Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74419

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lonnie W. Luther, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–104), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–8549, email: lonnie.luther@fda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Phoenix 

Scientific, Inc., 3915 South 48th St. Ter., 

St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 

200–382 for veterinary prescription use 

of Furosemide Syrup 1% in dogs by oral 

administration for treatment of edema 

associated with cardiac insufficiency 

and acute noninflammatory tissue 

edema. Phoenix Scientific’s Furosemide 

Syrup 1% is approved as a generic copy 

of Intervet, Inc.’s LASIX (furosemide) 

Syrup 1%, approved under NADA 102–

380. The ANADA is approved as of 

November 18, 2004, and the regulations 

are amended in 21 CFR 520.1010 to 

reflect the approval. The basis of 

approval is discussed in the freedom of 

information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of 

information provisions of 21 CFR part 

20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a 

summary of safety and effectiveness 

data and information submitted to 

support approval of this application 

may be seen in the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday.

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 

25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type 

that does not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required.

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

Animal drugs.

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the 

Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR 

part 520 is amended as follows:

PART 520–ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

■ 2. Section 520.1010 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows:

§ 520.1010 Furosemide.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) No. 059130 for use of syrup in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section for 

conditions of use in paragraph (d)(2)(i) 

and (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.

* * * * *

Dated: December 6, 2004.

Stephen F. Sundlof,

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 04–27291 Filed 12–13–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 650 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2001–8954] 

RIN 2125–AE86 

National Bridge Inspection Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is revising its 

regulation on the National Bridge 

Inspection Standards (NBIS). This 

action is necessary to address perceived 

ambiguities in the NBIS that have been 

identified since the last update to the 

regulation in 1988. The changes clarify 

the NBIS language that is vague or 

ambiguous; reorganizes the NBIS into a 

more logical sequence; and makes the 

regulation easier to read and 

understand, not only by the inspector in 

the field, but also by those 

administering the highway bridge 

inspection programs at the State or 

Federal agency level.

DATES: This rule is effective January 13, 

2005. The incorporation by reference of 

the publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of January 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wade F. Casey, P.E., Federal Lands 

Highway, HFPD–9, (202) 366–9486, or 

Mr. Robert Black, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, HCC–30, (202) 366–1359, 

Federal Highway Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. Office hours are from 7:45 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded by using a 

computer, modem and suitable 

communications software from the 

Government Printing Office’s Electronic 

Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may also reach the 

Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at: http://www.archives.gov and the 

Government Printing Office’s Web page 

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background 

The FHWA bridge inspection program 

regulations were developed as a result 

of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 

(Pub. L. 90–495, 82 Stat. 815) that 

required the Secretary of Transportation 

to establish NBIS to ensure the safety of 

the traveling public. 

The 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act 

directed the States to maintain an 

inventory of Federal-aid highway 

system bridges. The Federal-Aid 

Highway Act of 1970 (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 NBIS 

requirements to bridges greater than 20 

feet 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 

bridge inspection programs to include 

special inspection procedures for 

fracture critical members and 

underwater inspection. 

The FHWA published an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on September 26, 2001, (66 

FR 49154) to solicit comments on 

whether to revise its regulation on the 

NBIS. The majority of commenters to 

the ANPRM recommended that the 

FHWA revise the NBIS regulation. 

Discussion of Comments Received to 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) 

The FHWA published an NPRM on 

September 9, 2003, at 68 FR 53063, to 

solicit public comments on proposed 

changes to the NBIS. All comments 

received to the NPRM were carefully 

considered in the decision to publish a 

final rule. Commenters included: 

representatives from 1 Federal agency, 

25 States, 44 counties, 9 cities, 1 Indian 

tribal government, 4 consulting firms, 

the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the Association of Diving 

Contractors International (ADCI), the 

Illinois Association of County Engineers 

(IACE), the National Association of 

County Engineers (NACE) and 3 private 

citizens. 

Discussion of Rulemaking Text 

The following summarizes the 

comments submitted to the docket by 

74420 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1The American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for 

Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 2000, Second 

Edition may be obtained upon payment in advance 

by writing to AASHTO, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW., 

Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001; or it may be 

ordered on line at the following URL: http://

www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/frontpage.

2The IRRBP was established under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (see 

23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A) and the regulation can be 

found at 23 CFR 661) for improving deficient Indian 

reservation road highway bridges.

the commenters on the NPRM, notes 

where and why changes have been 

made to the rule, and why particular 

recommendations or suggestions have 

not been incorporated into the following 

regulations. Paragraph references are as 

designated in the NPRM, unless 

otherwise stated. 

Summary of Comments 

In general, comments received to the 

NPRM provided both support for and 

opposition to the proposed changes. A 

number of commenters were concerned 

about the cost of the proposed changes 

versus the benefit and impact on bridge 

safety. Other commenters believed that 

the proposed regulation would help 

strengthen and improve the nation’s 

bridge inspection program. Some 

commenters argued that there were still 

areas of ambiguity. Other commenters 

noted we had achieved our objective of 

addressing ambiguities in the current 

NBIS regulation. Commenters provided 

a lot of very good suggestions that have 

been considered in the final rule. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 650.301 Purpose 

The FHWA did not receive any 

comments that specifically addressed 

this section. 

Section 650.303 Applicability 

The Missouri and Massachusetts 

DOTs agreed that the NBIS apply only 

to highway bridges. 

The Illinois and Oklahoma DOTs as 

well as the AASHTO asked that 

definitions of ‘‘public road’’ and 

‘‘highway bridge’’ be included to further 

clarify applicability. The Oregon DOT 

and the U.S. Navy also wanted to 

include a definition for ‘‘highway 

bridge.’’

FHWA response: The terms ‘‘public 

road’’ and ‘‘highway’’ are already 

defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. We added to 

the list of definitions in § 650.305 a 

reference to the existing definitions for 

‘‘public road’’ and ‘‘highway.’’

The Iowa DOT pointed out that the 

AASHTO Manual for Condition 

Evaluation of Bridges 1 (hereinafter 

referred to as the AASHTO Manual) 

includes bridges that carry pedestrians 

and other non-highway passageways 

and that the NBIS needs to be very clear 

that it does not apply to these 

structures.

FHWA response: As clearly stated in 

§ 650.303, the NBIS apply only to 

‘‘highway bridges’’ located on ‘‘public 

roads.’’ The AASHTO Manual may 

discuss other non-highway 

passageways; however, these bridges are 

not covered under the NBIS.

Collins Engineers and the U.S. Navy 

were concerned regarding the 

inspection of pedestrian and railroad 

bridges and potential threat to travelers 

on public highways. Likewise, Collins 

Engineers was concerned about 

privately owned bridges used by the 

motoring public. 

FHWA response: Some confusion has 

existed about the applicability of the 

NBIS to privately owned highway 

bridges. While 23 U.S.C. 151 states that 

the NBIS are for all highway bridges, the 

FHWA has no legal authority to require 

private bridge owners to inspect and 

maintain their bridges. While the FHWA 

does not have the authority to compel 

the States to inspect privately owned 

highway bridges, the FHWA strongly 

encourages that private bridge owners 

follow the NBIS as the standard for 

inspecting privately owned highway 

bridges. Because of the seamless nature 

of the transportation infrastructure 

within many States, the motoring public 

does not know the difference between a 

privately owned and publicly owned 

highway bridge. Therefore, States 

should encourage private bridge owners 

to inspect their highway bridges in 

accordance with the NBIS or reroute any 

public highways away from such 

bridges if NBIS inspections are not 

conducted. 

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) 

lists roughly 2,200 privately owned 

highway bridges in some 41 States and 

Puerto Rico. However, the total number 

of privately owned highway bridges is 

unknown because the States are not 

required to report them to the FHWA. 

Many privately owned highway bridges 

can be assumed to carry public roads, 

some of which could be significant 

highways. The FHWA does not know if 

privately owned highway bridges are 

inspected using the NBIS or other 

standard and the FHWA does not know 

the level to which privately owned 

highway bridges are maintained. 

Public authorities must follow the 

NBIS for all highway bridges located on 

all public roads. The term ‘‘public road’’

is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(27) as 

‘‘any road or street under the 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a 

public authority and open to public 

travel.’’ The NBIS applies to seasonally 

or periodically opened public roads and 

to limited access public access roads. 

Highway bridges owned by Indian 

tribes are in a separate category. Indian 

tribes, as sovereign nations, have a 

unique government-to-government 

relationship with the Federal 

government. There is no explicit 

requirement in 23 U.S.C. 144 that 

requires inventory of tribally owned 

bridges. Likewise, there is no explicit 

requirement in 23 U.S.C. 151 that 

requires inspection of tribally owned 

bridges. Absent such clear language, the 

FHWA has no legal authority to require 

federally recognized Indian tribes to 

inventory tribally owned bridges or to 

comply with the NBIS. On the other 

hand, in order for tribally owned 

bridges to participate in the Indian 

Reservation Road Bridge Program 

(IRRBP) 2 and be eligible for Federal 

funding, a tribally owned bridge has to 

be inspected and placed in the NBI. 

Hence, for purposes of this rule, tribally 

owned bridges mean those bridges 

designed and constructed to FHWA 

standards, meeting the NBIS definition 

of a bridge, and open to the public. 

Finally, the FHWA strongly encourages 

that Indian tribes follow the NBIS, as 

the standard for inspecting tribally 

owned bridges, particularly those open 

to public travel (see 23 U.S.C. 151 for 

the statutory requirement for the 

National bridge inspection program).

The FHWA recognizes that the NBIS 

does not apply to federally owned 

bridges on roads that are used only by 

employees and not open to the general 

public. These bridges and 

administratively used roads support 

behind-the-scenes operations and are 

intended for use by employees engaged 

in official business. 

The NBIS does not apply to tunnels, 

bridges that carry only pedestrians, 

railroad tracks, pipelines, or other types 

of non-highway passageways. Public 

authorities or bridge owners are strongly 

encouraged to inspect these nonhighway carrying bridges and other 

significant structures. Similarly, the 

NBIS does not apply to the inspection 

of sign support structures, high mast 

lighting, retaining walls, noise barriers 

structures, and overhead traffic signs. 

Public authorities have an obligation to 

the motoring public to periodically 

inspect and maintain these facilities. 

Non-public authorities including utility 

companies, railroads, and private 

owners who may own these facilities, 

are strongly encouraged to periodically 

inspect and maintain their structures for 

the safety of the motoring public. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74421

3The ‘‘Recording and Coding Guide for Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’

December 1995, Report No. FHWA–PD–96–001, is 

available electronically at the following URL:

http//www.fhwa.dot.gov//bridge/mtguide.doc and 

may be inspected and copied as prescribed in 49 

CFR part 7.

4 IRRBP funds are provided under the Federal 

Lands Highway Program see 23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A) 

and the regulation can be found at 23 CFR 661.

There are some minimal NBI data 

items that are collected for highway 

tunnels and non-highway bridges over 

certain highways that can be collected 

without trespassing on private property. 

These items are described in the 

‘‘Recording and Coding Guide for the 

Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the 

Nation’s Bridges.’’ 3

The Chickasaw Nation commented 

that it agreed that tribally owned bridges 

are not subject to 23 U.S.C. 144 

explicitly, however; if a tribally owned 

bridge is planned for replacement with 

Federal funds such as IRRBP funds,4

then an inspection must be conducted. 

It also cautioned against considering 

tribally owned bridges not subject to the 

NBIS when many tribes consider all 

Indian Reservation Road (IRR) routes 

and bridges that fall within Indian lands 

to be tribally owned with right of way 

granted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

It indicated that all bridges that fall on 

an IRR to be public regardless of 

ownership.

FHWA response: As stated previously, 

one of the requirements for participation 

in the IRRBP and eligibility for Federal 

funding is for the bridge to be recorded 

in the NBI maintained by the FHWA 

(see 23 CFR 661.25). In order for this to 

occur the bridge has to be inspected 

regardless of ownership. Therefore we 

agree that a tribally owned bridge needs 

to be inspected and placed in the NBI 

in order to obtain Federal funding via 

the IRRBP. For purposes of this rule, 

tribally owned bridges mean those 

bridges designed and constructed to 

FHWA standards, meeting the NBIS 

definition of a bridge, and open to the 

public. This rule addresses the 

responsibility for bridge safety 

inspections. It does not provide or 

intend to address ownership or 

jurisdictional issues of bridges on 

Indian reservations. 

Section 650.305 Definitions 

The Massachusetts, South Dakota and 

Tennessee DOTs were in favor of 

including a definition section. 

The South Dakota DOT wanted 

clarification of what is meant by ‘‘major 

flood event,’’ ‘‘critical finding,’’ and 

‘‘predominant bridge inspection 

experience.’’ The Tennessee DOT 

wanted to know what ‘‘critical finding’’

means as used in the proposed 

§ 650.313(l).

FHWA response: We added a 

definition for ‘‘critical finding.’’ A 

definition for ‘‘major flood event’’ is not 

required since the term has been 

removed from the regulation. We 

believe that the definition for ‘‘bridge 

inspection experience,’’ which includes 

the statement that ‘‘the predominate 

amount’’ of experience be ‘‘bridge 

inspection,’’ adequately addresses the 

intent that a preponderance of the 

experience for qualification should 

come from other than bridge design, 

bridge maintenance or bridge 

construction experience. 

The Kansas DOT wanted the NBIS to 

either define, replace or eliminate the 

following terms: ‘‘public road,’’

‘‘highway bridge,’’ ‘‘professional 

engineer,’’ ‘‘predominant and 

substantial,’’ ‘‘80 hours,’’ ‘‘damage 

inspection,’’ and ‘‘routine permit 

inspection.’’

The Iowa and Kansas DOTs as well as 

the AASHTO each recommended that 

the definition for ‘‘damage inspection’’

be changed. The Illinois DOT proposed 

a definition for ‘‘damage inspection.’’

The Missouri DOT indicated a 

preference for retaining the current 

definition for a ‘‘bridge.’’ The Iowa DOT 

recommended a change in the first 

sentence of the ‘‘bridge’’ definition 

deleting reference to ‘‘other moving 

loads.’’

The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO 

did not like the 80-hour requirement 

used in the definition for 

‘‘comprehensive bridge inspection 

training.’’ The Kansas DOT was also 

concerned about its impact on local 

agencies being able to find qualified 

consultants with this level of training. 

The Iowa DOT as well as the 

AASHTO recommended inclusion of 

the term ‘‘professional engineer’’ within 

the NBIS. 

The New Jersey DOT wanted to 

include a definition for ‘‘public road.’’

The Washington DOT wanted the 

term ‘‘public authority’’ defined in the 

NBIS. 

The Wyoming DOT commented that 

the NBIS should clearly identify 

whether it applies to ‘‘privately owned 

bridges,’’ those located on seasonally 

opened roads, and those with limited 

access. 

FHWA response: Definitions have 

been added for ‘‘professional engineer’’

and ‘‘damage inspection.’’ The 

definition from the AASHTO manual for 

‘‘damage inspection’’ that was proposed 

by the Illinois DOT has been adopted. 

The terms ‘‘80 hours,’’ ‘‘substantial,’’

‘‘routine permit inspection,’’ and 

‘‘public authority’’ will not be used in 

the regulation. The term ‘‘predominate’’

will continue to be used in the 

definition of bridge inspection 

experience as explained above. The 

terms ‘‘highway’’ and ‘‘public road’’ are 

already defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 (a) (11) 

and (27), respectively. Since the U. S. 

Code takes precedence over regulations, 

we reference 23 U.S.C. for the 

definitions for highway and public road. 

These definitions will be cited in 

§ 650.305. 

We will continue to use the AASHTO 

definition for ‘‘bridge,’’ an action 

supported by the majority of 

commenters. The FHWA adopted the 

AASHTO definition for ‘‘bridge’’ early 

in the National Bridge Inspection 

Program. Title 23, U.S.C., section 151 

directed the Secretary to establish 

national bridge inspection standards in 

consultation with the State 

transportation departments and 

interested and knowledgeable private 

organizations and individuals. 

Consultation with the State 

transportation departments through the 

AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on 

Bridges and Structures, convinced the 

FHWA to adopt the AASHTO definition 

of bridge that has been used since the 

NBIS was first drafted. 

The ADCI wanted the NBIS to include 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulation 

requirements when diving operations 

are conducted. The ADCI also 

commented that a definition for OSHA 

Safety Standards for Commercial Diving 

Operations be included in the NBIS. 

The ADCI also recommended that the 

term ‘‘designated diving supervisor’’ be 

included with the definitions along with 

a revised definition for underwater 

inspection to indicate diving operations 

shall be completed in accordance with 

OSHA regulations. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

that safe diving practices as prescribed 

by OSHA regulations should be 

employed during all bridge inspection 

diving, but we do not reference them. 

OSHA regulations pertain to both 

underwater and above-water 

inspections, so any omission in this 

standard does not relieve diving 

inspectors of the requirement to follow 

OSHA regulations. 

The term ‘‘designated diving 

supervisor’’ is not used in the regulation 

and will not be included in the 

definition section. 

The Tennessee DOT provided 

commentary and questions regarding 

the use of the terms ‘‘action plan’’ and 

‘‘inspection plan.’’

FHWA response: The Tennessee DOT 

points out that these terms are used 

throughout the regulation and that their 

74422 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

intent should be clear and consistent. 

Where these terms are used, we have 

made changes to clarify their meaning, 

or we have removed them. Refer to the 

preamble discussion of § 650.313. 

The AASHTO and Kansas DOT 

indicated that the word ‘‘and’’ was 

missing in the AASHTO title. 

FHWA response: We agree and have 

made this change. 

The Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Kansas, Michigan, Iowa, and Arkansas 

DOTs along with the AASHTO asked for 

a more precise definition of the terms 

used in the definition for ‘‘bridge 

inspection experience.’’ The IACE 

discussed the impact of this definition 

on inspections performed by local 

agencies. 

FHWA response: We have reviewed 

the definition of ‘‘bridge inspection 

experience’’ and made minor changes to 

address these comments. We noted that 

this definition is adequate to convey the 

minimum requirements for experience 

to assure that inspectors are qualified. 

The New Jersey, Minnesota and 

Tennessee DOTs wanted clarification of 

the term ‘‘complex bridge.’’

FHWA response: The definition gives 

the States latitude to determine which 

bridges should be placed in this 

category and receive special attention. 

Including complex bridges in § 650.313 

captures the intent in the AASHTO 

Manual that some structures deserve 

special attention. Cable stayed bridges, 

suspension bridges, and movable 

bridges require specialized procedures. 

The bridge inspection program manager, 

as defined in § 650.305, may determine 

that other bridge types require special 

attention. 

The Michigan DOT recommended 

defining the term ‘‘fatigue sensitive’’ to 

distinguish from the term ‘‘fracture 

critical.’’

FHWA response: Since the term 

‘‘fatigue sensitive’’ refers to steel 

members or details that may or may not 

be part of a load-path redundant system, 

and since this term is not used in the 

regulation, we have not added a 

definition to § 650.305. 

The Iowa DOT recommended that 

‘‘fracture critical inspection’’ be 

changed to ‘‘fracture critical member 

inspection.’’ It also provided some 

commentary on the use of the term 

‘‘hands on’’ in this definition and made 

some suggestions to modify the 

definition. The Minnesota and Oregon 

DOT were concerned about the 

definition for ‘‘fracture critical member’’

and recommended that it be rewritten.

FHWA response: The term ‘‘fracture 

critical’’ is consistent with the AASHTO 

Manual. The term ‘‘fracture critical 

member inspection’’ will be used in the 

regulation. The intent is to give special 

attention to member or member 

components in spans that do not have 

load path redundancy. 

The IACE, Michigan and Iowa DOTs 

commented that the definition for 

‘‘hands-on’’ inspection should be 

modified using ‘‘may be supplemented 

by nondestructive testing’’ instead of 

‘‘are supplemented by nondestructive 

testing.’’

The Iowa DOT recommended that the 

definition for ‘‘in-depth inspection’’ be 

modified to note that ‘‘hands on 

inspection may be necessary’’ but not 

mandatory. 

FHWA response: The second sentence 

of the definition for ‘‘hands-on’’ has 

been modified by changing ‘‘are’’ to 

‘‘may be’’ so that nondestructive testing 

is not a requirement of hands-on 

inspection. The definition for ‘‘in-depth 

inspection’’ has been modified to note 

that hands-on inspection may be 

necessary at some locations. 

The Michigan DOT provided a 

discussion and questions regarding 

initial inspection. Their discussion 

states that the definition should include 

the term ‘‘routine inspection 

procedures’’ and require timelines for 

ratings. Collins Engineers commenting 

on § 650.311(a)(1) pointed out that the 

depth of routine, biennial inspections 

varies greatly and recommended a 

change reflecting that routine 

inspections be performed hands-on. 

FHWA response: We have adopted the 

definitions for inspection types 

including ‘‘initial’’ and ‘‘routine’’ that 

are consistent with the AASHTO 

Manual. 

The Indiana and Maryland DOTs 

provided commentary and suggested 

that the definition and role of the 

‘‘program manager’’ needs clarification. 

FHWA response: The Indiana DOT’s 

concern is that the definition allows 

more than one program manager. That is 

a correct assessment of our intent. We 

do not want to restrict those States that 

want to have more than one program 

manager. However, the FHWA desires 

one individual with overall 

responsibility for § 650.307(c)(1) and (2). 

The Maryland DOT wants the definition 

changed to ‘‘eliminate the need for any 

small local jurisdiction to require fully 

trained individuals.’’ A qualified team 

leader must be present for each initial, 

routine, in-depth, fracture critical 

member and underwater inspection, 

regardless of the jurisdiction, and a 

program manager must be available to 

provide overall direction to team 

leaders. The program manager 

definition in § 650.305 has been revised 

and the role clarified in § 650.307. 

The Arkansas DOT wanted the term 

‘‘responsible capacity’’ defined in the 

NBIS. 

FHWA response: We have removed 

this term from the regulation. 

The Iowa, Kansas and Washington 

DOTs as well as the AASHTO 

recommended that the definition for 

‘‘legal load’’ be modified. 

FHWA response: This definition 

allows the States the flexibility to use 

their own legal loads, established in 

State law. 

The Illinois, Kansas, and Wisconsin 

DOTs and the AASHTO recommended 

changes for the definition ‘‘routine 

permit load.’’

FHWA response: We have amended 

the definition in § 650.305 to reflect 

these recommendations. 

The Texas and Oklahoma DOTs 

recommended that the definition for 

‘‘scour critical’’ be modified.

FHWA response: We have considered 

the comments on this topic and have 

provided a definition for ‘‘scour critical 

bridge.’’ The NBI item number 113, 

scour critical bridge, is used to identify 

the current status of a bridge regarding 

its vulnerability to scour. 

The observed scour condition is one 

determined during a bridge inspection, 

or during/after a flood event. A 

conclusion of instability would 

typically be attained by comparing the 

observed scour condition with: (a) The 

known foundation type and tip 

elevation, and (b) computed scour 

critical elevation as determined by an 

interdisciplinary team. 

The evaluated scour condition is one 

determined by: (1) An assessment of the 

bridge information available such as 

foundation type and tip elevation; 

location of the bridge; review of bridge 

inspection files; comparison of channel 

profiles upstream of the bridge, within 

the bridge opening and downstream of 

the bridge; soil type; historical data from 

other bridges on an adjacent stream, 

and/or (2) a calculation to determine 

potential scour around the bridge 

foundation and/or stream instability in 

the vicinity of the bridge. 

The Washington DOT recommended 

that the NBIS include a definition for 

‘‘State transportation department.’’

FHWA response: The term ‘‘State 

transportation department’’ is already 

defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11). 

Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection 

Organization 

Federally Owned Bridges 

The Missouri DOT wanted 

clarification that in § 650.307(a) States 

are relieved of responsibility for 

federally owned bridges. The Kansas 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74423

DOT indicated it is having problems 

obtaining data on federally owned 

bridges. The AASHTO suggested that 

supplying Federal bridge data is waived 

for Federal agencies. 

FHWA response: States are no longer 

responsible for reporting inspection data 

on Federal bridges to the FHWA. 

Federal bridge owners report inspection 

data directly to the FHWA. The FHWA 

supplies Federal bridge inspection data 

to the States. For security and other 

purposes, the States should have an upto-date inventory of Federal bridges 

located within each State. 

Bridge Inspection Program 

Responsibility 

The Michigan and Iowa DOTs in 

response to § 650.307(a) argued that 

public authorities and/or bridge owners 

should be responsible for bridge 

inspections and not the State. The 

Washington DOT noted that the 

majority of county and city bridges are 

inspected by their owners. 

FHWA response: The present bridge 

inspection standards regulation requires 

the States to have a bridge inspection 

organization capable of performing the 

bridge inspections (23 CFR 650.303(a)). 

The part of the regulation that requires 

the actual inspection of all bridges on 

public roads (§ 650.305(a)) is written in 

the passive voice. Consequently, there 

might be some confusion as to who is 

responsible for inspecting each highway 

bridge in a State. 

The FHWA believes, however, that 

the language of 23 U.S.C. 151 is clear 

that a State is ultimately responsible for 

the inspection of public highway 

bridges within the State, except for 

those that are federally owned or 

tribally owned. Subsection (a) of section 

151 directs the Secretary, ‘‘in 

consultation with the State 

transportation departments and 

interested and knowledgeable private 

organizations,’’ to establish the bridge 

inspection standards for ‘‘all highway 

bridges.’’ In subsection (b) the Congress 

mandates that the standards shall, at a 

minimum, ‘‘specify, in detail, the 

method by which such inspections shall 

be carried out by the States.’’ The final 

rule clears up any ambiguity caused by 

the existing regulation. 

The State DOT can delegate to a 

smaller unit of the State, for example, a 

city or county, the inspection of bridges 

owned or controlled by that unit. A 

State can direct smaller State units to 

conduct the NBIS inspections on 

bridges under its control and that would 

satisfy § 650.307. However, because of 

the fundamental relationship 

established in title 23 of the U.S. Code 

between the FHWA and a State DOT, if 

the inspections by a city or county were 

not done, the FHWA could withhold 

Federal-aid highway funds from the 

State. 

Bridge Inspection Funding 

The NACE commented on 

§ 650.307(a) and asked why counties 

have to complete inspections using their 

own funds. 

FHWA response: Federal Bridge 

Funds (i.e., Highway Bridge 

Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program (HBRRP) funds) can be spent 

on bridge inspection activities, 

regardless of the agency performing the 

inspections. The use and distribution of 

HBRRP funds within the State is within 

the State’s discretion. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

The Wyoming DOT commented on 

§ 650.307(c)(1) that all references to 

‘‘quality assurance (QA)’’ be removed. 

FHWA response: In the past, the 

FHWA addressed QA as part of a 

nonregulatory supplement to the 

Federal-aid program guide. QA is also 

addressed in the AASHTO Manual. 

Many States currently have active QA 

programs; some do not. The FHWA 

believes that it is imperative that a 

statewide or Federal agency wide QA 

program be in place to assure that bridge 

inspections are being conducted in 

accordance with these standards and to 

assure the quality of inspection data. We 

have included a definition of quality 

control (QC) and QA to reflect this in 

§ 650.305. 

Role of Consultants 

The Washington DOT had a question 

regarding § 650.307(c) for acceptable 

roles of consultants based on the 

discussion in the preamble to the 

NPRM. 

FHWA response: Consultants may 

perform § 650.307(c)(1) and/or (2) 

activities and functions. To ensure that 

all NBIS requirements are met, the State 

still needs a program manager, even 

when paragraph (c)(1) activities are 

performed by consultants. 

The California DOT supports the 

changes contained in § 650.307(c). 

OSHA Standards 

The ADCI wanted to amend 

§ 650.307(c) to add requirements for 

bridge inspection organizations to 

conduct dive operations in a safe 

manner by establishing dive team 

member qualifications and training for 

the conduct of safe diving operations 

that meet or exceed OSHA standards. 

FHWA response: This comment was 

previously addressed in the discussion 

of § 650.305 regarding diving operations 

meeting or exceeding OSHA standards. 

Delegation of NBIS Functions 

The Hillsdale County Road 

Commission (HCRC) in Michigan, 

commented that § 650.307(d) may 

enable the State to perform inspections 

of county bridges and was concerned 

about what will be charged and whether 

control will be lost regarding bridge 

postings.

FHWA response: States have always 

had the responsibility for inspections 

under the NBIS. Delegation of the NBIS 

functions to counties and other local 

agencies is a State issue. 

Written Agreements 

The Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, and 

Michigan DOTs as well as the AASHTO 

commented on § 650.307(d) and the 

ramifications of entering in agreements 

with local agencies, stating such 

agreements should not be part of the 

NBIS. The Indiana DOT indicated that 

it would need additional resources (i.e., 

funding) in order to comply with this 

section and stated that the intent of 

clearly defining responsibilities was 

good, but did not require a regulatory 

change. The Illinois DOT and the IACE 

maintain that local agencies and the 

State have excellent working 

relationships and need no agreements or 

State statutes. The New Jersey DOT 

expressed concern that this section 

might be interpreted to mean that bridge 

inspections are discretionary and may 

limit delegation to public authorities. 

The Minnesota DOT suggested a rewrite 

to this section to indicate that 

delegation does not relieve the State of 

program oversight or quality assurance. 

The Alabama DOT commented that the 

FHWA should ‘‘acknowledge that States 

may delegate NBIS requirements (not 

responsibilities) in accordance with any 

laws, regulations or policies that the 

States may have in effect.’’ The 

California DOT supported the proposed 

change. The Marshal and Miami 

Counties in Kansas indicated that the 

States should be responsible to assure 

compliance and delegation should be by 

written agreement. The Miami County 

in Kansas further commented that the 

consequences of not following the NBIS 

should be strongly stated. Thirty-seven 

Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, 

and one Kansas consultant commented 

that they did not want written 

agreements that were proposed in 

§ 650.307(d) and that local agencies 

currently have a good working 

relationship with the State. 

FHWA response: The FHWA has 

reconsidered its position on written 

agreements after reviewing the many 

74424 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

5Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway 

Bridges Vols I and II [FHWA–RD–01–020 ; FHWA–

RD–01–021] is a publication which documents 

research done on the accuracy and reliability of the 

highway bridge inspection process. This report is 

available through the National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 or 

it may be ordered online at the following URL: 

http://www.ntis.gov.

comments provided. The proposed 

requirement that delegation must be 

according to State law or fully executed 

written agreements has been removed. 

However, State transportation 

departments are encouraged to use 

formal means in delegating these 

activities and it is essential that all 

parties involved have a clear 

understanding as to what requirements 

are and are not being delegated. The 

State is still ultimately responsible for 

the inspection of public highway 

bridges within the State, except for 

those that are federally owned or 

tribally owned. 

Program Manager Leadership 

The Indiana DOT, in response to 

§ 650.307(e), stated it would need 

additional resources (i.e., funding) in 

order to comply with this section and 

argued that it did not require a 

regulatory change. The Illinois, 

Alabama, Kansas, Michigan and Oregon 

DOTs as well as the AASHTO were 

concerned regarding proposed language 

related to the requirement for ‘‘program 

manager.’’

The Illinois DOT noted that many 

local agencies use consulting engineers 

and that the rule change prohibits 

‘‘program managers’’ from being 

consultants. The NACE stated that 

program manager guidelines are 

sufficient; however, the expectation that 

the same experience be required of a 

town with one bridge is not practical. 

The Marshal County in Kansas 

commented that delegated authorities be 

allowed to hire consultants to act as 

‘‘project’’ managers. The Iowa DOT 

commented that § 650.307(e) 

qualification standard would place more 

education, training and experience 

requirements onto the counties and 

cities. Thirty-seven Kansas counties, 

seven Kansas cities, and one Kansas 

consultant commented that local 

agencies should continue to have the 

option to hire a consultant to handle 

inspections. The Alcona County Road 

Commission (ACRC) in Michigan 

commented that program manager 

requirements applying to towns with 

only one bridge is cause for serious local 

agency concern and requires further 

discussion. 

FHWA response: The FHWA has 

reconsidered its position regarding each 

organizational unit being led by a 

program manager. The program manager 

qualification requirement applies to the 

overall State or Federal agency program 

level. Each State transportation 

department or Federal agency is only 

required to have one statewide or 

Federal agency wide program manager. 

Applying the program manager 

requirement to organizational sub-units 

or delegated agencies is at the discretion 

of the State or Federal agency. However, 

State transportation departments remain 

responsible for the application of these 

standards to all highway bridges, even 

when inspections or other requirements 

are delegated. For this reason, State 

transportation departments should be 

cautious when delegating inspections or 

other requirements to local agencies that 

do not have a qualified bridge 

inspection program manager. In such 

cases, as in the example of the small 

town with one bridge and no qualified 

program manager, the State will assume 

a direct program manager role in the 

delegated inspection program. 

Qualified consultants may be hired or 

contracted by State transportation 

departments, their delegated agencies, 

and Federal agencies to perform the 

activities and functions of these 

standards. However, to ensure that all of 

the requirements of these standards are 

met, the States or Federal agencies still 

need a program manager, even when 

consultants perform § 650.307(c)(1) 

activities and functions.

Section 650.309 Qualifications of 

Personnel 

Professional Engineer Discipline; 

Comprehensive and Refresher Training 

The Missouri DOT commented 

relative to § 650.309 (a)(1), that the NBIS 

should not specify the discipline of the 

professional engineer and that the States 

or Federal agencies can elect to adopt 

even more specific requirements. A 

private citizen noted that the 

professional engineer discipline should 

be specified as structural, and, that too 

much emphasis was placed on the 

professional engineer title rather than 

the amount and extent of experience 

and training. The New Jersey DOT 

stated that the program manager should 

be required to have field experience. 

FHWA response: Our position 

remains as stated in the preamble to the 

NPRM that the laws governing licensure 

within each State or Federal agency 

ensure that professional engineers only 

practice engineering in the fields in 

which they are qualified and 

experienced. Furthermore, the State or 

Federal agency is responsible for 

ensuring that those individuals involved 

in the bridge inspection program meet 

the minimum qualifications defined in 

the NBIS. Although the regulations do 

not specify the engineering discipline of 

the professional engineer, individual 

States or Federal agencies can adopt 

requirements that are more stringent 

than the minimum requirements 

established by the NBIS. 

The FHWA agrees that additional 

emphasis on training is needed. 

Recommendations from the June 2001 

FHWA study of the ‘‘Reliability of 

Visual Inspection for Highway 

Bridges’’ 5 also support the need for 

further emphasis on training. 

Accordingly, the regulation includes 

comprehensive training and refresher 

training requirements for program 

managers and team leaders.

Program Manager Qualifications 

The South Dakota DOT indicated that 

they have a professional engineer 

exemption within their State and asked 

how the FHWA would address this 

issue. 

FHWA response: Section 650.309 

(a)(1) allows two ways of qualifying as 

a program manager, one of which is 

being a professional engineer. In those 

instances where the State exempts its 

staff from registration requirements, a 

program manager would have to either 

be a professional engineer, despite the 

exemption for State government 

employees, or have 10 years of bridge 

inspection experience. 

Completion of Comprehensive Bridge 

Inspection Training 

Mr. Todd Hertel commented on 

§ 650.309(a)(2), asking why the program 

manager is given 12 months to complete 

training and not the team leader. 

FHWA response: Ideally, an 

individual will have completed the 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training prior to becoming a team leader 

or program manager. Exceptions to this 

should be rare. In recognition of the fact 

that some flexibility is needed to 

accommodate employee turnover and 

scheduling of the training, we have 

removed the 12-month time frame from 

§ 650.309(a)(2). As stated above, the 

expectation is that individuals will 

complete the comprehensive training 

prior to becoming program managers or 

team leaders. When this is not possible, 

those individuals will aggressively seek 

to obtain the training as soon as 

possible, preferably within 12 months of 

becoming a program manager or team 

leader. Prior successful completion of 

the FHWA approved comprehensive 

bridge inspection training is acceptable 

for individuals serving as program 

managers and team leaders at the time 

this regulation becomes effective. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74425

6The Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

(BIRM), 2003, FHWA–NHI–03–001, may be 

purchased from the U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC and from National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 

22161, and may be viewed online at the following 

URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bripub.htm.

7 Information regarding NHI training course 

material can be obtained by contacting the FHWA 

Report Center at the following electronic mail 

address: report.center@fhwa.dot.gov.

County Engineer Qualifications 

The HCRC in Michigan asked if a 

county engineer would still be qualified 

to administer the county program that is 

performed by a consulting firm and if 

small consulting firms would be able to 

adhere to these personnel requirements. 

FHWA response: The roles and 

responsibilities of a program manager 

have been clarified in § 650.307. The 

qualifications for a program manager or 

team leader apply regardless of the 

individual’s employer, i.e., State, 

county, city, consulting firm, etc. 

Comprehensive Bridge Inspection 

Training Requirement 

The Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, 

Minnesota, Kansas, and Virginia DOTs 

as well as the AASHTO and the IACE 

in commenting on § 650.309(a)(2) do not 

agree with the requirement for 

‘‘comprehensive bridge inspection 

training’’ for program managers 

particularly those who are professional 

engineers. The Massachusetts, South 

Dakota and California DOTs support the 

requirement for ‘‘comprehensive bridge 

inspection training’’ for program 

managers. The Pennsylvania DOT 

recommended that those currently 

serving as program managers be 

exempted from the comprehensive 

training requirement and that 

nonprofessional engineers should not be 

program managers. The IACE and the 

NACE stated that the ‘‘comprehensive 

bridge inspection training’’ would be 

burdensome on local agency resources. 

Thirty-six Kansas counties, six Kansas 

cities, and two Kansas consultants 

commented on the proposed 

§ 650.309(a) that local agencies should 

continue to have the option to hire 

consultants to handle inspections, with 

the professional requirement for the 

program manager, but not the 

comprehensive training requirement.

FHWA response: The FHWA’s 

position on comprehensive bridge 

inspection training for program 

managers has not changed from the 

previously proposed § 650.309(a)(2). We 

agree with the majority of commenters 

to the ANPRM, who were in favor of 

establishing training and experience 

requirements for the individual in 

charge of the bridge inspection program. 

A program manager needs to be 

thoroughly familiar with bridge 

inspection terminology and techniques 

along with data collection practices and 

procedures in order to ensure the 

consistency and reliability of the bridge 

inspection program. Completion of the 

same comprehensive training as 

required for team leaders is one method 

of addressing the consistency and 

reliability issues. These issues apply 

regardless of the program manager’s 

experience level or professional 

engineer status. 

We have clarified the roles and 

responsibilities of the program manager 

in part to address the concerns 

expressed by several localities regarding 

the burden imposed by the training 

requirement. 

The current comprehensive training 

course offered by the National Highway 

Institute (NHI) is not the only option 

available. A few States have developed 

their own comprehensive training and 

certification programs. In recognition of 

the need to retain this flexibility, States 

or Federal agencies are permitted to 

develop their own ‘‘comprehensive 

inspection training’’ programs subject to 

approval by the FHWA. The FHWA will 

use the ‘‘comprehensive bridge 

inspection training’’ definition and the 

‘‘Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

(BIRM)’’ 6 as criteria to apply when 

reviewing these programs. In addition, 

the NHI course material 7 is available for 

those who wish to deliver the training 

using their own resources.

Regarding the FHWA approval of 

comprehensive training proposals, it is 

anticipated that the local FHWA 

Division office, in consultation with the 

FHWA Headquarters Office of Bridge 

Technology, will review and approve 

proposals from the States. The FHWA 

Headquarters Office of Bridge 

Technology will review and approve 

submittals from Federal agencies. 

Professional Engineering, Specialty 

The South Dakota and Virginia DOTs 

and Mr. Todd Hertel commented on 

§ 650.309(b)(2)(i) asking what is meant 

by a bachelor’s degree in ‘‘professional 

engineering’’ and recommended that it 

should say bachelor’s degree in 

engineering. 

FHWA response: The FHWA has 

reconsidered its position and has 

deleted the word ‘‘professional.’’

The New Jersey and Massachusetts 

DOTs commented on § 650.309(b)(2)(i) 

and noted that the engineering specialty 

is too vague and needs to be specified. 

The Massachusetts DOT stated that a 

bachelor’s degree in civil, structural or 

related engineering discipline that 

provides a background in structural 

analysis should be included. 

FHWA response: The FHWA’s 

position is that at a minimum, an 

individual with a bachelor’s degree in 

engineering who has successfully 

completed the National Council of 

Examiners for Engineering and 

Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering 

examination and obtained two years of 

bridge inspection experience, would 

qualify as a team leader regardless of the 

specific discipline of the bachelor’s 

degree. Although the phrase ‘‘bachelor’s 

degree in engineering’’ is not specific to 

the discipline of engineering, individual 

States or Federal agencies can adopt 

requirements that are more stringent 

than the minimum established by the 

NBIS. 

Engineers Educated at Foreign 

Universities 

The New Jersey DOT commented on 

§ 650.309(b)(2)(i) and indicated that 

engineers educated at foreign 

universities would not comply with the 

accreditation board requirement. 

FHWA response: The Accreditation 

Board for Engineering and Technology 

(ABET) evaluates institutions outside of 

the United States. The evaluation is not 

the same as accreditation; however, an 

ABET evaluation can result in an 

assessment of ‘‘substantial 

equivalency.’’ The ‘‘substantial 

equivalency’’ determination implies 

reasonable confidence that the foreign 

institution’s program has prepared its 

graduates to begin professional practice 

at the entry level. Information on the 

substantial equivalent programs, 

including a list of programs that have 

been assessed by ABET, is available at 

http://www.abet.org/international/

sub_equ_prg1.html.

Additionally, in 1989, several 

countries including the United States 

entered an international agreement 

known as the ‘‘Washington Accord’’

which recognizes the substantial 

equivalency of engineering programs 

accredited by these countries. The 

accord further recommends that 

graduates of accredited undergraduate 

programs in any of the signatory 

countries be recognized by the other 

countries as having met the 

requirements for entry into the practice 

of engineering. Additional information, 

including a list of signatory countries, 

may be obtained at http://

www.washingtonaccord.org.

In consideration of international 

engineering education programs, the 

regulation has been revised to reference 

the substantial equivalency options 

available through the ABET. 

74426 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Engineer-in-Training 

Mr. Todd Hertel commented on 

§ 650.309(b)(2)(ii) and wanted to know 

why the engineer-in-training (EIT) is a 

requirement. The Miami County in 

Kansas commenter agreed with all 

provisions of § 650.309 especially the 

addition of an EIT as a team leader with 

two years experience. The Wyoming 

DOT and Mr. Jerry Fowler, private 

citizen, stated that the proposed 

qualifications for ‘‘team leader’’ were 

too stringent. The Illinois and Kansas 

DOTs, the IACE, and the AASHTO 

noted that §§ 650.309(b)(1) through 

650.309(b)(4) were required for ‘‘team 

leaders’’; however a team leader only 

needs to meet one of the qualifications, 

not all. The Maryland DOT stated that 

professional engineer team leaders with 

five years experience could be 

‘‘grandfathered’’ with respect to the 

comprehensive training requirement. 

The Iowa DOT commented that the 

requirements of § 650.309(b) would 

place more education, training and 

inspection experience requirements 

onto counties and cities. The 

Pennsylvania DOT agreed with the 

proposed § 650.309(b); however, it 

argued that States with a rigorous 

training and certification program for 

inspectors should be allowed to 

substitute an acceptable combination of 

education, experience and training for 

the requirements in this section. 

FHWA response: The EIT is not a 

requirement. It is a component of one of 

the options available for qualification as 

a team leader under § 650.309(b). The 

team leader requirements resulted in 

confusion among several commenters. 

Accordingly, the FHWA clarified the 

wording under § 650.309(b) and reordered the subparagraphs. 

The FHWA’s position on 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training for team leaders has not 

changed from the previously proposed 

§ 650.309(a)(2). We believe that an 

individual in a team leader position 

needs to be thoroughly familiar with 

bridge inspection terminology and 

techniques along with data collection 

practices and procedures regardless of 

the team leader’s experience level or 

professional engineer status. With 

respect to ‘‘grandfathering’’ current team 

leaders who are professional engineers 

but have never completed 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training, the expectation is that those 

individuals will aggressively seek to 

obtain the required training as soon as 

possible, preferably within 12 months of 

the effective date of this regulation. 

Prior successful completion of the 

FHWA approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training is acceptable for 

individuals serving as team leaders at 

the time this regulation becomes 

effective. 

As indicated in a previous response, 

the current comprehensive training 

course offered by the National Highway 

Institute is not the only option available. 

A few States have developed their own 

comprehensive training and 

certification programs. In recognition of 

the need to retain this flexibility, States 

and Federal organizations are permitted 

to develop their own ‘‘comprehensive 

inspection training’’ programs subject to 

approval by the FHWA. The FHWA will 

use the comprehensive bridge 

inspection training definition and the 

‘‘Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

(BIRM)’’ as criteria to apply when 

reviewing these programs. In addition, 

the National Highway Institute course 

material is available for those who wish 

to deliver the training using their own 

resources.

The FHWA acknowledges the 

Pennsylvania DOT comment, that there 

are acceptable alternative combinations 

of education, experience and training 

for the requirements of ‘‘team leader.’’

Accordingly, we added § 650.309(b)(5) 

to provide another option to qualify as 

a team leader. 

Bridge Inspection Experience 

The Iowa DOT and the AASHTO 

commented on § 650.309(b)(3) as it 

relates to ‘‘bridge inspection 

experience’’ and noted that the term 

‘‘predominant’’ used in the definition 

for this phrase be replaced with the 

word ‘‘substantial.’’ Mr. Todd Hertel 

commented that a ‘‘year’s experience’’ is 

not defined. 

FHWA response: The FHWA 

recognizes that there are many factors 

involved in evaluating an individual’s 

bridge inspection experience level. We 

believe that the definition for ‘‘bridge 

inspection experience,’’ which includes 

the statement that ‘‘the predominate 

amount’’ of experience be ‘‘bridge 

inspection,’’ adequately addresses the 

intent that a preponderance of the 

experience for qualification should 

come from other than bridge design, 

bridge maintenance or bridge 

construction experience. 

Experience in the Field of Practice 

The New Jersey DOT commented on 

§ 650.309(b)(4) indicating that the 

regulation should mandate that a team 

leader with a professional engineer 

license should have experience in the 

field in which they are practicing. 

FHWA position: We believe that the 

laws governing licensure within each 

State or Federal agency ensure that 

professional engineers only practice 

engineering in the fields in which they 

are qualified and experienced. The 

process for obtaining a professional 

engineer license involves a requirement 

for a minimum number of years of 

engineering experience. It is the State or 

Federal agency’s responsibility to 

ensure that the experience that qualified 

the individual for professional engineer 

status is relevant to bridge inspection 

activities. In addition, although the 

regulations do not specify a field 

inspection experience requirement for a 

team leader who is a professional 

engineer, individual States or Federal 

agencies can adopt requirements that 

are more stringent than the minimums 

established by the NBIS. 

Load Rater Qualifications 

The Missouri, Illinois, South Dakota, 

Alabama, and Pennsylvania DOTs 

agreed with the requirement in the 

proposed § 650.309(c). The Maryland 

DOT indicated that the term 

‘‘determining’’ should be changed to 

‘‘certifies’’ or ‘‘reviews and approves.’’

The South Dakota DOT is concerned 

regarding the impact of the South 

Dakota exemption for State government 

professional engineers on this section. 

The Kansas DOT commented that a 

‘‘structural engineer’’ might function in 

some States as the ‘‘professional 

engineer.’’ The Illinois DOT and the 

AASHTO provided language addressing 

the State of Illinois use of ‘‘structural 

engineers’’ as a ‘‘professional engineer’’

specialty used to perform structural 

evaluations. 

The Virginia DOT did not agree with 

the proposed language and stated that a 

professional engineer license should not 

be required to fill out a computer data 

input form. The Pennsylvania DOT 

commented that responsibility for this 

individual should also include loadposting evaluations. 

FHWA response: Bridge load rating 

calculations require engineering 

judgment in determining the safe loadcarrying capacity of a bridge and 

arriving at posting and permitting 

decisions. Given the importance of these 

calculations, the person charged with 

the overall responsibility for load rating 

bridges should be a professional 

engineer. The licensing laws require 

that the professional engineer only 

practice engineering in areas where he/

she is qualified and experienced. 

Although the discipline of the 

professional engineer is not specified in 

the regulation, States or Federal 

organizations may opt to require a more 

specific professional engineer 

discipline, such as structural 

engineering. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74427

8 Information regarding this particular course of 

NHI training in general can be obtained at the 

following URL: http//www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov.

In some organizational structures, the 

overall responsibility for load ratings 

may rest with the program manager. In 

others, there may be several individuals 

responsible for determining load ratings, 

in which case each would have to be a 

professional engineer. The intent is not 

to require a professional engineer 

qualification for individuals who simply 

enter data into load rating computer 

programs, but rather require that the 

person(s) who provides the necessary 

engineering judgment and reviews and 

approves the actual load rating result be 

a professional engineer. 

The posting of load restrictions on 

bridges is based in part on the load 

rating values provided by a professional 

engineer. As long as a professional 

engineer has accepted the load rating 

calculation, the FHWA does not see a 

need to require a professional engineer 

to make the posting decision as well. 

Again, a State or Federal agency may 

opt to require that the person 

responsible for load posting be a 

professional engineer. 

Bridge Inspection Refresher Training 

The Massachusetts DOT and the U.S. 

Navy commented that they were in 

favor of bridge inspection refresher 

training. The Pennsylvania DOT 

strongly supports refresher training of 

inspectors and team leaders every two 

years with exams; however, they 

recommended that the ‘‘refresher 

course’’ should be defined in the NBIS. 

Mr. Michael Magner, private citizen, 

indicated that in order to keep his 

National Institute for Certification in 

Engineering Technologies (NICET) 

certification he must document 

continuing education and experience 

every four years; therefore, he agrees 

with not only continuing training but 

also certification. The Wisconsin DOT 

does not agree with the proposed 

§ 650.309(d), however; it believes in the 

concept of refresher training and that it 

should be left up to the State to 

determine frequency, content, and 

duration. 

The Missouri DOT does not agree 

with the proposed § 650.309(d) for 

program managers and opposes the 

refresher training requirement for team 

leaders; however, it recognizes some 

merit to refresher training if there has 

been a lapse in conduct of inspections 

of 2 or more years. 

The Indiana DOT agrees that the 

intent of refresher training is good; 

however, the costs and logistics 

involved in executing this requirement 

would place a strain on State resources. 

The Wyoming DOT commented that this 

refresher training should not be a 

requirement for program managers, but 

should be required of team leaders as 

long as the training can be performed inhouse. The Illinois DOT commented 

that because of the costs associated with 

refresher training they were reluctant to 

mandate this requirement especially for 

professional engineers. 

The Minnesota DOT noted that the 

term ‘‘refresher training’’ is undefined, 

and as such may be overly burdensome 

and expensive and recommends that it 

be advisory and not mandatory. The 

Kansas DOT commented that training 

costs are significant and that they have 

no need for refresher training. The 

Washington DOT noted that the extent 

of refresher training needs clarification 

and that those who work full time in the 

inspection arena under an FHWA 

approved quality assurance program be 

exempted from this requirement.

The IACE indicated that the refreshertraining requirement would be a burden 

on the local agency resources. The 

NACE thought the refresher training 

provision to be costly for local 

governments and proposed a tiered 

approach based on bridge type and 

complexity. They also recommended 

that turning the training development 

and deployment over to the local 

technical assistance programs (LTAPs) 

would be a more economical approach. 

The Iowa DOT commented that 

refresher training would place more 

requirements on the counties and cities. 

The ACRC in Michigan supported 

refresher training, but thought that it 

should be carefully tailored to local 

needs, and also be relevant, economical 

and of short duration. The AASHTO 

recommended that the NBIS not 

mandate refresher training every five 

years for all program managers and team 

leaders. The Virginia DOT asked that 

the requirement for refresher training for 

program managers be removed. 

FHWA response: The FHWA has 

reevaluated the refresher training 

requirement. First, we have determined 

that refresher training would be more 

appropriately addressed as part of 

quality control (QC) and quality 

assurance (QA) procedures. 

Accordingly, we have deleted the 

proposed § 650.309(d) and revised 

§ 650.313 to include refresher training 

as part of QC and QA. For additional 

details regarding QC and QA procedures 

see § 650.313 preamble discussion. 

Second, we recognize there are some 

differences in inspection programs 

across the nation and the need for 

flexibility in determining the frequency, 

duration, and to some extent, the 

content of refresher training. 

Accordingly, we have added a 

definition of ‘‘bridge inspection 

refresher training’’ under § 650.305 that 

allows for the necessary flexibility. 

While the NHI Bridge Inspection 

Refresher 130053 training course 8

would be acceptable, it is not the only 

option. States or Federal agencies are 

permitted to develop their own refresher 

training programs. The details of these 

programs, such as training content, 

frequency, and method of delivery, 

would be defined in the QA and QC 

procedures that are periodically 

reviewed by the FHWA under 

§ 650.313(g).

Underwater Diver Bridge Inspection 

Training 

The Missouri and Massachusetts 

DOTs agreed with the proposed 

§ 650.309(e) that requires either the 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training or other FHWA approved 

training for underwater bridge 

inspection divers. 

The Wyoming DOT disagreed with 

the proposed § 650.309(e) in regards to 

the option of having FHWA approved 

underwater bridge inspection training. 

The Illinois DOT argued that divers did 

not need this degree of training if a 

qualified team leader were on site and 

in communication with the divers 

during underwater inspection. The 

Minnesota, Illinois and Kansas DOT 

stated that the pool of firms meeting this 

requirement would be reduced. The 

Maryland DOT suggested that the 

training requirement should be waived 

for those divers certified by a national 

diving authority, divers who are 

engineers with 5 years of experience, 

and divers who are non engineers with 

10 years experience with a provision for 

refresher training every 5 years. 

Thirty-four Kansas counties, eleven 

Kansas cities, and two Kansas 

consultants commented on the proposed 

§ 650.309(e) that as long as team leaders 

are on site during underwater 

inspections, the diver does not need this 

training; however, two Kansas counties 

agreed that divers should complete the 

comprehensive training. The Virginia 

DOT and the AASHTO were not in favor 

of the proposed § 650.309(e), 

particularly since a qualified team 

leader must be present during the 

inspection. 

Collins Engineers noted that the 

comprehensive course should be 

preceded by 40 hour engineering 

concepts for bridge engineers course for 

those with little or no practical bridge 

experience or background in bridge 

technology. 

74428 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

9This document provides guidance for 

implementing the changes contained in the 1988 

FHWA Response: We have 

renumbered this section from the 

proposed § 650.309(e) to the final 

§ 650.309(d). The FHWA does not 

concur with the commenters who 

argued that the presence of a team 

leader during the inspection negates the 

need for comprehensive training of the 

divers. During a typical underwater 

inspection, the divers are not under 

direct visual observation by the team 

leader. Divers need to be capable of 

conducting thorough inspections, 

recognizing defects and deterioration, 

and documenting and describing their 

observations using common terminology 

and techniques. For this reason, divers 

must complete the comprehensive 

training or alternate underwater diver 

bridge inspection training. States or 

Federal agencies are allowed to develop 

their own underwater diver bridge 

inspection training course. To provide 

additional clarification, a definition of 

‘‘underwater diver bridge inspection 

training’’ has been added to § 650.305. 

In situations where divers possess 

little or no experience in bridge 

inspection, training on basic 

engineering concepts and inspection 

techniques should be considered. The 

FHWA believes that the need for 

prerequisite training is an issue that 

must be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis rather than specified in the 

regulation.

Collins Engineers noted that the 

comprehensive course currently offered 

by NHI does not address diving 

operations. The U.S. Navy and the ADCI 

recommended including reference to the 

OSHA regulations regarding diving 

operations within the NBIS. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

that safe diving practices as prescribed 

by the OSHA regulations should be 

employed during all bridge inspection 

diving, but we do not reference them. 

We believe that a reference would 

unnecessarily complicate this 

regulation. There are a number of OSHA 

regulations that pertain not only to 

underwater inspection but also abovewater inspections, and any omission in 

this standard does not relieve diving 

inspectors of the requirement to follow 

OSHA regulations. 

Training Certification 

The Pennsylvania DOT commented 

on § 650.309 indicating that training 

needs to be coupled with certification 

tests. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania 

DOT stated that inspectors who have 

demonstrated prior knowledge through 

engineering degree or Fundamentals of 

Engineering exam should be provided 

an opportunity to waive training 

requirements via certification testing. 

FHWA response: The regulation 

requires successful completion of 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training. The FHWA has elected to leave 

the definition of ‘‘successful 

completion’’ to the States or Federal 

agencies. In some States, minimum 

passing grades on final examinations 

have been specified and the FHWA 

supports this concept. 

We do not allow certification tests to 

substitute for comprehensive bridge 

inspection training. The FHWA believes 

that successful completion of the 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training is appropriate regardless of an 

individual’s education, experience, or 

professional engineer status. 

Section 650.311 Inspection Frequency 

Routine Inspections 

The Massachusetts DOT supported 

clarification of the inspection frequency. 

The Kansas, Tennessee, Michigan and 

Colorado DOTs as well as the AASHTO, 

the ACRC in Michigan and the NACE 

recommended that more flexibility 

should be given to adjust to unexpected 

weather events, or to permanently move 

a bridge or group of bridges to a more 

logical inspection period. The AASHTO 

recommended that routine inspections 

be performed ‘‘within a calendar year 

and later or within 2 months later.’’ The 

NACE argued that a 90-day grace period 

would allow for efficient scheduling of 

inspections and personnel. The ACRC 

in Michigan and Arkansas DOT pointed 

out that the NPRM preamble discussed 

the 30-day grace period; however, the 

proposed regulation did not address 

this. The Arkansas DOT recommended 

a 45-day grace period. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

that the inspection frequency should not 

exceed 24 months. We recognize that 

severe weather, concern for bridge 

inspector safety, concern for inspection 

quality, the need to optimize scheduling 

with other bridges, or other unique 

situations may be cause to adjust the 

scheduled inspection date. The adjusted 

date should not extend more than 30 

days beyond the scheduled inspection 

date, and subsequent inspections should 

adhere to the previously established 

interval. 

Establishment of a formal inspection 

frequency grace period may have the 

unintended consequence of extending 

the inspection interval beyond twentyfour months. The twenty-four month 

interval has been used as the standard 

since the inception of the national 

bridge inspection program. Concern for 

safety makes us reluctant to take actions 

that may make bridges less safe, 

therefore we have not established a 

grace period.

Routine Inspections Less Than 24 

Months 

The Michigan DOT commented on 

§ 650.311(a)(2) that the program 

manager should put guidelines in place, 

but the ultimate responsibility for 

setting intervals less than 24-months 

should reside with the on-site inspector. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

criteria to determine the level and 

frequency of less than 24 month 

inspections should be established and 

implemented according to statewide or 

Federal agency wide procedures to 

ensure consistency throughout an entire 

State or Federal agency program. The 

term program manager was removed 

from this section to provide flexibility 

in how this provision is implemented. 

Routine Inspections Not To Exceed 48 

Months 

The HCRC in Michigan in 

commenting on § 650.311(a)(3) 

applauded the opportunity for 

inspecting certain bridge types in up to 

48-month intervals. The South Dakota 

DOT commented that they have been 

using the 48-month inspection 

frequency for certain structures and 

support this concept. The IACE 

commented that the proposed provision 

could be interpreted to prohibit local 

agencies from inspecting at greater than 

24-month intervals. The Michigan DOT 

noted that the program should provide 

guidelines to let the States know factors 

being considered during the application 

process to lengthen the inspection 

interval otherwise each State might be 

treated differently depending on the 

local FHWA Division Office. The NACE 

and the ACRC in Michigan wanted to 

know if the 48-month option could be 

extended to local agency bridges. 

Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven 

Kansas cities, and one Kansas 

consultant commented to the proposed 

§ 650.311(a)(3) that the local agency 

should govern when bridges need 

inspection more than every 24 months. 

FHWA response: In guidance 

published on September 16, 1988, the 

FHWA established consistent criteria for 

extending an inspection interval to 48 

months, but maintains that approval be 

administered from the FHWA Office of 

Bridge Technology in order to maintain 

consistency across States and Federal 

agencies. Guidance on the 48-month 

inspection interval criteria can be found 

in the FHWA Technical Advisory 

T5140.21.9 The FHWA acknowledges 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74429

revision to the NBIS and is available at the 

following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/

directives/techadvs/t514021.htm.

10This document may be obtained from ASCE, 

1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191–

4400.

11The ‘‘Recording and Coding Guide for Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’

December 1995, Report No. FHWA–PD–96–001, is 

available electronically at the following URL:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//bridge/mtguide.doc and 

may be inspected and copied as prescribed in 49 

CFR part 7.

that further study is needed before 

consideration could be given to 

automatically allow certain bridges to be 

placed on a 48-month cycle. County 

bridges are also eligible; however, the 

State must support and submit the 

request for the extended inspection 

cycle to the FHWA for approval. The 

FHWA has removed the reference to 

State or Federal agencies in the 

proposed § 650.311(a)(3) to avoid 

confusion.

Underwater Inspections Less Than 60 

Months 

The Michigan DOT commented on 

§ 650.311(b)(2) that the ultimate 

responsibility for setting interval less 

than 60 months should reside with the 

on-site inspector. 

FHWA response: As with the routine 

inspection interval discussed earlier, the 

FHWA believes criteria to determine the 

level and frequency of less than 60-

month inspections should be 

established and implemented according 

to statewide or Federal agency wide 

procedures to ensure consistency 

throughout an entire State or Federal 

agency program. 

Underwater Inspections Not To Exceed 

72 Months 

The Missouri DOT commented on 

§ 650.311(b)(3) and agreed that they 

would like to see a 72-month interval. 

The New Jersey DOT argued that this 

was excessive and should remain at the 

60-month interval. The Indiana DOT 

agreed with the change, but would like 

the maximum moved out to 120 months. 

The IACE commented that the proposed 

provision could be interpreted to restrict 

local agencies from inspecting at greater 

than 60-month intervals and that there 

is inconsistent treatment of local 

agencies. The Iowa DOT thought the 

proposed provisions too restrictive and 

that flexibility be given to bridge owners 

in the range of 6 to 10 years for various 

reasons. The U.S. Navy commented that 

it was not in favor of extending the 

underwater inspection interval beyond 

60 months and currently inspect on a 

48-month interval to coincide with 

successive biennial inspections. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

that underwater inspection intervals for 

certain bridges can be extended to 72 

months, with FHWA approval. The 

FHWA believes that applying 

engineering judgment and approval on a 

case-by-case basis to bridges with little 

or no change from inspection cycle to 

cycle in benign environments provides 

an adequate margin of safety to the 

motoring public. Industry standards, 

such as those provided by the American 

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in its 

‘‘Underwater Investigations Standard 

Practice Manual, 2001,’’ 10 promote a 

degree of latitude in the maximum 

interval between routine underwater 

inspections up to 6 years. The guidance 

provided is tied to material, 

environment, scour and condition rating 

from previous inspections. While we are 

including an additional year beyond the 

current 60-month underwater 

inspection interval, we are taking into 

consideration these same factors of 

material composition (timber, steel, 

concrete, protected or unprotected steel 

or timber, composite), environment 

(benign or aggressive), scour 

(susceptibility to scour) and previous 

condition rating (excellent to failed). 

Based on our assessment, again on a 

case-by-case basis, the FHWA may 

approve requests not to exceed 72 

months. This authorization can be 

rescinded at any time owing to 

structural degradation, adverse change 

in environment and presence of 

localized bridge scour.

An example of a situation that may 

warrant an extended interval may 

include a highway bridge supported by 

concrete piles with no degradation over 

a lined irrigation canal carrying fresh 

water. An example of a situation that 

would not warrant approval would be a 

highway bridge over a high flow 

saltwater or brackish water 

environment, with structural piles 

showing degradation and subject to 

localized scour. Four-year frequencies 

may be used, if desired, but retention of 

the 60-month frequencies allows more 

flexibility to program managers. The 

FHWA does not believe there is 

justification at this time to warrant 

extended intervals beyond 72 months, 

but acknowledges that further study in 

this area is needed. The FHWA has 

removed the reference to State or 

Federal agencies in the proposed 

§ 650.311(b)(3) to avoid confusion. 

Fracture Critical Member Inspections 

The Massachusetts DOT in 

commenting on § 650.311(c) supports 

clarification of the inspection frequency 

being proposed, specifically with regard 

to fracture critical (FC) inspections. The 

Texas DOT commented on 

§ 650.311(c)(1) and indicated that 

preliminary estimates of having a ‘‘not 

to exceed 24 months’’ interval would 

increase statewide inspection costs by 

$10 million per year, that the program 

manager should be allowed to set that 

interval based on sound engineering 

judgment and FHWA approval and the 

maximum approved frequency should 

not exceed 60 months. The Texas DOT 

also commented that routine and 

underwater inspection frequency can be 

extended, and questioned why this does 

not apply to fracture critical inspection 

frequency.

The Illinois DOT noted that the 

proposed § 650.311(c)(1) establishes a 

24-month maximum frequency for 

fracture critical members and 

recommended a 24-month interval that 

allows States to have the latitude to 

establish criteria for inspecting bridges 

at intervals up to 60 months. The 

Minnesota DOT recommended that 

‘‘routine inspection of FCMs shall be at 

intervals not to exceed 24 months.’’ The 

Kansas and Oregon DOTs argued that 

the 24-month interval was excessive and 

the Kansas, Wyoming, and New Mexico 

DOTs as well as the AASHTO 

recommended that States be allowed to 

establish intervals up to 60 months. The 

New Mexico DOT also urged that the 

discretion for an extension be left with 

the State bridge engineer or designee 

and not with the program manager. 

The California DOT requested 

clarification regarding whether the 

proposed language applied to ‘‘fracture 

critical bridges’’ or to ‘‘bridges with 

fracture critical elements.’’ The 

Wyoming and Kansas DOTs as well as 

the AASHTO recommended deletion of 

the proposed § 650.311(c)(3). The 

Washington DOT wanted clarification as 

to the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) 

methods to be used on FCMs. 

FHWA response: The inspection 

frequency for fracture critical bridges 

was first defined in the ‘‘Recording and 

Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s 

Bridges.’’ 11 The FHWA continues to 

believe that all FCMs or member 

components be given, at a minimum, a 

hands-on inspection as defined in 

§ 650.305 at intervals not to exceed 24 

months. The FHWA recognizes that the 

interval for use of NDE and other 

specialized techniques may be greater 

than 24 months. The FHWA also 

believes that some FCMs or member 

components should be inspected at 

more frequent intervals, and these 

74430 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

12National Bridge Inventory ‘‘item number 92’’

denotes critical features that need special 

inspections or special emphasis during inspections 

and the designated inspection interval. Specifically 

item 92C addresses ‘‘other special inspection.’’

13The AASHTO 2003, Manual for Condition 

Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges may be 

obtained upon payment in advance by writing to 

the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol Street, NW., 

Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001or it may be 

ordered at the following URL: http://

www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/FrontPage.

inspections may require NDE or other 

specialized techniques.

FCM Inspections Less Than 24 Months 

The Michigan DOT commented on 

§ 650.311(c)(2) and stated that the 

ultimate responsibility for setting 

intervals less than 24 months should 

reside with the on-site inspector. 

FHWA response: As with other 

inspection intervals discussed above, 

criteria to determine the level and 

frequency of less than 24 month 

inspections should be established and 

implemented according to statewide or 

Federal agency wide procedures to 

ensure consistency throughout an entire 

State or Federal agency program. 

Damage, In-Depth and Special 

Inspections 

The Missouri and Minnesota DOTs 

commented on § 650.311(d) and agreed 

that the program manager should be 

provided the discretion to determine the 

level and frequency of damage, in-depth 

and special inspections. The Michigan 

DOT argued that § 650.311(d) takes 

away all responsibility from the 

inspector in the field and places it in the 

hands of a person who has not likely to 

have seen the specific bridge. 

FHWA response: The FHWA believes 

that although input from a team leader 

is an important consideration, the 

ultimate decision should rest with the 

program manager in order to ensure 

consistency throughout an entire State 

or Federal agency program. 

National Bridge Inventory Item 

Numbers 

The Indiana DOT noted that proposed 

§ 650.311 does not include any 

reference to NBI item number 92C,12

other special detail inspections and 

asked if it is covered by § 650.311(d) 

and whether the inspection frequencies 

are to be determined by the program 

manager.

FHWA response: NBI item number 

92C, other special inspection, is 

addressed in § 650.311 (d) Damage, indepth and special inspection. Definition 

for special inspection is covered in 

§ 650.305. The inspection frequency is 

established by the program manager. 

Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures 

The Oregon DOT stated that the 

requirements of § 650.313 were very 

reasonable. 

The Michigan DOT stated that 

§ 650.313(a) contains conflicts with the 

AASHTO Manual that must be resolved. 

FHWA response: The NBIS take 

precedence over the AASHTO Manual. 

The AASHTO Manual has excellent 

guidance that should be followed 

whenever it is not in conflict with the 

requirements of the NBIS. 

On-Site Team Leader 

The Massachusetts and South Dakota 

DOTs supported the proposed 

§ 650.313(b). The Maryland, Kansas, and 

Michigan DOTs, as well as the 

AASHTO, do not support the 

requirement for having ‘‘team leader’’

on site at all times during inspection. 

The Tennessee DOT had questions 

regarding having a designated person 

act as ‘‘team leader’’ when the team 

leader is unavailable. Thirty-seven 

Kansas counties, seven Kansas cities, 

one Kansas consultant commented on 

the proposed § 650.313(b) and stated 

that there are too many structures to 

require the ‘‘team leader’’ at every 

inspection and that this requirement 

will likely increase local agency costs 

which would deplete funding available 

for bridge replacement and 

rehabilitation. The HCRC in Michigan 

commented on § 650.313(b) and asked 

whether this new requirement would 

mean that two people will have to 

perform inspections and, if so then there 

would be a costly increase for counties 

performing bridge inspections. 

FHWA response: The requirement to 

have the team leader on site during the 

inspection is not new. However, the 

language requiring this was clarified in 

this section because the FHWA agrees 

there has been some misinterpretation 

of the NBIS in the past. The 

qualifications for team leader were 

established to ensure that those 

conducting the inspections meet 

specific minimum standards, not to 

establish qualifications of the supervisor 

of those who perform the inspection. 

This requirement does not mandate that 

two people are required to conduct an 

inspection. However, if only one person 

is conducting an inspection, that person 

must meet the qualifications of a team 

leader, as defined in the NBIS. Even 

though there is no requirement to have 

a minimum of 2 people on an inspection 

team, the FHWA highly recommends at 

least 2 people be present to ensure the 

safety of the inspectors, to improve the 

quality of the inspection data, and to 

provide opportunities to train new 

inspectors. 

Load Rating and Posting 

The Wyoming DOT commented on 

§ 650.313(c) and stated that the new the 

AASHTO, Manual for load and 

resistance factor rating (LRFR) of 

Highway Bridges 13 could change some 

of this regulatory language if adopted by 

the AASHTO.

The Illinois DOT argued that the 

requirement to post bridges that are 

unable to carry routine permit loads not 

be applied to all structures under local 

agency jurisdiction, only those on local 

highways that are designated truck route 

system by the State for routine permit 

loads. 

FHWA response: The FHWA agrees 

that the AASHTO, Manual for Condition 

Evaluation and LRFR of Highway 

Bridges uses new terminology. The 

phrase, ‘‘or equivalent rating factor’’ was 

included in the requirement to account 

for the differences. The FHWA also 

agrees that bridges under local 

jurisdiction on roads where unrestricted 

permit loads are not allowed, need not 

be posted for the permit loads. The 

FHWA believes the language in the 

requirement is consistent with that 

interpretation, since permit loads would 

be considered to be restricted from 

using those bridges. The FHWA agrees 

that bridge owners may post bridges for 

less than the operating load level, and 

the FHWA believes this final rule allows 

for that possibility. 

When restricting routine or 

continuous permit loads from crossing 

specific bridges, States or Federal 

agencies may elect to erect posting signs 

or to issue restrictions to the permit 

holders to keep them from traveling 

specific routes with permit loads 

capacity problems. To account for 

different methods of controlling access 

for permit vehicles, the phrase, ‘‘Post or 

restrict’’ was added to § 650.313(c). 

Bridge Files 

The Wyoming DOT commented on 

§ 650.313(d) and indicated that 

maintaining inspection records for the 

life of the bridge, while ideal, may not 

be realistic or beneficial in all cases and 

therefore recommended that this 

requirement be deleted. The Indiana 

DOT pointed out the problems 

associated with availability and storage 

of bridge data and that maintaining such 

files would be labor intensive. The 

Michigan DOT indicated that records no 

longer relevant should be purged from 

the files and recommended that 

§ 650.311(d) be modified to allow 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74431

14 Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members, 

Report No. FHWA–IP–86–26 is available through 

the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 or it may be ordered 

online at the following URL: http://www.ntis.gov.

15Underwater Inspection of Bridges, November 

1989, Report No. FHWA–DP–80–1, provides 

guidelines for underwater bridge inspection. This 

document is available through the National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161.

agencies to purge files. The Minnesota 

DOT noted that tracking ‘‘any action 

taken’’ would be very laborious and 

recommended that § 650.311(d) be 

changed to reflect that only ‘‘action(s) 

taken pursuant to the critical findings’’

be tracked. The Missouri, New Jersey 

and Michigan DOTs commented that 

‘‘standard forms’’ or report 

documentation is somewhat confusing 

and can vary from State to State. The 

New Jersey DOT wants clarification 

whether electronic as well as paper 

documents would be included in the 

‘‘bridge file.’’ The Miami County in 

Kansas noted that the recording and 

coding guide format is appropriate for 

most bridge data reporting. 

FHWA response: The FHWA agrees 

with the commenters that maintaining 

bridge records could be misunderstood 

to apply to all data, even though it may 

not be relevant or necessary to properly 

assess the current condition. The 

language was revised to state the 

minimum requirement is to maintain 

data that is relevant. The determination 

of relevant data is made by the program 

manager following guidance contained 

in the AASHTO Manual. We have 

revised the wording of § 650.313(d) 

accordingly. The FHWA agrees that 

‘‘standard forms’’ is not specific, but it 

does indicate that for a given State or 

Federal agency, the forms should be 

consistent to facilitate recording and 

interpretation of the data. The wording 

of § 650.313(d) has been revised 

accordingly. The FHWA agrees that 

records may be maintained in paper or 

electronic versions, or both. The NBIS 

does not specify or eliminate either 

method. 

Bridge Lists 

The Wyoming DOT commented on 

§ 650.313(e) and argued that the agency, 

not the program manager, should be 

responsible for identifying and 

maintaining bridge lists. Wyoming DOT 

urged that this provision should be 

deleted. The Massachusetts DOT 

supports the requirement for 

maintaining lists and does so with 

relative ease using a computerized 

database. The Illinois DOT, the IACE, 

and the AASHTO stated that the 

requirement to list bridges ‘‘vulnerable 

to seismic damage’’ should not be 

included in the NBIS. The Kansas DOT 

sees no benefit in keeping bridge lists 

assuming data is readily available. The 

Washington DOT seeks clarification as 

to what qualifies a bridge as 

‘‘seismically vulnerable.’’ The Michigan 

DOT viewed the bridge list requirement 

for multiple written documents and or 

plans for nearly every bridge in the 

inventory as an overwhelming work 

burden for State DOTs. 

FHWA response: The FHWA agrees 

with the commenters that the program 

manager may not be the designated 

individual who actually identifies 

bridges in specific categories. However, 

the FHWA believes the program 

manager has overall responsibility to see 

that such work is done. The language 

was revised to eliminate any specific 

reference to the person who identifies 

the bridges. The FHWA also agrees that 

maintaining a paper list is not 

necessarily the only way this 

requirement can be met. Computerized 

data base lists or simply an identifier in 

the State’s inventory would satisfy the 

requirement. However, it is necessary to 

identify bridges in at least the specific 

categories listed so their unique 

inspection requirements and potential 

needs can be assessed appropriately. 

The proposed requirement to identify 

and evaluate bridges in high seismic 

risk areas has been removed. We believe 

that this is an important consideration 

for bridge safety, best addressed through 

a comprehensive evaluation of seismic 

risk through a bridge management 

program. The FHWA has previously 

advised States to identify bridges 

vulnerable to seismic damage, based on 

a State’s site specific assessment.

Fracture Critical Bridges 

The Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, 

Kansas and Wyoming DOTs as well as 

the AASHTO commented on 

§ 650.313(f) and recommended that it 

should be deleted. The New Jersey DOT 

indicated that an electronic record of 

such bridges would meet this 

requirement. The Texas DOT 

commented that generating an ‘‘action 

plan’’ would not be an efficient use of 

resources, would not add any benefit 

and may contain redundant 

information. The Massachusetts, 

California and Pennsylvania DOTs 

supported this section. The Maryland 

DOT recommended that in lieu of 

§ 650.313(f), we should require States to 

follow procedures described in the 

FHWA’s ‘‘Inspection of Fracture Critical 

Bridge Members.’’ 14 The Michigan DOT 

viewed the bridge list requirement for 

multiple written documents and or 

plans for nearly every bridge in the 

inventory as an overwhelming work 

burden for State DOTs. The Oklahoma 

DOT recommended adding a waiver to 

§ 650.313(f) for bridges with an average 

daily traffic (ADT) less than 500. The 

Pennsylvania DOT recommended the 

addition of a fracture critical (FC) 

indicator to the NBI to identify FC 

bridges.

FHWA response: The FHWA did not 

intend the proposed language for an 

‘‘inspection plan’’ to be substantially 

different than the current rule, which 

requires identification, description, 

frequency and procedures to be 

established for fracture critical members 

(FCMs). Those items essentially would 

constitute the ‘‘plan.’’ The FCM 

inspections should be done in 

accordance with FHWA–IP–86–26, 

‘‘Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge 

Members.’’ Therefore the reference to a 

plan has been eliminated and language 

similar to the existing rule has been 

adopted. The features of the FCM 

inspections can be shown in a listing, 

on the inspection records, or in an 

electronic database. The proposed 

§ 650.313(f) has been redesignated as 

§ 650.313(e)(1). 

Underwater Inspections 

The Missouri, Wyoming, Illinois, 

Minnesota and Kansas DOTs as well as 

the AASHTO stated that § 650.313(g) 

should be deleted. The New Jersey DOT 

indicated that an electronic record of 

such bridges would meet this 

requirement, but stated that it is 

unclear. The Texas DOT commented 

that generating an action plan would not 

be an efficient use of resources, not add 

any benefit and may contain redundant 

information. The Massachusetts and 

California DOTs indicated support for 

this section. The Maryland DOT 

recommended that in lieu of 

§ 650.313(g) the FHWA should require 

States to follow procedures described in 

the FHWA’s Underwater Inspection of 

Bridges report.15 The Alabama DOT 

argued that this requirement would pose 

a significant burden on those States 

with a large population of bridges 

requiring underwater inspections, and 

be unnecessary, wasteful, and a 

duplicative effort. The Michigan DOT 

viewed the bridge list requirement for 

multiple written documents and or 

plans for nearly every bridge in the 

inventory as an overwhelming burden 

for State DOTs.

FHWA response: The FHWA did not 

intend the proposed language for an 

‘‘inspection plan’’ to be substantially 

different from the current rule, which 

requires identification, description, 

frequency and procedures to be 

74432 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

16Evaluating Scour at Bridges FHWA–NHI–01–

001 (HEC–18) presents the state of knowledge and 

practice for the design, evaluation and inspection 

of bridges for scour. This document is available 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

17Bridge Scour and Stream Instability FHWA–

NHI–01–003 (HEC–23) provides guidelines for 

identifying stream instability problems at highway 

stream crossings. This document is available 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

established for members requiring 

underwater inspection. Those items 

essentially would constitute the ‘‘plan.’’

Therefore the reference to a plan has 

been eliminated and language similar to 

the existing rule has been adopted. 

Those four features of the underwater 

inspections can be shown in a listing, 

on the inspection records, or in an 

electronic database. The proposed 

§ 650.313(g) has been redesignated as 

§ 650.313(e)(2). 

Scour Critical Bridges 

The Missouri DOT commented on 

§ 650.313(h) and recommended that 

language regarding inspecting bridges 

after a ‘‘major flood’’ event should be 

changed to ‘‘consideration should be 

given to inspecting scour critical bridges 

after a major flood event.’’ The Missouri 

and Colorado DOTs also noted that the 

‘‘major flood event’’ guidance would be 

addressed in the ‘‘action plan.’’

The Texas DOT commented that 

generating an action plan would not be 

an efficient use of resources and, 

instead, proposed that generic 

guidelines be developed outlining 

appropriate evaluation milestones as 

well as monitoring criteria. The Indiana 

DOT indicated that at the State level 

there are scour plans; however, at the 

county level additional resources would 

be needed to develop scour plans. The 

Indiana, Wyoming, Illinois, Minnesota 

and Kansas DOTs as well as the 

AASHTO recommended deleting 

§ 650.313(h). The Massachusetts DOT 

recommended that the requirement be 

changed to establishing a list of bridges 

that are vulnerable to events and 

developing monitoring and or 

inspection plans for such structures in 

the wake of a scour event. The South 

Dakota DOT asked for clarification of a 

‘‘major flood event.’’ The Washington 

DOT indicated that its inspection of 

bridges after major flood events are 

performed by maintenance staff and 

asked if this section required that a team 

leader perform these inspections. The 

California DOT indicated support for 

this section. 

The Michigan DOT viewed the bridge 

list requirement for multiple written 

documents and or plans for nearly every 

bridge in the inventory as an 

overwhelming burden on State DOTs. 

Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven 

Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant 

commented on the proposed 

§ 650.313(h) and indicated that the 

requirement to prepare an action plan is 

not justified, and that the local agency 

should decide proper actions based on 

degree of risk. The Virginia DOT 

understood the need to have lists of 

scour critical bridges to identify 

structures that needed inspection after a 

flood event; but did not agree that the 

NBIS covers retrofit guidelines. 

FHWA response: Scour related 

deficiencies are the leading cause of 

serious bridge failures and closings. The 

requirements for scour evaluation and 

action plans are consistent with the 

existing requirement for evaluation of 

underwater members, with a renewed 

emphasis. The FHWA does agree with 

the commenters that the action plans for 

some bridges may be very similar and 

that monitoring and assessment after 

flood events may be done using 

different levels of effort depending on 

the degree of risk. The wording of this 

section was changed to reflect the need 

for some flexibility in the application of 

the action plans. Monitoring after flood 

events is described in the FHWA 

guidance manuals, ‘‘Evaluating Scour at 

Bridges’’ 16 and ‘‘Bridge Scour and 

Stream Instability.’’ 17 The proposed 

§ 650.313(h) has been redesignated as 

§ 650.313(e)(3).

Seismic Vulnerability 

The Missouri, Wyoming, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Kansas and Pennsylvania 

DOTs, the IACE and the AASHTO 

commented on § 650.313(i) and 

recommended that it should be deleted. 

The Colorado DOT urged that 

§ 650.313(i) should be either deleted or 

rewritten to better define criteria for 

determining ‘‘seismic vulnerability’’ and 

expectation for the ‘‘action plan.’’ The 

New Jersey DOT commented that it does 

not believe that ‘‘the benefit of such a 

program in New Jersey would be 

consistent with the costs to develop it 

considering the historical lack of 

damage from seismic events.’’ The 

Indiana DOT indicated the proposed 

language is too vague, leaves too much 

for interpretation, and that additional 

resources would be needed at the 

county level. 

The Massachusetts DOT 

recommended establishing a list of 

bridges that are vulnerable to events and 

developing monitoring and or 

inspection plans for such structures in 

the wake of a seismic event. The Illinois 

DOT and the IACE argued that this 

provision was an ‘‘unfunded mandate.’’

The Washington DOT wanted 

clarification as to what qualifies a bridge 

as ‘‘seismically vulnerable.’’ The 

California DOT supported this section. 

The Michigan DOT viewed this 

requirement for multiple written 

documents and or plans for nearly every 

bridge in the inventory as an 

overwhelming burden for State DOTs. 

Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven 

Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant 

disagreed with § 650.313(i) because they 

believe the requirement to prepare an 

action plan is not justified, and that it 

should be a local agency decision based 

on degree of risk. The Virginia DOT 

understood the need to have lists of 

seismically vulnerable bridges to 

identify structures that needed 

inspection after a significant seismic 

event; however, it does not agree that 

the NBIS covers retrofit guidelines. The 

Pennsylvania DOT noted that the term 

‘‘seismic vulnerability’’ was not defined 

in § 650.305 and that the inspection 

requirement in § 650.313(i) is an open 

ended assignment that could be very 

costly, particularly in States with low 

seismic event probabilities. 

FHWA response: The proposed 

requirement has been eliminated. 

Although we believe that this is an 

important consideration for bridge 

safety, we believe that it is best 

addressed by a comprehensive 

evaluation of seismic risk through a 

bridge management process. 

Complex Bridges 

The Missouri DOT opposed the 

proposed § 650.313(j) because it believes 

States have sufficient knowledge to 

recognize inspection needs for unusual 

bridges or features. The Wyoming and 

Minnesota DOTs and the AASHTO 

recommended that this provision 

should be deleted. The Texas DOT 

indicated that generating an ‘‘action 

plan’’ for ‘‘complex’’ bridges is not an 

efficient use of resources, would not add 

benefit and would likely contain 

redundant information. The Washington 

DOT commented that it needed further 

clarification as to ‘‘inspection and 

training requirements.’’ The California 

DOT is unclear as to the level of effort 

needed to comply with preparation of 

the proposed complex bridge 

‘‘inspection plan.’’

FHWA response: The FHWA agrees 

that the content of the plan was not 

clear in the proposed requirement. The 

language was changed to specify that 

the minimum requirement is to 

establish specialized inspection needs, 

level of effort and additional inspector 

training and/or experience. These 

procedures are applied to the unique 

features of complex bridges that would 

not normally be covered in a routine 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74433

18The NBIS program reviews are routinely done 

by the FHWA on an annual basis to determine 

compliance with the NBIS. This program is 

delineated in a June 22, 2001 memorandum that can 

be found at the following URL: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/index.htm.

inspection. We also clarified the 

definition for complex bridges. The 

proposed § 650.313(j) has been 

redesignated as § 650.313(f). 

Quality Control and Quality Assurance 

The Missouri DOT, regarding the 

proposed § 650.313(k), is opposed to the 

requirement of a formal QC and QA 

program. The Missouri DOT believes it 

would be redundant and not sufficiently 

enhance public safety compared to 

efforts expended to provide such a 

program. The Indiana DOT argued that 

they would need additional resources to 

comply with this requirement and also 

expressed concern over the subjectivity 

of the required FHWA approval. The 

Wyoming DOT urged that this provision 

should be deleted. The Massachusetts, 

South Dakota, California and 

Pennsylvania DOTs supported this 

provision. 

The Illinois DOT was concerned 

about the FHWA having a more active 

role. The South Dakota DOT supports 

this concept, but believes that the 

program should be left up to the States. 

The Minnesota DOT recommended 

rewording this section to say, ‘‘submit 

documentation of the QA program to the 

FHWA for review and comment.’’

Additionally, the Minnesota DOT 

suggested that if QC is retained both QA 

and QC should be defined and the 

difference between them explained. 

The Kansas DOT wanted to improve 

the consistency of NBI data by having 

the FHWA improve the ‘‘Edit/Update 

program’’ and distribute the program for 

general use. The Washington DOT asked 

for clarification as to the level of effort 

intended for submittal of QC and QA 

program documentation to the FHWA 

and requested criteria for program 

expectations. 

The Michigan DOT recommended 

that the FHWA provide guidelines to 

the States outlining the evaluation 

factors used to grant approval, and that 

the FHWA should provide a standard 

for national uniformity. The Iowa DOT 

and the AASHTO recommended that 

the requirement to review load 

calculations be eliminated. 

The ACRC in Michigan noted that in 

instances where inspection 

responsibilities are delegated to local 

agencies, the required QC and QA 

program should be developed in 

cooperation with the local agencies. 

Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven 

Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant 

commented on § 650.313(k) and the 

majority indicated that they disagreed 

with the provision because the current 

limited oversight is working well. They 

recommended that the FHWA develop 

and distribute software to collect QA 

and QC data to encourage consistency 

and uniformity nationwide. The 

Virginia DOT commented that the 

documentation of findings for the QC 

and QA program should be available for 

review and comment by the FHWA but 

should not be subject to FHWA 

approval. 

FHWA response: We have added 

definitions for QC and QA that are 

consistent with the AASHTO Manual. 

An FHWA study, ‘‘Reliability of Visual 

Inspection for Highway Bridges,’’ found 

wide variations in the condition 

assessment of typical highway bridges 

by experienced and trained inspectors 

from a variety of States. The study 

concludes that formal quality assurance 

is needed to obtain better uniformity in 

assigning condition codes. The FHWA 

believes that using computer software 

tools to check data is an important part 

of obtaining data accuracy and 

consistency, but is not adequate alone as 

a QC and QA procedure. The FHWA 

believes many States have welldeveloped and effective QC and QA 

procedures, but others have very 

minimal programs. This requirement 

will help States or Federal agencies 

develop more uniform systems that will 

lead toward more accurate national 

data. Example QC and QA procedures 

from other States are available at URL: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/

index.htm. for review and 

consideration.

The FHWA agrees with commenters 

that methods of review of reports and 

computations may vary and the precise 

method should be done according to 

normal State or Federal agency 

procedures. The FHWA agrees that it is 

not necessary to include in the rule a 

specific requirement to submit the QC 

and QA procedure to the FHWA for 

approval. During NBIS program 

reviews 18 the FHWA will examine QC 

and QA procedures. The proposed 

§ 650.313(k) has been redesignated as 

§ 650.313(g).

Follow-Up on Critical Findings 

The Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois and 

Pennsylvania DOTs and the AASHTO 

commented on § 650.313(l) and 

recommended that this provision be 

deleted. The Missouri DOT had no 

objections on this provision, but 

recommended annual reporting. The 

Texas and Pennsylvania DOTs sought 

clarification as to how often this 

information should be provided and 

recommended that the FHWA define the 

term ‘‘critical finding.’’ The Maryland 

DOT suggested a definition for ‘‘critical 

finding’’ as ‘‘any condition that affects 

the safe passage of any legal vehicle.’’

The South Dakota DOT supported this 

provision and also recommended that 

the States be allowed to set their own 

definition of ‘‘critical finding.’’ The 

Washington DOT requested more details 

on how States are to report the 

information to the FHWA. The IACE did 

not see a benefit to requiring such 

information be reported since it would 

require additional resources to generate 

the information. The California DOT 

supported the proposed provision on 

the basis that its current FHWA 

reporting procedure be used. The 

Michigan DOT indicated that ‘‘critical 

findings’’ is not defined; frequency of 

reporting is not delineated and 

workload would double when this 

provision is applied to local agencies. 

The Colorado DOT recommended the 

provision should be deleted and the 

subject left to the language contained in 

§ 650.313(d). 

Thirty-seven Kansas counties, seven 

Kansas cities, one Kansas consultant 

commented on the proposed 

§ 650.313(l) and the majority disagreed 

with the provision because the cost of 

establishing a statewide procedure to 

address critical findings is not justified. 

The Oklahoma DOT suggested revising 

this section to require the program 

manager be responsible for determining 

a procedure to address critical findings 

and that the FHWA should define the 

term ‘‘program manager.’’

FHWA response: The broad definition 

for ‘‘critical finding’’ was added to allow 

flexibility to establish, in cooperation 

with the FHWA, criteria and reporting 

procedures specific to a particular State 

or Federal agency. The FHWA noted 

that many States already have 

established procedures that are working 

well, and the rule was not meant to 

require significant changes in those 

procedures. ‘‘Notify the FHWA of 

actions taken to assure public safety’’

was changed to ‘‘Periodically notify the 

FHWA of the actions taken to resolve or 

monitor critical findings.’’ The period 

between notifications is to be agreed 

upon between the FHWA and the State 

or Federal agency. The proposed 

§ 650.313(l) has been redesignated as 

§ 650.313(h). 

Section 650.315 Inventory 

Prepare and Maintain 

The Oregon DOT commented that 

§ 650.315 requirements are very 

reasonable. The Texas and Oklahoma 

DOTs suggested that the first sentence of 

74434 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

19National Bridge Inventory ‘‘item number 58,’’

Deck, describes the overall condition rating of the 

deck.

20National Bridge Inventory ‘‘item number 59,’’

Superstructure, describes the physical condition of 

all structural members.

21National Bridge Inventory ‘‘item number 60,’’

Substructure, describes the physical condition of 

piers, abutments, piles, fenders, footings, or other 

components.

§ 650.315(a) be rewritten as follows: 

‘‘Each State and Federal agency must 

prepare and maintain an inventory of all 

bridges subject to the NBIS that are 

inspected according to § 650.307.’’ The 

Texas DOT asked if the States were 

required to maintain an inventory of 

federally owned bridges even though 

they are not inspected by the States. 

The Kansas DOT recommended that 

the second sentence in § 650.315(a) be 

rewritten to say, ‘‘State and Federal 

agencies must collect, retain and submit 

certain * * *’’. 

The AASHTO recommended revising 

the first two sentences of § 650.315(a) as 

follows: ‘‘Each State must prepare and 

maintain an inventory of all bridges 

subject to the NBIS. Each Federal 

agency must prepare and maintain an 

inventory of all bridges subject to the 

NBIS.’’

FHWA response: We have modified 

§ 650.315(a) by removing the word 

‘‘and’’ and replacing it with the word 

‘‘or.’’ We do not require that States 

collect, report or retain the Federal 

bridge information. The FHWA 

annually provides a copy to each State 

of all the inspection information that 

was submitted by Federal agencies for 

each State. This is done so that the 

States may have a complete inventory 

and have access to Federal bridge data 

within the State. 

Data Submittal Deadlines: Initial, 

Routine, In-Depth, Fracture Critical, 

Special and Underwater Inspections 

The New Jersey DOT interpreted the 

proposed § 650.315(b) to apply only to 

major changes in NBI data rather than 

all inspection data which may not be 

available until the inspection report is 

complete. The Massachusetts DOT 

support the proposed changes. The 

Kansas DOT and the AASHTO 

recommended that inspection data from 

initial, routine, in-depth, fracture 

critical, special and underwater 

inspections be entered into the NBI 

within 120 days of inspection, rather 

than 90 days.

FHWA response: All inspection data 

is to be entered into the inventory 

whether it is new data or changed data. 

This is not always restricted to NBI item 

number 58 19, NBI item number 59 20

and NBI item number 60 21 since other 

items such as bridge clearances and 

safety features, may also change during 

an inspection cycle. The FHWA believes 

that the 90 day (3 month) period for 

entering the data allows a reasonable 

amount of time for completion of the 

inspection report and data entry.

The FHWA believes that extending 

the time required for entering the data 

after inspection to 180 days (6 months) 

for States or Federal agencies is too 

long. The 90-day time period for 

entering the data is consistent with the 

current regulation. The FHWA only 

collects this data once a year and any 

delay in the data being properly 

inventoried would not provide the 

FHWA the most current data available. 

Up-to-date information is vital to the 

program oversight, management and 

stewardship for the State and the 

FHWA. It is also important that the 

FHWA have current data because this 

data is used to: (1) Distribute funds for 

the HBRRP program (23 U.S.C. 144), (2) 

provide reports to Congress, and (3) 

make critical decisions regarding the 

bridge program. This necessitates 

adherence to a firm 90-day collection 

period. 

Data Submittal Deadlines: Bridge 

Modifications and New Bridges 

The Massachusetts DOT supported 

the changes proposed to § 650.315(c). 

The Minnesota DOT recommended 

extending timelines to provide more 

flexibility to inspection agencies 

entering data, ‘‘within one year not to 

exceed 90 days.’’ The Kansas DOT and 

the AASHTO recommended allowing 

120 days rather than 90 days to enter the 

data. The Washington DOT 

recommended adding a qualifier, ‘‘open 

to traffic,’’ to appropriately consider 

bridges built in phased construction 

where only a portion of the bridge may 

be open. 

FHWA response: The FHWA noted 

that extension of the time required for 

entering changed data because of bridge 

modifications or new bridge 

construction is not justified. The 90 day 

time frame for entering data is 

consistent with the current regulation. 

For the reasons listed in the FHWA 

response to § 650.315(b), up-to-date 

information is vital to the bridge 

program. If any part of a highway bridge 

is open to traffic it should be inspected 

and inventoried in accordance with the 

NBIS. 

Data Submittal Deadlines: Load 

Restriction or Closure Status 

The Massachusetts DOT supported 

the changes proposed to § 650.315(d). 

The Minnesota DOT recommended 

extending timelines to provide more 

flexibility to inspection agencies 

entering data, ‘‘within one year not to 

exceed 90 days.’’ The Kansas DOT and 

the AASHTO recommended allowing 

120 days rather than 90 days to enter the 

data. The Minnesota DOT indicated it 

did not want to see the requirement to 

develop QA and QC measures to enforce 

these timelines. 

FHWA response: The FHWA noted 

that the time required for entering 

changed data due to load restriction or 

closure status being extended to 180 

days (6 months) is too long. The 90-day 

time frame for entering data is 

consistent with the current regulation. 

The FHWA only collects this data once 

a year and any delay in the data being 

properly inventoried would not provide 

the FHWA the most current data 

available. For the reasons listed in the 

FHWA response to § 650.315(b), up-todate information is vital to the bridge 

program. The FHWA is not requiring 

that a ‘‘QA and QC measure’’ be 

developed to enforce these timelines. 

Section 650.317 Reference Manuals 

The South Dakota DOT supports 

§ 650.317. 

The Kansas DOT and the AASHTO 

recommended the FHWA combine 

§ 650.317(a) and § 650.317(b). The 

Michigan DOT does not support the 

incorporation of the AASHTO Manual 

in § 650.317(a), reasoning that an overly 

detailed regulation could incur 

unnecessary liability for the States due 

to the difficulty of achieving 100 

percent compliance. The AASHTO 

commented that the availability of a 

2003 Interim revision to the AASHTO 

Manual would necessitate adding it to 

the reference manuals. 

FHWA response: The FHWA does not 

agree with combining § 650.317(a) and 

§ 650.317(b) since they are two distinct 

documents. The FHWA agrees that the 

2003 Interim revision to the AASHTO 

Manual for Condition Evaluation of 

Bridges needs to be incorporated by 

reference and has made that change. 

Related Rulemakings and Notices 

The FHWA is also in the process of 

reviewing 23 CFR part 650, subpart D, 

Highway Bridge Replacement and 

Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). The 

FHWA published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the HBRRP on 

September 26, 2001, at 66 FR 49152. 

The FHWA also recently published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking for the 

HBRRP on June 21, 2004, at 69 FR 

34314. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74435

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this 

action is a significant regulatory action 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

12866 and is significant within the 

meaning of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation regulatory policies and 

procedures. This action is considered 

significant because of the substantial 

public interest in the safety of highway 

bridges. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) designated this 

regulation as a significant regulatory 

action and has reviewed it under E.O. 

12866. 

We have analyzed the costs associated 

with this rulemaking. We believe that 

the costs of the changes in this final rule 

will be minimal because we believe that 

most States already adhere to many of 

the inspection procedures set forth in 

this rule and, therefore, we believe these 

changes will add less than $1 million to 

the costs associated with a multi-billon 

dollar program. Additionally, the bridge 

program is part of the Federal-aid 

highway program and, thus, the costs 

associated with this rule are eligible for 

funding under this program. We believe 

the changes to the inspection program 

are minor and will not be costly to the 

States. Finally, we have carefully 

analyzed the costs associated with the 

information collection and we believe 

the cost associated with the minor 

increase in burden hours will be 

$52,000 or about $1000 per State (to 

include the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico); therefore, the total cost of 

the entire information collection will be 

approximately $13,552,000, or an 

average of $260,000 per State. These 

information collection costs also may be 

reimbursed under the Federal-aid 

highway program. 

This final rule will not adversely 

affect, in a material way, any sector of 

the economy. In addition, these changes 

will not interfere with any action taken 

or planned by another agency and will 

not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of any entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a 

full regulatory evaluation is not 

required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612) the FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this action on small entities 

and has determined that the action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Since the regulatory changes 

are primarily directed to the States, 

which are not considered small entities 

for the purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the FHWA is able to 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule does not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $120.7 million or more 

in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). 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 to the 

States. Additionally, funding to 

inventory highway bridges, as well as 

Indian reservation and park road 

bridges, is currently provided under 23 

U.S.C. 144, Highway Bridge 

Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program (HBRRP). Bridge inspection is 

an eligible activity under the HBRRP 

and Federal funding is available to the 

States under the HBRRP. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This action meets applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

We have analyzed this action under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This final rule 

is not an economically significant rule 

and does not concern an environmental 

risk to health or safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

This action will not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, and the FHWA has determined 

that this action will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

The FHWA has also determined that 

this action does not preempt any State 

law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation)

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000. The FHWA believes 

that this action will not have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes; will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments; and will not preempt 

tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary 

impact statement is not required. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction. 

The regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to 

this program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The State 

reporting requirements related to the 

National Bridge Inspection Standards 

are covered by an existing FHWA 

information collection entitled Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) Sheet. 

The OMB control number for this 

collection is 2125–0501. The current 

annual burden imposed on the States 

under this information collection is 

540,000 hours. 

The SI&A sheets are used by the 

States and Federal agencies to provide 

to the FHWA the required information 

on annual bridge inspections. The 

FHWA has determined that the new 

requirements in this final rule will place 

an additional 2,080 burden hours on the 

States, which will result in a total 

annual burden of 542,080 hours. The 

additional burden is based on a review 

of the national bridge inspection data 

coupled with the additional NBIS 

requirements this rulemaking action 

74436 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1The National Highway Institute training may be 

found at the following URL: http://

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov./

imposes on the States. These 

requirements include the development 

of procedures for follow-up on critical 

findings. 

In the NPRM published on September 

9, 2003, the FHWA proposed a burden 

increase of 67,000 hours for the 

information collection, OMB control 

number 2125–0501, and invited 

interested parties to send comments 

regarding any aspect of these 

information collection requirements. 

Such comments could include, but were 

not limited to: (1) Whether the 

collection of information will be 

necessary for the performance of the 

functions of the FHWA, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

collection of information; and (4) ways 

to minimize the collection burden 

without reducing the quality of the 

information collected. The FHWA did 

not receive any comments in response 

to the proposed burden hour increase of 

67,000 hours. The revision to the 

information collection, OMB control 

number 2125–0501, based on this final 

rule will increase the burden hours by 

only 2,080 hours, a much smaller 

amount than that originally proposed in 

the NPRM. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this action 

for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321) and has determined that 

this action will not have any effect on 

the quality of the environment. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a significant 

energy action under that order, because 

although it is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross-reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650 

Bridges, Grant Programs—

transportation, Highways and roads, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and record keeping requirements.

Issued on: December 9, 2004. 

Mary E. Peters, 

Federal Highway Administrator.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

FHWA is amending title 23, Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 650, subpart C, 

as follows:

PART 650—BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, 

AND HYDRAULICS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 650 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 (a) and (h), 144, 

151, 315, and 319; 33 U.S.C. 401, 491 et seq., 

511 et seq.; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b), E.O. 

11988 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 117); 

Department of Transportation Order 5650.2 

dated April 23, 1979 (44 FR 24678); sec. 161 

of Public Law 97–424, 96 Stat. 2097, 3135; 

sec. 4(b) of Public Law 97–134, 95 Stat. 1699; 

and sec. 1057 of Public Law 102–240, 105 

Stat. 2002; and sec. 1311 of Pub. L. 105–178, 

as added by Pub. L. 105–206, 112 Stat. 842 

(1998).

■ 2. Revise subpart C to read as follows:

Subpart C—National Bridge Inspection 

Standards 

Sec. 

650.301 Purpose. 

650.303 Applicability. 

650.305 Definitions. 

650.307 Bridge inspection organization. 

650.309 Qualifications of personnel. 

650.311 Inspection frequency. 

650.313 Inspection procedures. 

650.315 Inventory. 

650.317 Reference manuals.

Subpart C—National Bridge Inspection 

Standards

§ 650.301 Purpose. 

This subpart sets the national 

standards for the proper safety 

inspection and evaluation of all 

highway bridges in accordance with 23 

U.S.C. 151.

§ 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.

§ 650.305 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined as follows: 

American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Manual. ‘‘Manual for 

Condition Evaluation of Bridges,’’

second edition, published by the 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials 

(incorporated by reference, see

§ 650.317).

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 

undercopings of abutments or spring 

lines of arches, or extreme ends of 

openings for multiple boxes; it may also 

include multiple pipes, where the clear 

distance between openings is less than 

half of the smaller contiguous opening. 

Bridge inspection experience. Active 

participation in bridge inspections in 

accordance with the NBIS, in either a 

field inspection, supervisory, or 

management role. A combination of 

bridge design, bridge maintenance, 

bridge construction and bridge 

inspection experience, with the 

predominant amount in bridge 

inspection, is acceptable. 

Bridge inspection refresher training.

The National Highway Institute ‘‘Bridge 

Inspection Refresher Training Course’’ 1

or other State, local, or federally 

developed instruction aimed to improve 

quality of inspections, introduce new 

techniques, and maintain the 

consistency of the inspection program.

Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

(BIRM). A comprehensive FHWA 

manual on programs, procedures and 

techniques for inspecting and evaluating 

a variety of in-service highway bridges. 

This manual may be purchased from the 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402 and from 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161, and is 

available at the following URL: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bripub.htm.

Complex bridge. Movable, 

suspension, cable stayed, and other 

bridges with unusual characteristics. 

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 Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

for the recommended material to be 

covered in a comprehensive training 

course). 

Critical finding. A structural or safety 

related deficiency that requires 

immediate follow-up inspection or 

action. 

Damage inspection. This is an 

unscheduled inspection to assess 

structural damage resulting from 

environmental factors or human actions. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74437

Fracture critical member (FCM). A 

steel member in tension, or with a 

tension element, whose failure would 

probably cause a portion of or the entire 

bridge to collapse. 

Fracture critical member inspection.

A hands-on inspection of a fracture 

critical member or member components 

that may include visual and other 

nondestructive evaluation. 

Hands-on. Inspection within arms 

length of the component. Inspection 

uses visual techniques that may be 

supplemented by nondestructive 

testing. 

Highway. The term ‘‘highway’’ is 

defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11). 

In-depth inspection. A close-up, 

inspection of one or more members 

above or below the water level to 

identify any deficiencies not readily 

detectable using routine inspection 

procedures; hands-on inspection may be 

necessary at some locations. 

Initial inspection. The first inspection 

of a bridge as it becomes a part of the 

bridge file to provide all Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) data 

and other relevant data and to 

determine baseline structural 

conditions. 

Legal load. The maximum legal load 

for each vehicle configuration permitted 

by law for the State in which the bridge 

is located. 

Load rating. The determination of the 

live load carrying capacity of a bridge 

using bridge plans and supplemented by 

information gathered from a field 

inspection. 

National Institute for Certification in 

Engineering Technologies (NICET). The 

NICET provides nationally applicable 

voluntary certification programs 

covering several broad engineering 

technology fields and a number of 

specialized subfields. For information 

on the NICET program certification 

contact: National Institute for 

Certification in Engineering 

Technologies, 1420 King Street, 

Alexandria, VA 22314–2794. 

Operating rating. The maximum 

permissible live load to which the 

structure may be subjected for the load 

configuration used in the rating. 

Professional engineer (PE). An 

individual, who has fulfilled education 

and experience requirements and 

passed rigorous exams that, under State 

licensure laws, permits them to offer 

engineering services directly to the 

public. Engineering licensure laws vary 

from State to State, but, in general, to 

become a PE an individual must be a 

graduate of an engineering program 

accredited by the Accreditation Board 

for Engineering and Technology, pass 

the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, 

gain four years of experience working 

under a PE, and pass the Principles of 

Practice of Engineering exam. 

Program Manager. The individual in 

charge of the program, that has been 

assigned or delegated the duties and 

responsibilities for bridge inspection, 

reporting, and inventory. 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(a)(27).

Quality assurance (QA). The use of 

sampling and other measures to assure 

the adequacy of quality control 

procedures in order to verify or measure 

the quality level of the entire bridge 

inspection and load rating program. 

Quality control (QC). Procedures that 

are intended to maintain the quality of 

a bridge inspection and load rating at or 

above a specified level. 

Routine inspection. Regularly 

scheduled inspection consisting of 

observations and/or measurements 

needed to determine the physical and 

functional condition of the bridge, to 

identify any changes from initial or 

previously recorded conditions, and to 

ensure that the structure continues to 

satisfy present service requirements. 

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. 

Scour. Erosion of streambed or bank 

material due to flowing water; often 

considered as being localized around 

piers and abutments of bridges. 

Scour critical bridge. A bridge with a 

foundation element that has been 

determined to be unstable for the 

observed or evaluated scour condition. 

Special inspection. An inspection 

scheduled at the discretion of the bridge 

owner, used to monitor a particular 

known or suspected deficiency. 

State transportation department. The 

term ‘‘State transportation department’’

is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34). 

Team leader. Individual in charge of 

an inspection team responsible for 

planning, preparing, and performing 

field inspection of the bridge. 

Underwater diver bridge inspection 

training. Training that covers all aspects 

of underwater bridge inspection and 

enables inspectors to relate the 

conditions of underwater bridge 

elements to established criteria (see the 

Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

section on underwater inspection for the 

recommended material to be covered in 

an underwater diver 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 by wading or 

probing, generally requiring diving or 

other appropriate techniques.

§ 650.307 Bridge inspection organization. 

(a) Each State transportation 

department must inspect, or cause to be 

inspected, all highway bridges located 

on public roads that are fully or 

partially located within the State’s 

boundaries, except for bridges that are 

owned by Federal agencies. 

(b) Federal agencies must inspect, or 

cause to be inspected, all highway 

bridges located on public roads that are 

fully or partially located within the 

respective agency responsibility or 

jurisdiction. 

(c) Each State transportation 

department or Federal agency must 

include a bridge inspection organization 

that is responsible for the following: 

(1) Statewide or Federal agencywide 

bridge inspection policies and 

procedures, quality assurance and 

quality control, and preparation and 

maintenance of a bridge inventory. 

(2) Bridge inspections, reports, load 

ratings and other requirements of these 

standards. 

(d) Functions identified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section may be 

delegated, but such delegation does not 

relieve the State transportation 

department or Federal agency of any of 

its responsibilities under this subpart. 

(e) The State transportation 

department or Federal agency bridge 

inspection organization must have a 

program manager with the qualifications 

defined in § 650.309(a), who has been 

delegated responsibility for paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section.

§ 650.309 Qualifications of personnel. 

(a) A program manager must, at a 

minimum: 

(1) Be a registered professional 

engineer, or have ten years bridge 

inspection experience; and 

(2) Successfully complete a Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training course. 

(b) There are five ways to qualify as 

a team leader. A team leader must, at a 

minimum: 

(1) Have the qualifications specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section; or 

(2) Have five years bridge inspection 

experience and have successfully 

completed an FHWA approved 

comprehensive bridge inspection 

training course; or 

74438 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Be certified as a Level III or IV 

Bridge Safety Inspector under the 

National Society of Professional 

Engineer’s program for National 

Certification in Engineering 

Technologies (NICET) and have 

successfully completed an FHWA 

approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training course, or 

(4) Have all of the following:

(i) A bachelor’s degree in engineering 

from a college or university accredited 

by or determined as substantially 

equivalent by the Accreditation Board 

for Engineering and Technology; 

(ii) Successfully passed the National 

Council of Examiners for Engineering 

and Surveying Fundamentals of 

Engineering examination; 

(iii) Two years of bridge inspection 

experience; and 

(iv) Successfully completed an FHWA 

approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training course, or 

(5) Have all of the following: 

(i) 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; 

(ii) Four years of bridge inspection 

experience; and 

(iii) Successfully completed an FHWA 

approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training course. 

(c) The individual charged with the 

overall responsibility for load rating 

bridges must be a registered professional 

engineer. 

(d) An underwater bridge inspection 

diver must complete an FHWA 

approved comprehensive bridge 

inspection training course or other 

FHWA approved underwater diver 

bridge inspection training course.

§ 650.311 Inspection frequency. 

(a) Routine inspections. (1) Inspect 

each bridge at regular intervals not to 

exceed twenty-four months. 

(2) Certain bridges require inspection 

at less than twenty-four-month 

intervals. Establish criteria to determine 

the level and frequency to which these 

bridges are inspected considering such 

factors as age, traffic characteristics, and 

known deficiencies. 

(3) Certain bridges may be inspected 

at greater than twenty-four month 

intervals, not to exceed forty-eightmonths, with written FHWA approval. 

This may be appropriate when past 

inspection findings and analysis 

justifies the increased inspection 

interval. 

(b) Underwater inspections. (1) 

Inspect underwater structural elements 

at regular intervals not to exceed sixty 

months. 

(2) Certain underwater structural 

elements require inspection at less than 

sixty-month intervals. Establish criteria 

to determine the level and frequency to 

which these members are inspected 

considering such factors as construction 

material, environment, age, scour 

characteristics, condition rating from 

past inspections and known 

deficiencies. 

(3) Certain underwater structural 

elements may be inspected at greater 

than sixty-month intervals, not to 

exceed seventy-two months, with 

written FHWA approval. This may be 

appropriate when past inspection 

findings and analysis justifies the 

increased inspection interval. 

(c) Fracture critical member (FCM) 

inspections. (1) Inspect FCMs at 

intervals not to exceed twenty-four 

months. 

(2) Certain FCMs require inspection at 

less than twenty-four-month intervals. 

Establish criteria to determine the level 

and frequency to which these members 

are inspected considering such factors 

as age, traffic characteristics, and known 

deficiencies.

(d) Damage, in-depth, and special 

inspections. Establish criteria to 

determine the level and frequency of 

these inspections.

§ 650.313 Inspection procedures. 

(a) Inspect each bridge in accordance 

with the inspection procedures in the 

AASHTO Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 650.317). 

(b) Provide at least one team leader, 

who meets the minimum qualifications 

stated in § 650.309, at the bridge at all 

times during each initial, routine, indepth, fracture critical member and 

underwater inspection. 

(c) Rate each bridge as to its safe loadcarrying capacity in accordance with the 

AASHTO Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 650.317). Post or restrict 

the bridge in accordance with the 

AASHTO Manual or in accordance with 

State law, when the maximum 

unrestricted legal loads or State routine 

permit loads exceed that allowed under 

the operating rating or equivalent rating 

factor. 

(d) Prepare bridge files as described in 

the AASHTO Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 650.317). Maintain 

reports on the results of bridge 

inspections together with notations of 

any action taken to address the findings 

of such inspections. Maintain relevant 

maintenance and inspection data to 

allow assessment of current bridge 

condition. Record the findings and 

results of bridge inspections on standard 

State or Federal agency forms. 

(e) Identify bridges with FCMs, 

bridges requiring underwater 

inspection, and bridges that are scour 

critical. 

(1) Bridges with fracture critical 

members. In the inspection records, 

identify the location of FCMs and 

describe the FCM inspection frequency 

and procedures. Inspect FCMs 

according to these procedures. 

(2) Bridges requiring underwater 

inspections. Identify the location of 

underwater elements and include a 

description of the underwater elements, 

the inspection frequency and the 

procedures in the inspection records for 

each bridge requiring underwater 

inspection. Inspect those elements 

requiring underwater inspections 

according to these procedures. 

(3) Bridges that are scour critical. 

Prepare a plan of action to monitor 

known and potential deficiencies and to 

address critical findings. Monitor 

bridges that are scour critical in 

accordance with the plan. 

(f) Complex bridges. Identify 

specialized inspection procedures, and 

additional inspector training and 

experience required to inspect complex 

bridges. Inspect complex bridges 

according to those procedures. 

(g) Quality control and quality 

assurance. Assure systematic quality 

control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) 

procedures are used to maintain a high 

degree of accuracy and consistency in 

the inspection program. Include 

periodic field review of inspection 

teams, periodic bridge inspection 

refresher training for program managers 

and team leaders, and independent 

review of inspection reports and 

computations. 

(h) Follow-up on critical findings.

Establish a statewide or Federal agency 

wide procedure to assure that critical 

findings are addressed in a timely 

manner. Periodically notify the FHWA 

of the actions taken to resolve or 

monitor critical findings.

§ 650.315 Inventory. 

(a) Each State or Federal agency must 

prepare and maintain an inventory of all 

bridges subject to the NBIS. Certain 

Structure Inventory and Appraisal 

(SI&A) data must be collected and 

retained by the State or Federal agency 

for collection by the FHWA as 

requested. A tabulation of this data is 

contained in the SI&A sheet distributed 

by the FHWA as part of the ‘‘Recording 

and Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s 

Bridges,’’ (December 1995) together with 

subsequent interim changes or the most 

recent version. Report the data using 

FHWA established procedures as 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74439

1This Interpretive Guidance focuses on the need 

to control risks arising out of the relationship 

between a Money Service Business and its foreign 

counterparty or agent. Under existing FinCEN 

regulations, only Money Service Business 

principals are required to register with FinCEN, and 

only Money Service Business principals establish 

the counterparty or agency relationships. 31 CFR 

103.41. Accordingly, this Interpretive Guidance 

only applies to those Money Service Businesses 

required to register with FinCEN, that is, only those 

Money Service Businesses that may have a 

relationship with a foreign agent or counterparty.

outlined in the ‘‘Recording and Coding 

Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges.’’

(b) For routine, in-depth, fracture 

critical member, underwater, damage 

and special inspections enter the SI&A 

data into the State or Federal agency 

inventory within 90 days of the date of 

inspection for State or Federal agency 

bridges and within 180 days of the date 

of inspection for all other bridges. 

(c) For existing bridge modifications 

that alter previously recorded data and 

for new bridges, enter the SI&A data 

into the State or Federal agency 

inventory within 90 days after the 

completion of the work for State or 

Federal agency bridges and within 180 

days after the completion of the work 

for all other bridges. 

(d) For changes in load restriction or 

closure status, enter the SI&A data into 

the State or Federal agency inventory 

within 90 days after the change in status 

of the structure for State or Federal 

agency bridges and within 180 days 

after the change in status of the 

structure for all other bridges.

§ 650.317 Reference manuals. 

(a) The materials listed in this subpart 

are incorporated by reference in the 

corresponding sections noted. These 

incorporations by reference were 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These 

materials are incorporated as they exist 

on the date of the approval, and notice 

of any change in these documents will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

The materials are available for purchase 

at the address listed below, and are 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). These materials may also be 

reviewed at the Department of 

Transportation Library, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC, in Room 

2200. For information on the availability 

of these materials at NARA call (202) 

741–6030, or go to the following URL: 

http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html. In the event there is 

a conflict between the standards in this 

subpart and any of these materials, the 

standards in this subpart will apply. 

(b) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, Suite 249, 

444 N. Capitol Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001. The materials may also be 

ordered via the AASHTO bookstore 

located at the following URL: http://

www.aashto.org/aashto/home.nsf/

FrontPage.

(1) The Manual for Condition 

Evaluation of Bridges, 1994, second 

edition, as amended by the 1995, 1996, 

1998, and 2000 interim revisions, 

AASHTO, incorporation by reference 

approved for §§ 650.305 and 650.313. 

(2) 2001 Interim Revision to the 

Manual for Condition Evaluation of 

Bridges, AASHTO, incorporation by 

reference approved for §§ 650.305 and 

650.313. 

(3) 2003 Interim Revision to the 

Manual for Condition Evaluation of 

Bridges, AASHTO, incorporation by 

reference approved for §§ 650.305 and 

650.313.

[FR Doc. 04–27355 Filed 12–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103 

Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network; Interpretive Release 2004–1—

Anti-Money Laundering Program 

Requirements for Money Services 

Businesses With Respect to Foreign 

Agents or Foreign Counterparties

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; interpretive release.

SUMMARY: This Interpretive Release sets 

forth an interpretation of the regulation 

requiring Money Services Businesses 

that are required to register with 

FinCEN to establish and maintain antimoney laundering programs. 

Specifically, this Interpretive Release 

clarifies that the anti-money laundering 

program regulation requires such Money 

Services Businesses to establish 

adequate and appropriate policies, 

procedures and controls commensurate 

with the risk of money laundering and 

the financing of terrorism posed by their 

relationship with foreign agents or 

foreign counterparties of the Money 

Services Business.

DATES: Effective June 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Regulatory Policy and 

Programs Division, 1–800–800–2877, 

Office of Chief Counsel (703) 905–3590 

(not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

5318(h) of the Bank Secrecy Act, which 

is codified in subchapter II of chapter 53 

of title 31, United States Code, requires 

every financial institution to establish 

an anti-money laundering program. The 

Bank Secrecy Act regulations define 

financial institution to include money 

service businesses. On April 29, 2002, 

FinCEN issued interim final rules-31 

CFR 103.125-concerning the application 

of the anti-money laundering program 

requirement to money services 

businesses. 67 FR 21114.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103 

Authority delegations (government 

agencies), bank, banking, currency, 

investigations, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Department of the Treasury 

31 CFR Chapter I 

Authority and Issuance

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, part 103 of title 31 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 103—FINANCIAL 

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 

OF CURRENCY AND FOREIGN 

TRANSACTIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959: 

31 U.S.C 5311–5314 and 5316–5332; title III, 

secs. 312, 313, 314, 319, 326, 352, Pub. L. 

107–56, 115 Stat. 307, 12 U.S.C. 1786(q).

■ 2. Part 103 is amended by adding a 

new appendix C to read as follows:

APPENDIX C TO PART 103—

INTERPRETIVE RULES

Release No. 2004–01 

This Interpretive Guidance sets forth our 

interpretation of the regulation requiring 

Money Services Businesses that are required 

to register with FinCEN to establish and 

maintain anti-money laundering programs. 

See 31 CFR 103.125. Specifically, this 

Interpretive Guidance clarifies that the antimoney laundering program regulation 

requires Money Services Businesses to 

establish adequate and appropriate policies, 

procedures, and controls commensurate with 

the risks of money laundering and the 

financing of terrorism posed by their 

relationship with foreign agents or foreign 

counterparties of the Money Services 

Business.1

Under existing Bank Secrecy Act 

regulations, we have defined Money Services 

Businesses to include five distinct types of 

financial services providers and the U.S. 

Postal Service: (1) Currency dealers or 

exchangers; (2) check cashers; (3) issuers of 

traveler’s checks, money orders, or stored