rating Factor item, the definition
for Legal Load was expanded, and a definition was added for Legal Load
Rating. The definition of Initial Inspection was simplified for
clarity.
Two commenters expressed concern over the definition of
Nonredundant Member causing confusion with Nonredundant Steel Tension
Member.
FHWA Response: As the term Nonredundant Member is not used in the
SNBI, it has been deleted from the Definitions section.
One commenter requested an additional definition for Nonredundant
Steel Tension Member since only Nonredundant Steel Tension Member
Inspection was originally included.
FHWA Response: For completeness, a definition from the final rule
was added for Nonredundant Steel Tension Member.
One commenter requested clarification of the intent of the Plan of
Action definition, asking that Scour be added to the term.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and the entry was changed to Scour Plan
of Action and is consistent with the final rule.
One commenter requested clarification of the definition for
Rehabilitation.
FHWA Response: After further consideration, definitions were
developed for Major Rehabilitation and Minor Rehabilitation in place of
the original Rehabilitation definition to coincide better with the
codes for major and minor rehabilitation in the Work Performed item.
Two commenters requested clarification on the requirements for
evaluated scour.
FHWA Response: Definitions for Scour Appraisal, Scour Assessment,
and Scour Evaluation were added to provide more clarity and are
consistent with the final rule definitions.
Three commenters requested clarification on the requirements of a
service inspection.
FHWA Response: The definition for Service Inspection was updated
with the definition used in the NBIS.
One commenter requested clarification on the requirements of a
scour monitoring inspection.
FHWA Response: The NBIS requires a scour plan of action (POA) for
all bridges that are determined to be scour critical. An important part
of a scour POA is the monitoring program as indicated in Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No. 23 (HEC-23)--Bridge Scour and Stream
Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design
Guidance, Third Edition. The monitoring program portion of the scour
POA addresses the type and frequency of monitoring (i.e., inspection)
required by the bridge owner. To ensure that the monitoring program
within the scour POA is implemented, a Scour Monitoring Inspection type
was created. Therefore, a definition for Scour Monitoring Inspection
was created by FHWA and added to provide clarity.
One commenter suggested adding a definition for Culvert.
FHWA Response: Since Culverts were reinstated into the SNBI, a
definition for Culvert was added. The Culvert definition was created by
FHWA using the culvert definition from the 1995 NBI Coding Guide and
modifying that definition to improve culvert bridge type reporting
consistency.
Specification Format
Five commenters advocated for the use of a date format consistent
with ISO 8601. ISO 8601 is the standard pertaining to date formats
established by the International Organization for Standardization and
can be located at https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html.
FHWA Response: FHWA concurs with this recommendation and has
adjusted the date format accordingly.
Five commenters expressed concern over the items that should not be
reported where they do not apply, fearing that items might be forgotten
rather than deliberately omitted, thereby affecting data quality.
FHWA Response: FHWA shares this concern, and allows omission of
only those items where a null value can be verified by another means; a
code of N is required for all inapplicable condition rating items and
for all items where applicability cannot be verified via other data
items. This approach will help to minimize file sizes and reduce data
processing times. FHWA has standardized data reporting requirements
throughout the SNBI to the extent possible, as follows: 0 represents
``none,'' X represents ``other,'' and N or not reported represents
``no'' (N only), or ``not applicable.'' FHWA specifies only how the
data should be reported to FHWA, not how data items should be recorded
or stored in a bridge owner's database.
Section 1: Bridge Identification
Subsection 1.1: Identification
The specification for the Bridge Number item was revised to
emphasize that a bridge spans from abutment to abutment per the NBIS,
and therefore multiple spans between abutments are to be reported as
one bridge. This change was made primarily to address an ongoing issue
where a limited number of State DOTs have been reporting a subset of
spans as bridges, causing issues with other data items and resulting in
inconsistent national reporting of bridge numbers.
Subsection 1.2: Location
Thirty-one commenters suggested that one State DOT should submit
border bridge information for both States.
FHWA Response: To reduce the burden on States without inspection
[[Page 27418]]
responsibility, a change was made to have the Designated Lead State
submit a full bridge record and the Neighboring State submit an
abbreviated bridge record. The Designated Lead State is determined
through agreement between the two bordering States.
Twenty-three commenters remarked on the location where the
measurements are taken for the Latitude and Longitude items. Some
preferred the center of the bridge, others requested that the State be
allowed to select the location, and some preferred the proposed
location of the beginning of the bridge on the edge of the right
traveled way in the direction of the route mileage.
FHWA Response: In an effort to minimize burden, the specification
for these items has been changed to indicate that the measurement
should be taken at a location in accordance with agency procedures.
Five commenters were in favor of the decimals degrees format for
the Latitude and Longitude items. Two requested the allowance of
negative values.
FHWA Response: The examples for the Longitude item were updated to
clarify that negative values are permitted.
Four commenters recommended eliminating the Bridge Location item.
FHWA Response: This item was retained, as it is the same as an item
in the Coding Guide, and is easily transferred.
Five commenters recommended deleting the Metropolitan Planning
Organization item. One commenter felt it was a positive addition.
FHWA Response: This item was retained because it can be used to
assist in calculating Metropolitan Planning Organization performance
measures and targets required by 23 CFR part 490.
One commenter asked whether the Metropolitan Planning Organization
item included Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs).
FHWA Response: A note was added to the commentary to clarify that
this item need not include the names of RPOs or single county planning
organizations.
Subsection 1.3: Classification
One commenter requested an additional code for Bureau of
Reclamation be added to the Federal or Tribal Land Access item.
FHWA Response: The additional code was added.
Five commenters asked that the Toll item codes be revised to line
up with the Toll item (Item 20) in the Coding Guide.
FHWA Response: The codes were reorganized to line up with the
Coding Guide. A code for ``Bridge does not carry a toll road and is not
a toll bridge'' was also added, making the codes more easily
transferable.
Thirteen commenters remarked on the Emergency Evacuation
Designation item. Though most of the commenters indicated that there
will be little value for this item from a State's perspective, some do
see the value for some other States to use this coding. Others felt it
was a planning code, or there does not appear to be a significant/clear
benefit to the addition of the code.
FHWA Response: The Emergency Evacuation Designation item is
retained since this information will be beneficial in identifying
potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes, and to regional and
national freight and passenger mobility, if the serviceability of the
bridge is restricted or diminished.
Section 2: Bridge Material and Type
Seventeen commenters noted the additional data requirements in the
Bridge Materials and Type section and questioned the value in
collecting the additional information required by the SNBI.
FHWA Response: NBI data are used by State DOTs, FHWA, and other
Federal agencies to monitor and evaluate bridge performance, enhance
bridge safety, and support risk management. Many of these users rely on
identifying and classifying bridges by structural type. The Coding
Guide only allows for the identification of superstructure type in the
main and approach spans. The utility of inventory data for
identification and classification purposes will be enhanced with more
granular information on all superstructure and substructure materials
and types present in a bridge.
Fifteen State DOTs and AASHTO objected to the removal of the
culvert structure type by incorporating culverts into superstructure
and substructure types and condition ratings.
FHWA Response: FHWA reconsidered the proposed approach and due to
the comments, the SNBI is modified so bridge owners can uniquely
identify a culvert bridge type using the Span Configuration Designation
item, and a separate Culvert Condition Rating item is reinstated.
However, FHWA emphasizes that the term ``culvert'' has a particular
meaning for the SNBI and therefore Culvert is defined in the
Definitions section of the SNBI. FHWA understands that bridge owner
agencies may define this term differently as a program management tool,
but for data submissions the FHWA definition must be used.
Subsection 2.1: Superstructure/Deck Material and Type (Now Span
Material and Type)
Ten commenters requested clarification on how to partition
structural type data sets when complex groupings of main, approach, and
widened superstructures and substructures may be present in a bridge.
FHWA Response: The intent of the specification is to classify and
identify the different configurations of material, type, and design
present on the bridge, regardless of where those configurations are
located. Configurations need not be in contiguous spans or used to
widen the same type of main or approach span to be considered part of
the same span or substructure data set. The specifications and
commentary were updated, and numerous examples were created, to clarify
this intent.
Twelve commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use of
the Number of Beam Lines item.
FHWA response: This item will enhance FHWA's oversight of the NBIP
by identifying bridges that lack load path redundancy which, combined
with other data items, can identify bridges with NSTMs.
Subsection 2.2: Substructure Material and Type
Three commenters requested clarification on the proper assignment
of substructure type when a bridge has been widened and it may
difficult to determine which substructure configuration is predominant.
FHWA response: To clarify intent, a third configuration designation
for widening has been added to the Substructure Configuration
Designation item.
Subsection 2.3: Roadside Hardware
Eighteen State DOTs and 1 Federal agency expressed concern with the
addition of the Bridge Railing and Transitions items, and many of these
commenters questioned the need for them. Most had concerns regarding
the level of effort to collect detailed crash test data for a wide
variety of existing bridge railings and transitions on a large number
of bridges. Other concerns included the lack of data for railings on
older bridges, the lack of familiarity that bridge inspectors have
regarding standards for bridge railings and transitions, and the
potential for error. Some suggested reverting to the Traffic Safety
Features item (Item 36) in the Coding Guide, either in its current form
or a modified version. Some recommended removing one or both of
[[Page 27419]]
these items entirely, simplifying them significantly, or making them
optional. One State DOT indicated that they collect data on rail types
installed on all bridges and intend to migrate the data to meet this
requirement. In addition, their State finds value in categorizing crash
test level for the bridge railings.
FHWA Response: Bridge railings and transitions are very important
traffic safety features that serve to redirect smoothly errant vehicles
and reduce crash severity. These data items provide for more objective
information to evaluate safety risks, whereas ``meet currently
acceptable standards'' in the Coding Guide is neither clear nor well
understood; FHWA believes that these data are very valuable for risk
assessment. The information needed to determine the appropriate codes
should be available in bridge records, as it is also needed to report
appropriately the applicable code for the Bridge Railings and
Transitions items (Items 36A and 36B) in the Coding Guide. In addition,
the AASHTO Manual, which has been incorporated by reference in the NBIS
since January 2010, serves as a standard and provides uniformity in the
procedures and policies for determining the physical condition,
maintenance needs, and load capacity of the Nation's highway bridges.
Article 2.3.1, regarding railings and parapets, indicates that the type
and material of the railing/parapet, along with its dimensions, should
be recorded. Article 4.8.4.6.1, regarding railings, indicates that they
should be evaluated as to condition and as to adequacy of geometry and
structural capacity, and that the inspector should be familiar with the
railing requirements of the bridge owner. Article 4.3.5.11.4 in the
AASHTO MBE, Third Edition, 2018, regarding approach guide rails and
their transition to the bridge railing or parapet, indicates that
agencies should ensure that inspectors are familiar with current agency
standards for approach guide rail types, installation heights, and any
minimum clearances, and check each approach guide rail assembly as to
its conformance to current standards. Therefore, the information should
also be available for agencies that follow the AASHTO MBE. In addition,
bridge inspection related courses available through NHI contain course
material on bridge railings. Finally, the inspector is not intended to
be the only individual involved in identifying the appropriate code,
similar to the coding of load rating items. These items may best be
coded by the agency's safety engineer or other individual with
appropriate expertise, and the inspector would field verify the
installed configuration.
Five commenters recommended a code for ``unknown'' be added to the
crash testing codes table to indicate that no information is known
about the crash test level or an agency approved standard.
FHWA Response: The commentary for the Bridge Railings and
Transitions items address the code to be reported when no information
is known about the crash test level or an agency approved standard.
One State DOT recommended that code ``0'' (zero) in the crash
testing codes table should be modified to read ``required and none
provided,'' to help clarify the difference between codes ``N'' and
``0.'' Another indicated that examples were needed to clarify the
difference between these two codes.
FHWA Response: The code 0 description was modified as suggested to
make the code descriptions for ``N'' and ``0'' more self-explanatory
without the need for further examples.
Two commenters requested clarification for reporting more than one
code when there is a mixture of bridge railings or transitions on a
bridge.
FHWA Response: The commentary for both items in this section was
updated to clarify reporting of one applicable code when there is more
than one type of bridge railing or transition.
One State DOT suggested that the nature of the Bridge Railing and
Transitions items is more indicative of an appraisal item and should be
moved to the Appraisal subsection. The commenter also suggested that
the Bridge Railings item be integrated with National Bridge Element
(NBE) items in the Element Conditions subsection.
FHWA Response: These items remain in the Bridge Material and Type
section to be contained together with other related items that will
likely be inventoried from plans. These items are considered a
classification or categorization of the bridge railings and
transitions, and not an appraisal. Bridge railing element data, in the
element subsections, address condition and not crashworthiness. There
is no NBE defined in AASHTO's ``Manual for Bridge Element Inspection''
(MBEI), Second Edition, 2019 or the SNBI for bridge railing
transitions.
Section 3: Bridge Geometry
Multiple commenters questioned the need for several items in this
section. The more substantial comments pertained to the NBIS Bridge
Length, Minimum Span Length, Curved Bridge, Curved Bridge Radius,
Maximum Bridge Height, and Irregular Deck Area items.
Five commenters questioned the need for the proposed NBIS Bridge
Length item.
FHWA Response: This item describes the dimension that is used to
distinguish a bridge, as defined in the NBIS, from a structure that is
shorter than a bridge. The referenced definition is used to identify
bridges that are subject to the NBIS and must be reported to the NBI.
The NBIS Bridge Length item (Item 112) in the Coding Guide had only a
yes or no value, and has not sufficiently served its purpose of
identifying NBIS bridges. To reduce the burden associated with this
item, the value may be estimated when the Total Bridge Length item is
30 feet or greater.
Nine commenters questioned the need for the proposed Minimum Span
Length item, and one acknowledged the need for the item.
FHWA Response: To date, only the maximum span length has been
reported. It has been found that both maximum and minimum span length
are needed for preliminary screening of bridges to identify impacts
from changes in national load rating vehicles, or changes to truck
sizes and weights (either proposed or mandated). Article C6A.4.4.2.1b
of the AASHTO MBE, Third Edition, 2018 (with 2019 and 2020 interim
revisions), recognizes this point, as it communicates that bridges with
a rating factor greater than 1.35 for the AASHTO legal trucks will have
adequate load capacity for special hauling vehicles only when the span
lengths exceed the values specified therein.
Three commenters questioned the need for the proposed Curved Bridge
item.
FHWA Response: This item indicates whether a bridge is comprised of
girders that are curved or aligned to approximate a horizontal
curvature. Curved bridges can require different procedures and
specifications for structural analysis and design, and for load rating
analysis for legal and permit vehicles, including permit vehicle size
restrictions. Curvature is also an attribute that can raise the
importance of inspection, maintenance, and repair of certain members as
compared to straight bridges. This in turn may impact risk-based
inspection interval selection, inspection scope, and repair
prioritization. Curvature can also affect the assessment of
vulnerability to seismic events using system-level procedures. The
Curved Bridge item has been retained, but has been revised to address
comments asking for clarification about the difference between a curved
bridge comprised of curved versus chorded girders.
[[Page 27420]]
Nine commenters questioned the need for the proposed Curved Bridge
Radius item.
FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges that the radius of curvature alone
is often insufficient for decision-making, and procedures will
frequently require obtaining this information from drawings or files in
conjunction with other details. This item has been removed.
Fourteen commenters questioned the need for the proposed Maximum
Bridge Height item. Multiple commenters also questioned the need to
update the reported value for this item when maximum height occurs over
water that has a fluctuating bed elevation.
FHWA Response: Bridge height is an attribute that can inform
multiple procedures, including inspection planning to identify access
equipment needs, seismic vulnerability assessments, and cost estimation
associated with work types or needs. To reduce the burden associated
with this item, and to facilitate identification of bridges with
limited clearance over water, the specification for this item has been
revised so that measurement is from the top of deck to the ground line
or water surface, whichever yields a higher value.
Two commenters questioned the need for the proposed Irregular Deck
Area item.
FHWA Response: This item allows an agency to report the deck area
of a bridge when using the values reported for Total Bridge Length and
Bridge Width Out-to-Out does not provide an accurate representation.
Deck area is used to support multiple procedures including the
calculation of performance measures and the implementation of 23 CFR
part 490.
Section 4: Features
Subsection 4.1: Feature Identification
The Feature Type item was revised to add a numeric sequential field
for each feature, for ease of State and FHWA tracking of multiple
features of the same type, and to address confusion expressed by
several commenters.
Several commenters asked how many features below a bridge are to be
identified for the Feature Type item, and if at least one is required.
FHWA response: The commentary for this item was updated to indicate
that at least one feature is to be identified both on and below the
bridge, and that many bridges will have more than one. However, a code
of ``D'' (dry terrain) or ``B'' (urban feature) need be reported only
once, if applicable.
A few commenters stated that reporting multiple features for
bridges would be excessive burden for questionable benefit.
FHWA response: FHWA believes that for most bridges, the majority of
features will already be known by inspection teams and will need to be
input but not collected. For some bridges, it is acknowledged that some
data will need to be collected, but only one time over the life of the
bridge except in rare cases where another feature is built above, on,
or under the bridge. Highway features under structures that are not
bridges per the NBIS will no longer be reported to FHWA, providing a
decrease in burden.
Subsection 4.2: Routes (Now Subsection 4.2 Routes and Subsection 4.3
Highways)
Several commenters expressed concern with the perceived increase in
the amount of route data to be reported. A few noted that many of the
items in the Routes section are actually associated with the highway,
which can carry multiple routes, and therefore should be collected and
reported only once for each highway.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters, and this subsection
has been divided accordingly. Highway-related items were removed from
the Routes subsection and placed in a separate Highways subsection,
where each item will be reported once for each highway feature
associated with the bridge. For a highway feature crossing above a
bridge, only the Crossing Bridge Number item need be reported, because
the highway feature above will always be a bridge. Therefore, the
remaining highway and route information can be accessed via the data
associated with the crossing bridge record. This also applies when the
highway feature directly below an inventory bridge is a crossing
bridge. The Routes subsection now contains only five route-related
items, which will be reported for each route associated with the
highway feature.
Subsection 4.3: Railroads (Now Subsection 4.4)
Six commenters questioned the need for the proposed Railroad
Service Type item.
FHWA Response: This item distinguishes between passenger and
freight services and between electrified and non-electrified rail
lines. It is useful for inspection planning to identify access and
coordination needs.
Two commenters suggested that the data for the items in this
section should be obtained by FHWA from national databases maintained
by the Federal Railroad Administration, for example.
FHWA Response: Agencies can use available resources to assist in
coding the Railroad Service Type item. However, national databases do
not necessarily include sufficient data to report all bridge related
railroad items, or include information for all categories of railroads.
Subsection 4.4: Navigable Waterways (Now Subsection 4.5)
Four commenters questioned the need for the Navigation Channel
Width and Navigation Channel Minimum Horizontal Clearance items, as
these items are not currently reported to the NBI.
FHWA Response: The data items in this section are used to identify
bridges that cross navigable waterways and are at risk of vessel
collision, which will assist FHWA in identifying risks to highway
bridge safety. The Navigation Channel Width item and Navigation Channel
Minimum Horizontal Clearance item clarify the requirements for data
currently reported for the Navigation Horizontal Clearance item (Item
40) in the Coding Guide. These data should be available from the
navigation permit drawings required for all bridges over navigable
waterways.
Section 5: Loads, Load Rating, and Posting
Subsection 5.1: Loads and Load Rating
Four commenters requested clarification on how to assign codes for
the Design Method item when no plans exist for a bridge.
FHWA Response: The commentary for this item addresses this
situation, allowing for bridge owners to infer which design method was
in use at the time the bridge was built based on the characteristics of
the bridge and design policy in effect at the time of construction.
Six commenters disagreed with the requirement to truncate load
rating factors to the nearest hundredth rather than allowing values to
be rounded.
FHWA Response: The load rating factor is calculated as a ratio of
other values that have their own accuracy and precision. Truncating
such a value to the hundredth will assign precision in a conservative
fashion that will vary from the calculated rating factor by, at most, 1
percent.
Seven commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use for
the Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item.
FHWA Response: Many States and local agencies have their own legal
load combinations that they must consider in addition to the nationally
recognized
[[Page 27421]]
AASHTO Legal Loads when load rating bridges. There is wide variety in
the axle weights and spacings of these legal loads, making it
impractical to define every combination in the SNBI. However, the
rating factor is a universal value representing a ratio of capacity to
demand, with 1.0 being the minimum value indicating a bridge's ability
to carry safely a given legal load configuration. By identifying the
minimum calculated rating factor of all legal loads considered in the
load rating, the Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item serves the
purpose of improving NBIP oversight by identifying bridges that require
posting, based on their ability to carry State legal loads that may
vary from those established by AASHTO.
Ten commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use of
the Routine Permit Loads item.
FHWA Response: The NBIS requires States to post or restrict bridges
that cannot safely carry routine permit loads as demonstrated through a
valid load rating. This item identifies bridges that carry routine
permit loads, to differentiate between bridges that do and do not
require that the posting analysis consider those loads.
Subsection 5.2: Load Posting Status
Eight commenters recommended corrections and changes to the table
of load posting status codes in the Load Posting Status item.
FHWA Response: The table has been updated to incorporate many of
the recommendations to remove similar codes, and to differentiate
between bridges that are currently open with no restrictions and
require posting, and those that are currently posted but require a
posting reduction.
One State DOT requested clarification on the definition of
temporary and supported structures and when those conditions will
result in a change in the Load Posting Status item that will be
reported to FHWA.
FHWA Response: The specification for this item was updated to
include more detailed descriptions of temporary and supported
conditions, and expectations for the length of time those conditions
are expected to be in place to be considered in the reporting of this
item.
Subsection 5.3: Load Evaluation and Posting
Ten commenters requested clarification on whether State-specific
legal loads need to be reported for the items in this subsection.
FHWA Response: Given the large number of State-specific legal load
configurations, it is not feasible to include non-AASHTO-defined legal
loads for the items in this subsection. However, the load rating
evaluation must consider all legal loads operating in the State and if
a State-specific legal load configuration results in the lowest rating
factor from the evaluation, that value will be reported in the
Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item.
Five commenters requested clarification on whether AASHTO legal
loads that are not evaluated because their force effects are enveloped
by another AASHTO load (for instance, the Notional Rating Load (NRL))
need to be reported for the items in this subsection.
FHWA Response: The introduction to the Load Evaluation and Posting
subsection states that ``Data items in this subsection are reported for
each AASHTO legal load configuration evaluated, only when the bridge
has undergone a posting analysis.'' If the posting analysis uses the
NRL to screen out the need to evaluate individually other loads, there
is no need to rate and report data for those vehicles.
Section 6: Inspections
Subsection 6.1: Inspection Requirements
Eight commenters were concerned with the level of effort to collect
the information for the Fatigue Prone Details item.
FHWA Response: This item has been renamed to Fatigue Details.
Category D details were removed from the data collection requirement,
thereby reducing the burden.
Subsection 6.2: Inspection Events
Three commenters recommended deletion of Service (Code 8) for the
Inspection Type item, as they did not consider that it was needed.
FHWA Response: Service inspection type is needed for risk based
extended intervals as part of the NBIS.
Four State DOTs requested definitions clarifying the intent of the
inspection types.
FHWA Response: Definitions for each of the inspection types are
included in the Definitions section.
Fourteen commenters requested clarification on the Nationally
Certified Bridge Inspector item, as to how the unique identifier
certifications will be assigned and who is responsible for assigning
them. Many questioned the need for this item or suggested that it
should be the responsibility of FHWA to certify inspectors.
FHWA Response: The commentary was updated to indicate that the
unique identifier code is assigned by the State DOT, Federal agency, or
Tribal government. FHWA does not certify bridge inspectors.
Four commenters questioned the need for the Inspection Interval
Type item, as it can easily be determined from the Inspection Interval
item.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees, and the Inspection Interval Type item
has been removed.
Two commenters requested the addition of a calculated Inspection
Due Date item.
FHWA Response: This item has been added to identify the next
inspection due date.
Eleven commenters requested clarification as to the need for the
Inspection Quality Control Date and Inspection Quality Assurance Date
items. Several of these commenters also requested that the commentary
language be adjusted to allow an independent QC or QA review from
outside the agency.
FHWA Response: These items will ensure that information on QC and
QA procedures is available to FHWA for oversight of the NBIP. FHWA
agrees that an independent review from outside the agency can also be
part of a QC or QA program; the commentary language for both items has
been adjusted as requested.
The name of the Inventory Update Date item has been changed to
Inspection Data Update Date, as that better aligns with the intent of
the item and may help alleviate confusion expressed by some commenters.
Ten State DOTs questioned the need for the Inspection Equipment
item.
FHWA Response: FHWA requires this information to verify that a
quality inspection is performed.
Three commenters questioned the need for the Inspection Note item.
FHWA Response: This item is used to explain what portions of the
bridge were inspected when a partial inspection is performed and not a
full bridge inspection.
Section 7: Bridge Condition
Subsection 7.1: Component Condition Ratings
Fifteen State DOTs and AASHTO objected to the incorporation of
culverts into superstructure and substructure types and condition
ratings.
FHWA Response: These comments were addressed in the Section 2
(Bridge Material and Type) comment responses.
Ten State DOTs and AASHTO felt that the changes to the component
condition rating code descriptions made them too complex or
prescriptive and too similar to the AASHTO element level descriptions;
most felt that the
[[Page 27422]]
meaning of the component condition rating codes had changed
significantly from the Coding Guide. Another State DOT suggested
eliminating component condition ratings entirely based on the
similarity of the descriptions to the element data descriptions. Two
commenters appreciated the detailed guidance, and three appreciated the
clarity of the Specifications and Commentary.
FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that these codes became overly complex
in the draft document. The intent was to clarify the component
condition language from the Coding Guide without significantly changing
the meaning. To that end, the optional detailed guidance tables have
been moved to the Appendix and the condition language has been
simplified.
Seven commenters suggested that the guidance provided in the
guidance tables precluded improvement of a concrete bridge component
from fair to good condition if effective repairs were completed; they
did not feel that a sound patch should be considered a defect.
FHWA Response: A patched area that is sound is in fair condition
per the AASHTO MBEI; the guidance provided in the tables for evaluating
the condition of concrete components is consistent with that
determination.
Ten commenters had some difficulty locating descriptions of terms
and other specific guidance within the section, or requested
clarification of certain requirements.
FHWA Response: Key terms are defined in the introduction to the
section and in the Definitions section, requirements have been
clarified as needed, and the optional detailed guidance tables have
been moved to the Appendix.
Thirteen State DOTs and one association questioned the need for the
Bridge Railing Condition Rating, Bridge Railing Transitions Condition
Rating, Bridge Bearings Condition Rating, and Bridge Joints Condition
Rating items, particularly since they are collected with the element
data. Three commenters expressed support for these items.
FHWA Response: Element level condition data, in accordance with
MAP-21, are required to be reported only for bridges on the NHS.
Therefore, these data do not exist for a large percentage of the NBI.
These new items in the SNBI will serve to ensure the safety of all
highway bridges.
Four State DOTs objected to the addition of the Scour Condition
Rating item, not appearing to understand its relationship with the
Scour Vulnerability item. Three commenters expressed support for the
change.
FHWA Response: These comments are addressed below in the Subsection
7.3 (Appraisal) comment responses.
Two commenters objected to the separation of the Channel Condition
Rating and Channel Protection Condition Rating into two items; one
embraced the change.
FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the separation will improve
clarity regarding channel condition. No change has been made.
Ten commenters objected to the inclusion of the Bridge Condition
Classification and Lowest Condition Rating Code items.
FHWA Response: These items are calculated by FHWA and are not
required be collected or reported by the bridge owner. These items are
related to national bridge performance measures and are provided in the
SNBI for transparency.
Six State DOTs expressed concern over the assumption that a
structural or hydraulic review, or both, must have been completed for a
condition rating of 4 of less, and what that review might entail.
FHWA Response: FHWA has clarified the requirement and added
definitions for ``structural review'' and ``hydraulic review'' in the
Definitions section.
Two commenters objected to the language for a condition rating of 4
or less that states that the strength or performance of the component
is affected.
FHWA Response: A rating of 4 or below indicates Poor condition,
which is defined as affecting the strength or performance of a bridge.
No change was made to this language.
One State DOT requested guidance on insignificant defects.
FHWA Response: As insignificant defects do not affect the rating of
a bridge component, no guidance is offered. An insignificant defect is
one that is less than minor.
Four State DOTs objected to the statement that the wearing surface
should not be considered in determining the Deck Condition Rating code.
One of these State DOTs also requested clarification of situations with
integral wearing surfaces and decks where the underside cannot be seen.
FHWA Response: The commentary has been updated to address these
situations and add clarity regarding wearing surfaces.
Subsection 7.2: Element Conditions (Now Subsection 7.2 Element
Identification and Subsection 7.3 Element Conditions)
Three commenters indicated support for the inclusion of element
level bridge data items, seven requested clarification regarding
reporting of these data for bridges not on the NHS, two were not in
favor if this resulted in duplicative reporting, and two were opposed.
FHWA Response: As required by 23 U.S.C. 144, State and Federal
agencies have been reporting element level data to FHWA for bridges on
the NHS since April 2015 using guidance provided in the SNBIBE. The
guidance in the SNBIBE is now included in the SNBI and will not cause
duplicative reporting of element data, as the SNBIBE will be
discontinued when the SNBI becomes effective. The introductions to the
Element Identification and Element Condition subsections have been
updated to clarify further that element level data are only required to
be reported to FHWA for bridges that carry NHS routes, while reporting
is optional for bridges that carry non-NHS routes.
Two State DOTs recommended deletion of the culvert elements, since
the Culvert Condition Rating item (Item 62) in the Coding Guide was
proposed to be discontinued in the SNBI. One State DOT requested
clarification on the intent of these elements, given the
discontinuance.
FHWA Response: The culvert elements have been retained in the SNBI,
as FHWA has reinstated the Culvert Condition Rating item, and has made
provisions in the Bridge Material and Type section to accommodate
bridge-sized culverts.
Two commenters proposed revisions to the bridge elements table.
FHWA Response: The proposed changes were not accepted since FHWA
agreed with AASHTO to adopt the AASHTO MBEI for element descriptions,
quantity calculations, and condition state definitions. The bridge
elements table title was revised to ``Bridge elements reported to the
FHWA'' since there are some elements described in the AASHTO MBEI that
are not reported to FHWA.
One commenter requested clarification for reporting elements that
are typically not exposed for inspection (e.g., piles, pile cap
footings), but become exposed for an inspection, and are subsequently
not exposed for the next inspection.
FHWA Response: Text has been added to clarify reporting
expectations for this situation, and provides for agency flexibility in
reporting the element data.
[[Page 27423]]
One commenter proposed that element level data be reported
separately, as the file size may become an issue if all data in the
SNBI is reported together in one file.
FHWA Response: FHWA will consider and evaluate potential solutions
to provide options for reporting large data files.
One commenter proposed that changes be made to FHWA's proposed
expectations, in the introduction to the Element Conditions subsection,
that quantities reported to FHWA in condition state four indicate that
a structural review has been completed.
FHWA Response: FHWA did not intend to change the condition state
description in the AASHTO MBEI for condition state four, that indicates
the following: ``The condition warrants a structural review to
determine the effect on strength or serviceability of the element or
bridge; OR a structural review has been completed and the defects
impact strength or serviceability of the element or bridge.'' Since it
may not be practical in all cases for a structural review to be
completed prior to reporting data to FHWA, based on the timing of the
inspection and the completion of a structural review, the paragraph of
concern to the commenter has been removed.
One commenter proposed that the SNBI include the FHWA relationship
checks between element numbers and element parent numbers.
FHWA Response: The relationship checks by FHWA are not included in
the SNBI, but can be found on the internet through FHWA's Policy and
Guidance Center at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pgc.
One commenter proposed that it would be easier to understand if the
Item ID for Element Quantity Condition State items ended in 1, 2, 3,
and 4 respectively.
FHWA Response: The Element Conditions section has been separated
into two subsections, Element Identification and Element Conditions. As
a result, Item IDs for Element Quantity Condition State items have
changed to B.CS.01, B.CS.02, B.CS.03, and B.CS.04.
Subsection 7.3: Appraisal (Now 7.4)
One State DOT noted that the Coding Guide appraisal rating items
are all rated on a scale of 0-9 and expressed concern that the proposed
changes to the codes would affect the historic continuity of these
items. It was further suggested that the proposed alphanumeric codes
provide no obvious meaning without referring back to the guidance, and
would incur substantial cost with questionable value. One State DOT
appreciated the proposed changes to the Approach Roadway Alignment and
Overtopping Occurrence (now Overtopping Likelihood) items; indicating
that the items are much simpler. One commenter indicated that the
addition of the Scour Plan of Action item will clear up confusion and
help to alert inspectors and others that the bridge has a POA.
FHWA Response: The SNBI includes two new data items in the
Appraisal subsection, which provide additional information about
potential bridge vulnerabilities: Scour Plan of Action and Seismic
Vulnerability. The Approach Roadway Alignment, Overtopping Likelihood
(formerly Waterway Adequacy), and Scour Vulnerability (formerly part of
Scour Critical Bridges) items have been carried over from the Coding
Guide, but with new codes that are simpler, clearer, and easier to
understand. Since these items typically do not change from inspection
to inspection, and the crosswalk of data is well aligned, the
historical continuity can be maintained, and the cost will not be
substantial. The following calculated appraisal items from the Coding
Guide have been discontinued: Structural Evaluation (Item 67), Deck
Geometry (Item 68), and Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal (Item
69).
Four commenters recommended removal of the Overtopping Occurrence
item, largely due to concerns about potential inaccuracy of the data.
One commenter proposed a two-character field indicating the number (01
to 99) of overtopping occurrences, presumably since construction.
FHWA Response: The name of this item has been changed to
Overtopping Likelihood and the codes and descriptions changed
accordingly. This information is valuable for evaluating risk-based
inspection intervals, evaluating risks for traffic disruptions,
identifying actions to mitigate risks, and as an indicator of changes
to the waterway hydraulics that could impact the safety and performance
of the bridge. The information for reporting the applicable code should
be readily available, as similar information was needed to report the
appropriate code for the Waterway Adequacy item (Item 71) in the Coding
Guide.
One commenter requested clarifying commentary for the Overtopping
Occurrence item to address more clearly bridges where the
superstructure has been washed off the abutments and repairs are made
without betterments, thereby leaving the bridge at the same elevation
and the same likelihood for overtopping. Three commenters proposed the
addition of a code for ``unknown.''
FHWA Response: Additional commentary has been provided to address
considerations for determining the appropriate code for existing and
newer bridges. Recognizing that an ``unknown'' code was not provided in
the Coding Guide, and that the relevant information should be available
in the agency's bridge file, a code for ``unknown'' has not been added.
Four State DOTs objected to the addition of the Scour Condition
Rating item, not appearing to understand its relationship with the
Scour Vulnerability item. Three commenters expressed support for the
separation of the Scour Critical Bridges item (Item 113) in the Coding
Guide into these two distinct items. Several requested clarification
regarding the relationship between the code descriptions in the Coding
Guide and those in the Scour Vulnerability item. Some commenters
requested additional codes or clarification regarding coding for
specific situations; one requested clarification as to what will be
considered ``scour critical.'' One State DOT expressed concern that the
changes would require a large number of bridges to be reassessed, and
one indicated concern regarding the resources that would be required to
perform rigorous scour studies on locally owned bridges.
FHWA Response: The Scour Vulnerability and Scour Condition Rating
items are intended to separate potential for scour from field observed
scour (severity and extent). The Scour Vulnerability item addresses the
scour critical status and vulnerability determination from scour
appraisals required by the NBIS, while the Scour Condition Rating item
captures the actual scour condition as observed during the inspection.
Though the items and codes have been changed, there is significant
correlation with the code descriptions for the Scour Critical Bridges
item (Item 113) in the Coding Guide (Errata 12/01/2003). The codes and
descriptions have been revised for clarity and for consistency with the
NBIS definition of a scour critical bridge, and additional commentary
has been provided to improve further correlation between the SNBI codes
and those in the Coding Guide. It is not expected that these changes
will require any bridges to be reassessed or reevaluated for scour,
unless there are conditions that trigger a need for adjustments to the
original scour appraisal. Alignment of the codes will be addressed in
the crosswalk, which will be made available in the coming months.
[[Page 27424]]
Two commenters recommended a separate code indicating that a scour
POA has been developed but not implemented.
FHWA Response: The code descriptions for the Scour Plan of Action
item have been revised to accommodate this situation.
Three State DOTs questioned the need for the Seismic Vulnerability
item. One of these commenters indicated that coding the item would
require significant resources for low value, and another suggested
simplifying the item.
FHWA Response: This item provides available information resulting
from seismic evaluation and retrofit programs that an agency may have
performed of its own volition. This item, along with other supporting
items, can aid in risk assessment and potential needs assessment for
bridge preservation funding from a national perspective. The codes for
the item allow for broad interpretation based on the reporting agency's
methods and evaluation criteria. Seismic evaluation studies should
already be part of an agency's bridge record/file per Article 2.2.13 of
the AASHTO MBE, First Edition, 2008, incorporated by reference in the
NBIS since January 2010. Bridges with seismic retrofit should not
require a significant amount of time to identify from bridge files if
the agency is following Article 4.3.5.7.1 of the AASHTO MBE, Third
Edition, 2018, which outlines procedures for inspection of seismic
restraint devices. The SNBI provides a code that can be used if an
agency has bridges that do not require seismic evaluation due to low
anticipated ground motion or agency prioritization.
Subsection 7.4: Work Events
Twelve commenters questioned the need for the proposed Construction
Cost item. Multiple commenters also said the data would be difficult to
obtain or implied that the data would also need to be reported for
replacement and rehabilitation projects that occurred prior to
implementation of the SNBI.
FHWA Response: The item has been removed based on these comments.
Subpart D--Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
One commenter requested that subpart D not be removed and that FHWA
keep the sufficiency rating used in previous NBIS regulation as it
provides a process for prioritizing bridge rehabilitation and
replacement projects. By making the change the State will need to
undertake significant effort to revise the Federal funding
prioritization process for bridges.
FHWA response: It is not the intent of FHWA to revise a
prioritization process with the removal of subpart D. This subpart was
removed as 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). Sufficiency rating is not used by FHWA for funding or
prioritization of projects. States have the ability to establish their
own process for prioritizing projects or to continue using the
sufficiency rating method if so desired.
Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
FHWA is incorporating by reference the more current versions of the
manuals listed herein.
AASHTO's 2008 ``Manual for Bridge Evaluations,'' would be replaced
with a more current edition of the ``AASHTO Manual for Bridge
Evaluation.'' Specifically, FHWA is incorporating by reference Sections
1.4, 2.2, 4.2, 6, and 8, excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1
of the 2018 Third Edition, together with the 2019 and 2020 Interim
Revisions of these sections. This document was developed by AASHTO to
assist bridge owners by establishing inspection procedures and
evaluation practices that meet 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 adds the AASHTO MBEI. 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 supports 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.
Finally, FHWA incorporates by reference FHWA's ``Specifications for
the National Bridge Inventory'', 2022. The SNBI details how to code and
submit data gathered on highway bridges for the NBI, including items on
location, structure type, condition ratings, and inspection dates. This
document replaces the current Coding Guide and defines the required
inventory data that is submitted to FHWA to fulfill the requirements of
Sec. 650.315.
The documents that FHWA is incorporating by reference are
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs, local
agencies, and Tribal governments carrying out Federal-aid highway
projects. These documents represent the most recent refinements that
professional organizations have formally accepted and are currently in
use by the transportation industry. The documents incorporated by
reference are available on the docket of this rulemaking and at the
sources identified in the regulatory text below. The specific standards
are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The final rule is a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures in DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021). This action complies
with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve regulation. This action is
considered significant because of widespread public interest in the
safety of highway bridges, though not economically significant within
the meaning of E.O. 12866. FHWA has filed into the docket a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in support of the final
rule on NBIS. The RIA 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 identifies the estimated costs and benefits resulting
from the rule in order to inform policy makers and the public of the
relative value of this action. The complete RIA may be accessed from
the rulemaking's docket (FHWA-2017-0047).
The docket for the rulemaking included an RIA analyzing the
economic impacts of the proposed rule.
[[Page 27425]]
The NPRM received 256 comments in relation to the NBIS and the SNBI,
some of which pertained to the RIA.
This RIA has been updated to reflect public comments provided in
response to the NPRM RIA. The RIA comments came exclusively from State
agencies and related to absence of cost estimation for the changes to
the SNBI. In particular, States estimated that they will incur costs
due to the SNBI changes, including the following issues:
The increased costs associated with updating software and
software systems to accommodate additional data or recoding of existing
variables.
The increased costs associated with inspections due to the
additional inspection categories in the updated SNBI compared to the
existing coding guide.
The increased cost associated with updating inspection
manuals and inspector trainings to be consistent with the updated SNBI.
In response to those concerns, this RIA has been updated to include
estimates of the additional cost associated with the SNBI changes. The
specific adjustments are detailed in Section 4.3 of the RIA found on
the docket for this rulemaking.
Additionally, States were concerned that the NPRM RIA did not
address the benefits of the proposed rule. The RIA has also been
updated to include a qualitative discussion of those benefits.
In addition to the changes made in response to the public comment,
a number of input values to the economic analysis have been updated in
this final rule RIA compared to the NPRM RIA. The updates include:
The effective date of the rule has been changed to 2022
rather than 2020. This changes the period of analysis from 2020-2029 to
2022-2031.
The wage rates have been updated to the 2019 values from
the 2016 values used in the NPRM RIA.
Rather than analyzing the cost savings from assuming 1
percent of eligible bridges use the expanded inspection interval as was
used in the NPRM, this economic assessment uses uncertainty analysis in
relation to the share of bridges that are expected to use the Method 1
extended interval of 48 months which requires a simplified risk
inspection and the Method 2 extended interval of up to 72 months under
Method 2 which requires a detailed risk inspection (compared to the
currently required 24-month interval). The FHWA anticipates that
agencies will infrequently use the Method 2 for intervals greater than
48 months and that a plausible range for the share of bridges inspected
under Method 1 is 30 to 65 percent. That range is based on data on the
number of States that currently use the 48-month exception for any
bridges/culverts,\16\ public comment from the NPRM, and other
information about State agencies practices (e.g., State law and
Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs)). The justification for
this range is described more fully under Section 3 of the RIA under
Section 650.311: Inspection Interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Under existing NBIS policies, an agency may request that a
bridge may be inspected under a 48-month inspection interval based
on relatively stringent requirements which excludes bridges: With
any condition rating of 5 or less; (b) that have inventory ratings
less than the State's legal load; (c) with spans greater than 100'
in length; (d) without load path redundancy; (e) that are very
susceptible to vehicular damage, e.g., structures with vertical over
or underclearances less than 14'-0'', narrow thru or pony trusses.
The requirements for a 48-month inspection frequency policy are
described in the FHWA Technical Advisory T 5140.21 dated September
16, 1988. This document is available on-line at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/techadvs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The share of bridges that currently use a 24-month
interval that are expected to use a 12-month interval is 100 percent,
reflective of the requirement of the rulemaking. This provision is new
to the final rulemaking and was not included in the original NPRM RIA.
The cost of inspections has been updated. The NPRM RIA
assumed that on average a regular inspection required 4 hours of
engineer time to complete at a total cost of $257.\17\ Based on public
comment,\18\ available inspection cost data, interviews with Federal
and State agencies, and FHWA program office input, the final rule RIA
updates the average cost per bridge inspection to be $2,000. The
justification of this average inspection costs is detailed in Section
4.2 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The total cost of inspection used in the NPRM RIA was
estimated using the average loaded wage rage for civil engineers in
2016 from BLS ($64.19) and an assumption of 4 hours per inspection
(4 hours x $64.19 = $257.76 in 2016 dollars).
\18\ Comments from NYSDOT. FHWA-2017-0047-0138. Accessible from:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FHWA-2017-0047-0138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Cost of the Final Rule
To estimate costs for the final rule, FHWA assessed the level of
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, and capital
investments needed to comply with each component of the rule. Level of
effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to
estimate total costs.
The rulemaking will impose some additional costs on agencies but
will also create opportunities for cost savings. The cost savings are
due to the risk-based inspection interval approach that allows for a
potentially large number of bridges that currently use a 24-month
inspection interval to use Method 1 48-month inspection interval
instead. The actual number of bridges for which this expanded
inspection interval will be adopted is unclear; therefore, this
assessment uses an uncertainty analysis on this key parameter. FHWA
judges a plausible range to be that 30 to 65 percent of eligible
bridges will use the Method 1 48-month risk-based inspection interval
rather than a 24-month inspection interval. The informational basis for
this range is described in RIA Section 3 under Section 650.311:
Inspection Interval.
While the rulemaking provides cost saving on net, there are several
components of the rule that increase costs. The largest cost increases
come from the impacts of the updated SNBI (Sec. 650.315), which will
require States to upgrade software systems, update inspection manuals,
train inspectors, and will increase the hours required for inspection
for all bridges for the first inspection after the compliance date of
the provision. The other important source of cost increases come from
the risk-based approach requirement that some bridges will be inspected
at 12-month intervals rather than the current 24-month intervals, which
will increase the frequency of inspections and therefore increase
costs.
Table 1 displays the total cost of the final rule (2019$) for the
10-year analysis period (2022-2031) assuming that either 30 or 65
percent of eligible bridges will use the Method 1 risk-based 48-month
inspection interval rather than the 24-month inspection interval. The
total cost savings of the rule for the 10-year study period (2022-2031)
is between -$4.6 and -$195.4 million discounted at 7 percent.
The provisions required by MAP-21 (Sec. Sec. 650.303, 650.309, and
650.313) have total cost of $7.1 million over the 10-year analysis
period when discounted at 7 percent. The other discretionary provisions
that impose costs have a 10-year discounted value of -$11.7 to -$202.5
million. The cost savings associated with the provision related to
expanded inspection intervals has a plausible range for 10-year
discounted costs of -$131.0 to -$321.7 million.
Estimated Benefits of the Rule
The FHWA believes the rule will be net beneficial to society but is
unable to monetize or quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. These
benefits are centered around bridge safety, which was the original
premise for developing this regulation when it was initiated in 1971.
[[Page 27426]]
This regulation will result in more consistent inspections and output
from bridge inspections, better-qualified inspection personnel, and
more robust reporting on structural and safety related deficiencies
found during bridge inspections.
The benefits are separated into two categories: The benefits due to
the NBIS changes and the benefits due to the SNBI changes. The FHWA
believes that the benefits of each provision outweigh its costs. The
NBIS changes will reduce the risk of negative safety impacts from
sudden bridge deterioration of bridges at lower condition ratings,
produce more consistent outputs from bridge inspections, enable better
qualified inspection personnel, and result in more consistent reporting
on structural or safety-related deficiencies. At the same time, FHWA
does not expect that the rule will result in any safety disbenefits due
to increased inspection intervals for some bridges. The SNBI changes
are necessary for FHWA's required reports to Congress and will provide
FHWA with additional data by including additional data elements in
their ongoing bridge safety analysis practices which support various
bridge safety programs including oversight of the NBIS and supporting
the development of emergency response plans.
The safety benefits of the rule primarily come from the requirement
for increased inspections for safety critical bridges, which are
required to be inspected at a 12-month interval rather than the current
24-month interval. These increased inspections are expected to result
in agencies identifying deteriorating conditions on bridges sooner than
under the current rule. By identifying those conditions sooner,
agencies can take safety mitigation measure more quickly. Those
mitigation activities could include: Repairs, reducing allowed load
weights, reducing traffic volumes on the bridge through lane closures,
or bridge closures. By taking those actions sooner, the agencies will
better protect the asset and the traveling public. However, those
benefits are difficult to quantify.
The FHWA does not believe there will be safety disbenefits due to
any provision of the rule. While the final rule allows agencies to
increase the inspection interval from 24 months to 48 months for
bridges that have condition ratings of 6 or above under method 1, it
does not require them to do so. The expectation is that States would
choose to use the Method 1 48-month interval in low-risk situations.
Similarly, Method 2, which allows inspection intervals up to 72 months
if the bridge passes a detailed risk analysis, is not required. The
expectation is that agencies will rarely choose the Method 2 72-month
interval, e.g., maybe on pre-stressed single-span concrete bridges with
low vehicle volume over low-risk streams. Agencies would not use Method
2 simply because a bridge has a high condition rating, e.g., new
bridges. If a specific bridge experienced an event that might cause its
condition to change suddenly such as an adverse weather event, a
strike, or construction activity, the agency will still be required to
conduct initial and special inspections under Sec. 650.311(d) of the
regulations. The rulemaking follows the recommendations of the NCHRP
Report 782, Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection
Practices which demonstrated and verified that inspection intervals of
72 months (24 months longer than the proposed rulemaking) will be
suitable for certain bridges based on their risk profiles.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2014. Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection
Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 27427]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MY22.023
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
[[Page 27428]]
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 final rule on
small entities. Because these 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
FHWA has determined that this final rule 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)
FHWA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this
action will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment. 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 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. The first data
collection in the SNBI format will be in March 2026, which will be
discussed in the 2024 notice. Until then, annual data collection will
continue under the current notice.
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 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
In accordance with E.O. 13175, FHWA identified potential effects on
federally recognized Indian Tribes that might result from this rule.
Accordingly, during the development of the NPRM, FHWA conducted a
webinar on August 7, 2014, 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 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 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 \20\
maintained by FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/bridges/bip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal governments did not submit any comments in response to the
NPRM. FHWA continues to work closely with Tribal governments on the
implementation of the NBIS program through BIA coordination.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. FHWA has
determined that this final rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
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).
Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 650, as set forth below:
[[Page 27429]]
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 (NBIS)
Sec.
650.301 Purpose.
650.303 Applicability.
650.305 Definitions.
650.307 Bridge inspection organization responsibilities.
650.309 Qualification of personnel.
650.311 Inspection interval.
650.313 Inspection procedures.
650.315 Inventory.
650.317 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
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
and federally-owned bridges, private bridges that are connected to a
public road on both ends of the bridge, temporary bridges, and bridges
under construction with portions open to traffic.
Sec. 650.305 Definitions.
The following terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
AASHTO Manual. The term ``AASHTO Manual'' means the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
``Manual for Bridge Evaluation'', including Interim Revisions,
excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1, 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 member.
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 this subpart, in either a field
inspection, supervisory, or management role. Some of the experience may
come from relevant bridge design, bridge load rating, 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:
www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual or the BIRM. A comprehensive
FHWA manual on procedures and techniques for inspecting and evaluating
a variety of in-service highway bridges. This manual is available at
the following URL: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm. This manual may be
purchased from the Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402
and from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Complex feature. Bridge component(s) or member(s) with advanced or
unique structural members or operational characteristics, construction
methods, and/or requiring specific inspection procedures. This includes
mechanical and electrical elements of moveable spans and cable-related
members 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 deterioration 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.
Deterioration mode. Typical deterioration or damage affecting the
condition of a bridge member 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 arm's 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. The first inspection 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 the field portion of the bridge
inspection is completed.
Inspection due date. The last inspection date plus the current
inspection interval.
Inspection report. The document which summarizes the bridge
inspection findings, recommendations, and identifies the team leader
responsible for the inspection and report.
Internal redundancy. A redundancy that exists within a primary
member cross-section without load path redundancy, such that fracture
of one component will not propagate through the entire member, is
discoverable by the applicable inspection procedures, and will not
cause a portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.
Inventory data. All data reported to the National Bridge Inventory
(NBI) in accordance with the Sec. 650.315.
[[Page 27430]]
Legal load. The maximum load for each vehicle configuration,
including the weight of the vehicle and its payload, permitted by law
for the State in which the bridge is located.
Legal load rating. The maximum permissible legal load to which the
structure may be subjected with the unlimited numbers of passages over
the duration of a specified bridge evaluation period. Legal load rating
is a term used in Load and Resistance Factor Rating method.
Load path redundancy. A redundancy that exists based on the number
of primary load-carrying members between points of support, such that
fracture of the cross section at one location of a member will not
cause a portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.
Load posting. Regulatory signs installed in accordance with 23 CFR
655.601 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 Steel Tension Member (NSTM). A primary steel member
fully or partially in tension, and without load path redundancy, system
redundancy or internal redundancy, whose failure may cause a portion of
or the entire bridge to collapse.
NSTM inspection. A hands-on inspection of a nonredundant steel
tension member.
NSTM 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. Allowing unlimited numbers of vehicles to use the bridge at
operating level may shorten the life of the bridge. Operating rating is
a term used in either the Allowable Stress or Load Factor Rating
method.
Private bridge. A bridge open to public travel and not owned by a
public authority as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
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 for
professional engineering and/or structural engineering license that,
under State licensure laws, permits the individual to offer engineering
services within areas of expertise directly to the public.
Program manager. The individual in charge of the program, that has
been assigned the duties and responsibilities for bridge inspection,
reporting, and inventory, and has the overall responsibility to ensure
the program conforms with the requirements of this subpart. The program
manager provides overall leadership and is available to inspection team
leaders 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 QC 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.
Rehabilitation. The major work required to restore the structural
integrity of a bridge as well as work necessary to correct major safety
defects.
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 (RAP). A group of well experienced panel
members that performs a rigorous assessment of risk to establish policy
for bridge inspection intervals.
Routine inspection. Regularly scheduled comprehensive inspection
consisting of observations and measurements needed to determine the
physical and functional condition of the bridge and identify changes
from previously recorded conditions.
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 risk-based and data-driven determination of a
bridge's vulnerability to scour, resulting from the least stable result
of scour that is either observed, or estimated through a scour
evaluation or a scour assessment.
Scour assessment. The determination of an existing bridge's
vulnerability to scour which considers stream stability and scour
potential.
Scour critical bridge. A bridge with a foundation member that is
unstable, or may become unstable, as determined by the scour appraisal.
Scour evaluation. The application of hydraulic analysis to estimate
scour depths and determine bridge and substructure stability
considering potential scour.
Scour plan of action (POA). Procedures for bridge inspectors and
engineers in managing each bridge determined to be scour critical or
that has unknown foundations.
Service inspection. An inspection to identify major deficiencies
and safety issues, performed by personnel with general knowledge of
bridge maintenance or bridge inspection.
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 does 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.
System redundancy. A redundancy that exists in a bridge system
without load path redundancy, such that fracture of the cross section
at one location of a primary member will not cause a portion of or the
entire bridge to collapse.
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.
[[Page 27431]]
Temporary bridge. A bridge which is constructed to carry highway
traffic until the permanent facility is built, repaired, rehabilitated,
or replaced.
Underwater bridge inspection diver. The individual performing the
inspection of the underwater portion of the bridge.
Underwater Bridge Inspection Manual. A comprehensive FHWA manual on
the procedures and techniques for underwater bridge inspection. This
manual is available at the following URL: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm. This manual may be purchased from the Government Publishing
Office, Washington, DC 20402 and from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Underwater bridge inspection training. Training that covers all
aspects of underwater bridge inspection to relate the conditions of
underwater bridge members to established criteria (see Underwater
Bridge Inspection Manual and the BIRM 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.
Unknown Foundations. Foundations of bridges over waterways where
complete details are unknown because either the foundation type and
depth are unknown, or the foundation type is known, but its depth is
unknown, and therefore cannot be appraised for scour vulnerability.
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) or FHWA, 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 bridge crosses a border between a State transportation
department, Federal agency, or Tribal government jurisdiction, all
entities must determine through a joint written agreement the
responsibilities of each entity for that bridge under this subpart,
including the designated lead State for reporting NBI data.
(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
agencywide, or Tribal governmentwide bridge inspection policies and
procedures;
(2) Maintaining a registry of nationally certified bridge
inspectors that are performing the duties of a team leader in their
State or 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;
(3) Documenting the criteria for inspection intervals for the
inspection types identified in these standards;
(4) Documenting the roles and responsibilities of personnel
involved in the bridge inspection program;
(5) Managing bridge inspection reports and files;
(6) Performing quality control and quality assurance activities;
(7) Preparing, maintaining, and reporting bridge inventory data;
(8) Producing valid load ratings and when required, implementing
load posting or other restrictions;
(9) Managing the activities and corrective actions taken in
response to a critical finding;
(10) Managing scour appraisals and scour plans of action; and
(11) Managing other requirements of these standards.
(f) Functions identified in paragraphs (e)(3) 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 by the responsible State
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government. Except
as provided below, 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 or FHWA's concurrence via a formal written agreement,
delegate its functions and responsibilities under this subpart to the
BIA or FHWA.
(g) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal
government bridge inspection organization must have a program manager
with the qualifications defined in Sec. 650.309(a). An employee of the
BIA or FHWA 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 or FHWA in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
Sec. 650.309 Qualifications of personnel.
(a) A program manager must, at a minimum:
(1) Be a registered Professional Engineer, or have 10 years of
bridge inspection experience;
(2) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection
training course as described in paragraph (h) of this section and score
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of
FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection training under FHWA
regulations in this subpart in effect before June 6, 2022, satisfies
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 June 6, 2022, if serving as a program manager who was qualified
under prior FHWA regulations in this subpart.
(b) A team leader must, at a minimum:
(1) Meet one of the four qualifications listed in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) Be a registered Professional Engineer and have 6 months of
bridge inspection experience;
(ii) Have 5 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
[[Page 27432]]
and Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination; and
(C) Two (2) 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 (4) years of bridge inspection experience;
(2) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection
training course as described in paragraph (h) of this section and score
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of
FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection training under FHWA
regulations in this subpart in effect before June 6, 2022, satisfies
the intent of the requirement in this paragraph (b));
(3) Complete a cumulative total of 18 hours of FHWA-approved bridge
inspection refresher training over each 60 month period;
(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; and
(5) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (b) within 24 months
from June 6, 2022, if serving as a team leader who was qualified under
prior FHWA regulations in this subpart.
(c) Team leaders on NSTM inspections must, at a minimum:
(1) Meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section;
(2) Complete an FHWA-approved training course on the inspection of
NSTMs as defined in paragraph (h) of this section and score 70 percent
or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of FHWA-approved
NSTM inspection training prior to June 6, 2022, satisfies the intent of
the requirement in this paragraph (c)); and
(3) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (c) within 24 months
from June 6, 2022.
(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 (h) of this section and score 70 percent or greater on an
end-of-course assessment (completion of FHWA-approved comprehensive
bridge inspection training or FHWA-approved underwater bridge
inspection training under FHWA regulations in this subpart in effect
before June 6, 2022, satisfies the intent of the requirement in this
paragraph (e)).
(f) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal
governments must establish documented personnel qualifications for
Damage and Special Inspection types.
(g) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal
governments that establish risk-based routine inspection intervals that
exceed 48 months under Sec. 650.311(a)(2) must establish documented
personnel qualifications for the Service Inspection type.
(h) The following are considered acceptable bridge inspection
training:
(1) National Highway Institute training. Acceptable NHI courses
include:
(i) Comprehensive bridge inspection training, which must include
topics of importance to 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 members), joints, bearings, drainage systems, lighting,
signs, and traffic safety features; nondestructive evaluation
techniques; load path redundancy and fatigue concepts; and practical
applications of the concepts listed in this paragraph (h)(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) NSTM 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 NSTMs; and the application of
nondestructive evaluation techniques.
(2) FHWA approval of alternate training. A State transportation
department, Federal agency, or Tribal government may submit to FHWA a
training course as an alternate to any of the NHI courses listed in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. An alternate must include all the
topics described in paragraph (h)(1) and be consistent with the related
content. 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 5 years to ensure the material is current. Updates to approved
course materials and end-of-course assessments must be resubmitted to
FHWA for approval.
(3) FHWA-approved alternate training under prior regulations.
Agencies that have alternate training courses approved by FHWA prior to
June 6, 2022, have 24 months to review and update training materials to
satisfy requirements as defined in Sec. 650.305 and paragraph (h)(1)
of this section and resubmit to FHWA for approval.
Sec. 650.311 Inspection interval.
(a) Routine inspections. Each bridge must be inspected at regular
intervals not to exceed the interval established using one of the risk-
based methods outlined in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified
assessment of risk to classify each bridge into one of three categories
with an inspection interval as described below.
(i) Regular intervals. Each bridge must be inspected at regular
intervals not to exceed 24 months, except as required in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section and allowed in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments,
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document
criteria used to determine when intervals must be reduced below 24
months. Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials,
age, condition ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily
traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle
impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known
deficiencies.
(B) Certain bridges meeting any of the following criteria as
recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) (see Sec. 650.315)
must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 12 months:
[[Page 27433]]
(1) One or more of the deck, superstructure, or substructure, or
culvert components is rated in serious or worse condition, as recorded
by the Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure Condition Rating items, or
the Culvert Condition Rating item, coded three (3) or less; or
(2) The observed scour condition is rated serious or worse, as
recorded by the Scour Condition Rating item coded three (3) or less.
(C) Where condition ratings are coded three (3) or less due to
localized deficiencies, a special inspection limited to those
deficiencies, as described in Sec. 650.313(h), can be used to meet
this requirement in lieu of a routine inspection. In such cases, a
complete routine inspection must be conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain bridges meeting all of the
following criteria as recorded in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315) may be
inspected at intervals not to exceed 48 months:
(1) The deck, superstructure, and substructure, or culvert,
components are all rated in satisfactory or better condition, as
recorded by the Deck, Superstructure, and Substructure Condition Rating
items, or the Culvert Condition Rating item coded six (6) or greater;
(2) The channel and channel protection are rated in satisfactory or
better condition, as recorded by the Channel Condition and Channel
Protection Condition items coded six (6) or greater;
(3) The inventory rating is greater than or equal to the standard
AASHTO HS-20 or HL-93 loading and routine permit loads are not
restricted or not carried/issued, as recorded by the Inventory Load
Rating Factor item coded greater than or equal to 1.0 and the Routine
Permit Loads item coded A or N;
(4) A steel bridge does not have Category E or E' fatigue details,
as recorded by the Fatigue Details item coded N;
(5) All roadway vertical clearances are greater than or equal to
14'-0'', as recorded in the Highway Minimum Vertical Clearance item;
(6) All superstructure materials limited to concrete and steel and
all superstructure types limited to certain arches, box girders/beams,
frames, girders/beams, slabs, and culverts, as recorded by the Span
Material items coded C01-C05 or S01-S05, and the Span Type items coded
A01, B02-B03, F01-F02, G01-G08, S01-S02, or P01-P02; and
(7) Stable for potential scour and observed scour condition is
rated satisfactory or better, as recorded by the Scour Vulnerability
item coded A or B and the Scour Condition Rating item coded six (6) or
greater.
(B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal
governments that implement paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section
must develop and document an extended interval policy and must notify
FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Factors to consider include
structure type, design, materials, age, condition ratings, scour,
environment, annual average daily traffic and annual average daily
truck traffic, history of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe load
capacity, and other known deficiencies.
(2) Method 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 categories, with inspection intervals not to
exceed 12, 24, 48, or 72 months. The risk assessment process must be
developed by a Risk Assessment Panel (RAP) and documented as a formal
policy. The RAP must be comprised of not less than four people, at
least two of which are professional engineers, with collective
knowledge in bridge design, evaluation, inspection, maintenance,
materials, and construction, and include the NBIS program manager. The
policy and criteria which establishes intervals, including subsequent
changes, must be submitted by the State transportation department,
Federal agency, or Tribal government for FHWA approval. The request
must include the items in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this
section:
(i) Endorsement from a RAP, which must be used to develop a formal
policy.
(ii) Definitions for risk factors, categories, and the probability
and consequence levels that are used to define the risk for each bridge
to be assessed.
(iii) Deterioration 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 deterioration modes.
(A) A set of screening criteria must be used to determine how 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 likely to affect the safety or
serviceability of the bridge or its members;
(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 deterioration modes in each assessment must include:
(1) For steel members: Section loss, fatigue, and fracture;
(2) For concrete members: Flexural cracking, shear cracking, and
reinforcing and prestressing steel corrosion;
(3) For superstructure members: Settlement, rotation, overload, and
vehicle/vessel impact; and
(4) For substructure members: Settlement, rotation, and scour.
(D) A set of criteria to assess risk for each bridge member 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.
(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
categories with a routine inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, 48,
or 72 months.
(3) Service inspection. A service inspection must be performed
during the month midway between routine inspections when a risk-based,
routine inspection interval exceeds 48 months.
(4) Additional routine inspection interval eligibility. Any new,
rehabilitated, or structurally modified bridge must receive an initial
inspection, be in service for 24 months, and receive its next routine
inspection before being eligible for inspection intervals greater than
24 months.
(b) Underwater inspections. Each bridge must be inspected at
regular intervals not to exceed the interval established using one of
the risk-based methods outlined in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified
assessment
[[Page 27434]]
of risk to classify each bridge into one of three categories for an
underwater inspection interval as described in this section.
(i) Regular intervals. Each bridge must be inspected at regular
intervals not to exceed 60 months, except as required in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section and allowed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this
section.
(ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments,
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document
criteria used to determine when intervals must be reduced below 60
months. Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials,
age, condition ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily
traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle/
vessel impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known
deficiencies.
(B) Certain bridges meeting at least any of the following criteria
as recorded in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315) must be inspected at
intervals not to exceed 24 months:
(1) The underwater portions of the bridge are in serious or worse
condition, as recorded by the Underwater Inspection Condition item
coded three (3) or less;
(2) The channel or channel protection is in serious or worse
condition, as recorded by the Channel Condition and Channel Protection
Condition items coded three (3) or less; or
(3) The observed scour condition is three (3) or less, as recorded
by the Scour Condition Rating item.
(C) Where condition ratings are coded three (3) or less due to
localized deficiencies, a special inspection of the underwater portions
of the bridge limited to those deficiencies, as described in Sec.
650.313(h), can be used to meet this requirement in lieu of a complete
underwater inspection. In such cases, a complete underwater inspection
must be conducted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section.
(iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain bridges meeting all of the
following criteria as recorded in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315) may be
inspected at intervals not to exceed 72 months:
(1) The underwater portions of the bridge are in satisfactory or
better condition, as recorded by the Underwater Inspection Condition
item coded six (6) or greater;
(2) The channel and channel protection are in satisfactory or
better condition, as indicated by the Channel Condition and Channel
Protection Condition items coded six (6) or greater;
(3) Stable for potential scour, Scour Vulnerability item coded A or
B, and Scour Condition Rating item is satisfactory or better, coded six
(6) or greater.
(B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal
governments that implement paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section
must develop and document an underwater extended interval policy and
must notify FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Factors to
consider include structure type, design, materials, age, condition
ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily traffic and annual
average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle/vessel impact damage,
loads and safe load capacity, and other known deficiencies.
(2) Method 2. Inspection intervals are determined by a more
rigorous assessment of risk. The policy and criteria which establishes
intervals, including subsequent changes, must be submitted by the State
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government 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 categories with an underwater
inspection interval not to exceed 24, 60, and 72 months.
(c) NSTM inspections. NSTMs must be inspected at regular intervals
not to exceed the interval established using one of the risk-based
methods outlined in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified
assessment of risk to classify each bridge into one of three risk
categories with an interval not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
(i) Regular intervals. Each NSTM must be inspected at intervals not
to exceed 24 months except as required in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section and allowed in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments,
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document
criteria to determine when intervals must be reduced below 24 months.
Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials, age,
condition, environment, annual average daily traffic and annual average
daily truck traffic, history of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe
load capacity, and other known deficiencies.
(B) Certain NSTMs meeting the following criteria as recorded in the
NBI (see Sec. 650.315) must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 12
months:
(1) The NSTMs are rated in poor or worse condition, as recorded by
the NSTM Inspection Condition item, coded 4 or less; or
(2) [Reserved].
(iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain NSTMs meeting all of the
following criteria may be inspected at intervals not to exceed 48
months:
(1) Bridge was constructed after 1978 as recorded in the NBI (see
Sec. 650.315) Year Built item and fabricated in accordance with a
fracture control plan;
(2) All NSTMs have no fatigue details with finite life;
(3) All NSTMs have no history of fatigue cracks;
(4) All NSTMs are rated in satisfactory or better condition, as
recorded in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315) by the NSTM Inspection
Condition item, coded 6 or greater; and
(5) The bridge's inventory rating is greater than or equal to the
standard AASHTO HS-20 or HL-93 loading and routine permit loads are not
restricted or not carried/issued, as recorded in the NBI (see Sec.
650.315) by the Inventory Load Rating Factor item coded greater than or
equal to 1.0 and the Routine Permit Loads item coded A or N;
(6) All NSTMs do not include pin and hanger assemblies.
(B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal
governments that implement paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section
must develop and document an extended interval policy, and notify FHWA
in writing prior to implementation. Factors to consider include
structure type, design, materials, age, condition, environment, annual
average daily traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history
of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known
deficiencies.
(2) Method 2. Inspection intervals are determined by a more
rigorous assessment of risk. The policy and criteria which establishes
intervals, including subsequent changes must be submitted by the State
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government 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 categories with a NSTM
inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
(d) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. A 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.
[[Page 27435]]
(e) Bridge inspection interval tolerance. (1) The acceptable
tolerance for intervals of less than 24 months for the next inspection
is up to two (2) months after the month in which the inspection was
due.
(2) The acceptable tolerance for intervals of 24 months or greater
for the next inspection is up to three (3) months after the month in
which the inspection was due.
(3) Exceptions to the inspection interval tolerance due to rare and
unusual circumstances must be approved by FHWA in advance of the
inspection due date plus the tolerance in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(f) Next inspection. Establish the next inspection interval for
each inspection type based on results of the inspection and
requirements of this section.
(g) Implementation. (1) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(b)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(ii) of this section must be satisfied within 24
months from June 6, 2022.
(2) Prior FHWA approved extended inspection interval policies will
be rescinded 24 months after June 6, 2022.
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 4.2, AASHTO Manual
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.317). Special equipment or
techniques, and/or traffic control are necessary for inspections in
circumstances where their use provide the only practical means of
accessing and/or determining the condition of the bridge. The equipment
may include advanced technologies listed in the BIRM.
(b) Initial inspection. Perform an initial inspection in accordance
with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317) for each new, replaced, rehabilitated, and temporary bridge as
soon as practical, but within 3 months of the bridge opening to
traffic.
(c) Routine inspection. Perform a routine inspection in accordance
with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317).
(d) In-depth inspection. Identify the location of bridge members
that need an in-depth inspection and document 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
portions of the bridge 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 bridge and for each bridge with portions underwater that have
been rehabilitated as soon as practical, but within 12 months of the
bridge opening to traffic.
(f) NSTM inspection. (1) Identify the locations of NSTMs in the
bridge files.
(i) A State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal
government may choose to demonstrate a member has system or internal
redundancy such that it is not considered an NSTM. The entity may
develop and submit a formal request for FHWA approval of procedures
using a nationally recognized method to determine that a member has
system or internal redundancy. FHWA will review the procedures for
approval based upon conformance with the nationally recognized method.
The request must include:
(A) Written policy and procedures for determining system or
internal redundancy.
(B) Identification of the nationally recognized method used to
determine system or internal redundancy. Nationally recognized means
developed, endorsed and disseminated by a national organization with
affiliates based in two or more States; or currently adopted for use by
one or more State governments or by the Federal Government; and is the
most current version.
(C) Baseline condition of the bridge(s) to which the policy is
being applied.
(D) Description of design and construction details on the member(s)
that may affect the system or internal redundancy.
(E) Routine inspection requirements for bridges with system or
internally redundant members.
(F) Special inspection requirements for the members with system or
internal redundancy.
(G) Evaluation criteria for when members should be reviewed to
ensure they still have system and internal redundancy.
(ii) Inspect the bridge using the approved methods outlined in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(E) and (F) of this section.
(2) Perform hands-on inspections of NSTMs in accordance with the
procedures developed in paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) Perform the first NSTM inspection for each bridge and for each
bridge with rehabilitated NSTMs as soon as practical, but within 12
months of the bridge opening 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). 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 features must be developed
for each bridge and contained in the bridge file.
(h) Special inspection. For special inspections used to monitor
conditions as described in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) of this
section, develop and document procedures in accordance with Section
4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.317).
(i) Service inspection. Perform a service inspection when the
routine inspection interval is greater than 48 months. Document the
inspection date and any required follow up actions in the bridge file.
(j) Team leader. Provide at least one team leader at the bridge who
meets the minimum qualifications stated in Sec. 650.309 and actively
participates in the inspection at all times during each initial,
routine, in-depth, NSTM, underwater inspection, and special inspection
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(k) Load rating. (1) Rate each bridge as to its safe load capacity
in accordance with the incorporated articles in Sections 6 and 8,
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.
(l) Load posting. (1) Implement load posting or restriction for a
bridge in accordance with the incorporated articles in Section 6,
AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.317), when the
maximum
[[Page 27436]]
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 annual average daily
traffic, annual average daily truck traffic, and loading conditions.
Posting shall be made as soon as possible but not later than 30 days
after a load rating determines a need for such posting. Implement load
posting in accordance with these procedures.
(3) Missing or illegible posting signs shall be corrected as soon
as possible but not later than 30 days after inspection or other
notification determines a need.
(m) 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.
(n) Bridge files. Prepare and maintain bridge files in accordance
with Section 2.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
650.317).
(o) Scour. (1) Perform a scour appraisal for all bridges over
water, and document the process and results in the bridge file. Re-
appraise when necessary to reflect changing scour conditions. Scour
appraisal procedures should be consistent with Hydraulic Engineering
Circulars (HEC) 18 and 20. Guidance for scour evaluations is located in
HEC 18 and 20, and guidance for scour assessment is located in HEC 20.
(2) For bridges which are determined to be scour critical or have
unknown foundations, prepare and document a scour POA for deployment of
scour countermeasures for known and potential deficiencies, and to
address safety concerns. The plan must address a schedule for repairing
or installing physical and/or hydraulic scour countermeasures, and/or
the use of monitoring as a scour countermeasure. Scour plans of actions
should be consistent with HEC 18 and 23.
(3) Execute action in accordance with the plan.
(p) Quality control and quality assurance. (1) Assure systematic QC
and QA procedures identified in Section 1.4, 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. QC and QA
reviews are to be performed by personnel other than the individual who
completed the original report or calculations.
(3) Perform QC and QA reviews and document the results of the QC
and QA process, including the tracking and completion of actions
identified in the procedures.
(4) Address the findings of the QC and QA reviews.
(q) Critical findings. (1) Document procedures to address critical
findings in a timely manner. Procedures must:
(i) Define critical findings considering the location and the
redundancy of the member affected and the extent and consequence of a
deficiency. Deficiencies include, but are not limited to scour, damage,
corrosion, section loss, settlement, cracking, deflection, distortion,
delamination, loss of bearing, and any condition posing an imminent
threat to public safety. At a minimum, include findings which warrant
the following:
(A) Full or partial closure of any bridge;
(B) An NSTM to be rated in serious or worse condition, as defined
in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315) by the NSTM Inspection item, coded three
(3) or less;
(C) A deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert component to
be rated in critical or worse condition, as defined in the NBI (see
Sec. 650.315) by the Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure Condition
Rating items, or the Culvert Condition Rating item, coded two (2) or
less;
(D) The channel condition or scour condition to be rated in
critical or worse condition as defined in the NBI (see Sec. 650.315)
by the Channel Condition Rating or Scour Condition Rating items, coded
critical (2) or less; or
(E) Immediate load restriction or posting, or immediate repair work
to a bridge, including shoring, in order to remain open.
(ii) Develop and document timeframes to address critical findings
identified in paragraph (q)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal
governments must inform FHWA of all critical findings and actions
taken, underway, or planned to resolve critical findings as follows:
(i) Notify FHWA within 24 hours of discovery of each critical
finding on the National Highway System (NHS) as identified in
paragraphs (q)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section;
(ii) Provide monthly, or as requested, a written status report for
each critical finding as identified in paragraph (q)(1)(i) of this
section until resolved. The report must contain:
(A) Owner;
(B) NBI 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.
(r) Review of compliance. Provide information annually or as
required in cooperation with any FHWA review of compliance with this
subpart.
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 this subpart. Inventory data, as defined in Sec. 650.305,
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. For
temporary bridges open to traffic greater than 24 months, inventory
data must be collected and submitted per this section. Inventory data
must include element level bridge inspection data for bridges on the
NHS collected in accordance with the ``Manual for Bridge Element
Inspection'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.317).
Specifications for collecting and reporting this data are contained in
the ``Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory'' (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 650.317).
(b) For all inspection types, enter changes to the inventory data
into the State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal
government inventory within 3 months after the month 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 3 months after the month
of 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 3 months after
the month the change in load restriction or closure status of the
bridge is implemented.
[[Page 27437]]
(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 Incorporation by reference .
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 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOT at:
U.S. Department of Transportation Library, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 in Room W12-300, (800) 853-1351, www.ntl.bts.gov/ntl. For information on the availability of this material at NARA
email: [email protected] or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material may be obtained from the
following sources:
(a) AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington,
DC 20004; 1-800-231-3475; https://store.transportation.org.
(1) MBE-3. ``The Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Third Edition,
2018; IBR approved for Sec. 650.305 and 650.313.:
(2) MBE-3-I1-OL. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2019 Interim
Revisions [to 2018 Third Edition], copyright 2018; IBR approved for
Sec. 650.305 and 650.313.
(3) MBE-3-I2. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2020 Interim
Revisions [to 2018 Third Edition], copyright 2020; IBR approved for
Sec. 650.305 and 650.313.
(4) MBEI-2: Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, Second Edition,
2019, IBR approved for Sec. 650.315.
(b) FHWA. Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590: 1-202-366-4000; www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm.
(1) FHWA-HIF-22-017: Specifications for the National Bridge
Inventory, March, 2022, IBR approved for Sec. 650.315.
(2) [Reserved].
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. 2022-09512 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P