[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41558-41579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19367]



[[Page 41557]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 213 and 237



Bridge Safety Standards; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 41558]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 237

[Docket No. FRA 2009-0014, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC04


Bridge Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to standardize and establish Federal 
requirements for railroad bridges. This proposed rule would require 
track owners to implement bridge management programs that include 
annual inspections of railroad bridges. The proposed rule would also 
require track owners to know the safe capacity load of bridges and to 
conduct special inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant 
such inspections. Finally, the proposed rule would also require the 
audit of the bridge management programs and the inspections.

DATES: Written comments must be received by October 1, 2009. Comments 
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible 
without incurring additional delay or expense.
    FRA anticipates being able to complete this rulemaking without a 
public, oral hearing. However if FRA receives a specific request for a 
public, oral hearing prior to September 16, 2009, one will be scheduled 
and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to 
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such 
hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2009-0014 may 
be submitted by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.Regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 
DC 20590-0001.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    <bullet> Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Please note that all comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.Regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the discussion under the Privacy Act 
heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.Regulations.gov at any time or 
visit the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

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

Background

I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges

A. General

    There are nearly 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States. 
These bridges are owned by over 600 different entities. The bridges 
vary in length, load capacity, design, and construction material. 
Everything that is shipped or transported via rail likely travels 
across one or more railroad bridge. Thus, everything from intermodal 
goods, automobiles, grain, coal, hazardous materials, and passengers is 
transported on the nation's rail system and therefore across railroad 
bridges.
    The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is 
important to the safety of railroad employees and to the public. The 
responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges rests with the owner 
of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to 
whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner. The 
severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a bridge is 
involved, regardless of the cause of the accident.
    Beginning in 1991, FRA conducted a review of the safety of railroad 
bridges. The review was prompted by the agency's perception that the 
bridge population was aging, traffic density and loads were increasing 
on many routes, and the consequences of a bridge failure could be 
catastrophic. During the past five decades, not one fatality has been 
caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge. Train accidents 
caused by the structural failure of railroad bridges have been 
extremely rare.
    Although the average construction date of railroad bridges predates 
most highway bridges by several decades, the older railroad bridges 
were designed to carry heavy steam locomotives. Design factors were 
generally conservative, and the bridges' functional designs permit 
repairs and reinforcements when necessary to maintain their viability. 
Railroad bridges are most often privately, rather than publicly, owned. 
Their owners seem to recognize the economic consequences of neglecting 
important maintenance. Private ownership enables the railroads to 
control the loads that operate over their bridges. Cars and locomotives 
exceeding the nominal capacity of a bridge are not operated without 
permission from the responsible bridge engineers, and then only under 
restrictions and conditions that protect the integrity of the bridge.
    Many railroad bridges display superficial signs of deterioration 
but still retain the capacity to safely carry their loads. Corrosion on 
a bridge is not a safety issue unless a critical area sees significant 
loss of material. Routine inspections are prescribed to detect this 
condition, but determination of its effect requires a detailed 
inspection and analysis of the bridge. In general, timber bridges 
continue to function safely, and masonry structures built as early as 
the 1830's remain functional and safe for their traffic. Of the few 
train accidents that involved bridges, most have not been caused by 
structural failure. FRA accident records for the 27 years 1982 through 
2008 show 58 train accidents

[[Page 41559]]

that were caused by the structural failure of railroad bridges. These 
accidents resulted in nine reportable injuries and a reported 
$26,555,878 damage to railroad facilities, cars and locomotives.

B. Regulatory History

    On April 27, 1995, FRA issued an interim statement of policy on the 
safety of railroad bridges. Published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 
20654, the interim statement included a request for comments to be 
submitted to FRA during a 60-day period following publication. On 
August 30, 2000, FRA published a final statement of agency policy for 
the safety of railroad bridges (``policy statement''). See 65 FR 52667. 
The policy statement can be found at 49 CFR part 213 appendix C. With 
the policy, FRA established criteria for railroads to use to ensure the 
structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks, which 
reflected minor changes following public comment on the interim 
statement. Unlike regulations under which FRA ordinarily issues 
violations and assesses civil penalties, the policy statement contains 
guidelines for the proper maintenance of bridge structures and is 
advisory in nature.
    On October 16, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Railroad 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-423, Division A 
(``RSIA''). Section 417 of the RSIA directs FRA to issue, by October 
16, 2009, regulations requiring railroad track owners to adopt and 
follow specific procedures to protect the safety of their bridges. This 
NPRM is the first step to the agency's promulgation of bridge safety 
regulations per the mandate of the RSIA. In the Section-by-Section 
Analysis, below, FRA will discuss how the proposed regulatory text 
addresses each portion of the RSIA.
    Prior to the passage of the RSIA, FRA had already begun work on 
revising the policy statement. On January 13, 2009, FRA published an 
amendment to the policy statement by incorporating changes proposed by 
the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (``RSAC'') on September 10, 2008. 
RSAC developed a list of Essential Elements of Railroad Bridge 
Management Programs (``Essential Elements'') which make up the bulk of 
the amendment. The Essential Elements provide railroad track owners 
with a uniform, comprehensive set of components for recommended 
inclusion in their bridge management programs. With this information, a 
track owner may develop a single, comprehensive set of instructions, 
information and data as guidance for his employees who are responsible 
for the management, inspection, maintenance, and safety of railroad 
bridges. RSAC also recognized that, although most railroads were 
already performing these functions to varying degrees, it would be 
useful to have the recommended Essential Elements available in a 
central location so that all concerned may see the railroad's full 
program, and also to determine that no essential element is overlooked.
    All aspects of the policy statement that are not incorporated into 
the regulatory text of part 237 are now found in its appendix A.

II. The Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview

    In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for 
developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on 
rulemakings and other safety program issues. The RSAC includes 
representation from all of the industry's major stakeholders, including 
railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other 
interested parties. A list of RSAC members follows: American 
Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO); American 
Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 
American Chemistry Council; American Petrochemical Institute; American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA); American Short Line and 
Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA); American Train Dispatchers 
Association (ATDA); Association of American Railroads (AAR); 
Association of Railway Museums (ARM); Association of State Rail Safety 
Managers (ASRSM); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 
(BLET); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED); 
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); Chlorine Institute; Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA)*; Fertilizer Institute; High Speed Ground 
Transportation Association (HSGTA); Institute of Makers of Explosives; 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Labor Council 
for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*; League of Railway Industry 
Women*; National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP); National 
Association of Railway Business Women*; National Conference of Firemen 
& Oilers; National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association; 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*; Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 
Safe Travel America (STA); Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte*; 
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA); Tourist Railway 
Association Inc.; Transport Canada*; Transport Workers Union of America 
(TWU); Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/
BRC); Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and United 
Transportation Union (UTU).

*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.

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

III. Railroad Bridge Working Group

    RSAC agreed with FRA on February 20, 2008, to accept the task of 
reviewing FRA's railroad bridge safety policies and

[[Page 41560]]

activities, and to make appropriate recommendations for FRA to improve 
the bridge safety program. RSAC accordingly established a Railroad 
Bridge Working Group (RBWG), composed of representatives of the various 
organizations on the RSAC and including persons with particular 
expertise in railroad bridge safety and management. The RBWG met on 
April 24-25, 2008, June 12, 2008, and August 7, 2008. On September 10, 
2008, the full RSAC voted on the RBWG's report, and recommended that 
FRA implement the RBWG's proposal of a set of ``Essential Elements of 
Railroad Bridge Management Programs,'' (Essential Elements) in FRA's 
Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges.
    The RBWG met again on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24, 
2009, to recommend rule text to address the RSIA's mandate to FRA in 
Section 417 to promulgate bridge safety regulations. The RBWG reached 
consensus on proposed regulatory text which makes up the basis of this 
NPRM. However, there were four items that the RBWG was not able to 
agree upon. The RBWG could not reach consensus with regard to 
Sec. Sec.  237.111(d), 237.111(e), 237.157(a) and 237.157(b). FRA 
requests that the public comment specifically on these items.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Appendix C to Part 213

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

Section 237.1 Scope

    In this section, FRA proposes the purpose for the minimum standards 
required under this part for management of railroad bridges. Railroads 
can adopt more stringent standards as long as they are in accordance 
with this part.

Section 237.5 Application

    FRA proposes that this rule will apply to all owners of track on 
bridges which carry railroad track with certain exceptions as outlined 
or explained in following subsections. As delineated in FRA's Statement 
of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety 
Laws at appendix A of 49 CFR part 209, FRA exercises jurisdiction over 
tourist, scenic, and excursion railroad operations whether or not they 
are conducted on the general railroad system. FRA proposes that this 
part apply to tourist railroads because the passengers on those 
railroads are entitled to the protection afforded by this rule.
    Paragraph (b). FRA proposes that this part not apply to bridges on 
track used exclusively for rapid transit operations in urban areas that 
are not connected with the general system of transportation. This is in 
accordance with appendix A of 49 CFR 209.

Section 237.7 Responsibility for Compliance

    FRA proposes that the responsibility for the safety of trains on 
any track lies with the owner of that track. Therefore, the track owner 
is responsible for complying with the bridge safety standards 
promulgated in this part. If a bridge carries tracks owned by two or 
more owners, then the track owner can choose to make an assignment of 
responsibility for compliance with this part. FRA proposes that the 
assignment process, delineated in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section, be similar to the assignment process detailed in 49 CFR 213.5. 
However, FRA proposes to be able to hold the track owner or the 
assignee or both responsible for compliance with this part and subject 
to penalties under section 237.11. FRA intends that the responsibility 
for compliance with this part will follow, as closely as practicable, 
the responsibility for compliance with the Federal Track Safety 
Standards, and that where such responsibility is already assigned, it 
would not be necessary for the track owner to file an additional 
assignment of responsibility. As in part 213, FRA intends that 
``person'' means an entity of any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, 
including but not limited to the following: a railroad; a manager, 
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any 
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track or 
facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services to a 
railroad; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or 
independent contractor; and anyone held by the FRA to be responsible 
for compliance with this part.
    During meetings with the RBWG, FRA staff initially proposed holding 
the ``bridge owner'' as the party responsible for compliance with part 
237, and had defined the ``bridge owner'' as the ``owner of track to 
which this part applies.'' After reviewing RSAC's recommendation, FRA 
determined that this definition could cause confusion, as the bridge 
owner might not be the party who owned the track supported by the 
bridge. FRA has proposed instead to hold the ``track owner'' 
responsible for compliance with this part.
    Paragraph (d). FRA proposes that a common carrier by railroad which 
is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to provide service over 
the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the 
owner of that track for the purposes of the application of this part 
during the period the directed service order remains in effect. On rare 
occasions, such as a cessation of service by a railroad, the Surface 
Transportation Board has directed a railroad other than the track owner 
to provide service. In such cases, the designated operator shall be 
considered the owner for purposes of compliance with the bridge safety 
regulations.

Section 237.9 Definitions

    FRA proposes that the definitions in this section are only intended 
to apply to this part, and not to alter the same terminology wherever 
used outside this part for other purposes.
    Bridge modification and repair. FRA proposes that bridge 
modification means a change to the configuration of a railroad bridge 
that affects the load capacity of the bridge. FRA proposes that bridge 
repair means remediation of damage or deterioration which has affected 
the structural integrity of a railroad bridge. FRA proposes that this 
part requires that modifications and repairs to bridges be designed by 
railroad bridge engineers, and the work supervised by designated bridge 
supervisors. This definition clarifies that minor modifications and 
repairs, such as replacing a wire rope handrail with one made of pipe, 
or painting a bridge, do not need to be designed and supervised 
pursuant to this part. However, this does not exempt the track owner 
from properly supervising the personal safety of the individuals 
performing the work because that issue is addressed in other rules.
    Railroad bridge. FRA proposes to define a ``railroad bridge'' as 
all structures over openings under the track except small culverts, 
pipes, or such other structures that are located so far below the track 
that they only carry dead load from soil pressure, and are not 
subjected to bending, tension or compression stresses from passing 
trains. FRA does not intend to relieve a railroad from taking any 
action necessary to protect the safety of trains in the case of any 
structure, including

[[Page 41561]]

small culverts, by providing for their inspection and maintenance, but 
it exempts them from the specific requirements of this regulation.

Section 237.11 Penalties

    FRA proposes that this provision conform to provisions of the 
enabling legislation and stated agency policy. Consistent with FRA's 
Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal 
Railroad Safety Laws, a penalty may be assessed against an individual 
only for a willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to 
assess a penalty of up to $100,000 for any violation where 
circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.

Section 237.13 Waivers

    FRA proposes that each petition for a waiver under this section 
shall be filed in the manner and contain the information required by 49 
CFR part 211, which prescribes rules of practice that apply to waiver 
proceedings. The processing of petitions for waiver of safety rules is 
found at subpart C to part 211.

Section 237.31 Scope

    It should be noted here that FRA is proposing minimum requirements 
to assure the structural integrity of railroad bridges and to protect 
the safe operation of trains over those bridges. The responsibility for 
the safety of a railroad bridge rests with the owner of the track 
supported by that bridge and the engineer who makes the critical 
decisions regarding the management and use of that bridge.

Section 237.33 Adoption of Bridge Management Programs

    Congress mandated that FRA ``promulgate a regulation requiring 
owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a 
bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration of 
railroad bridges and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental 
damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system 
that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure.'' Public Law 110-
432, Division A, Section 417(a). FRA proposes to require track owners 
to adopt a bridge safety management program that prevents the 
deterioration of railroad bridges by preserving their capability to 
safely carry the traffic to be operated over them. FRA is proposing 
that Class I carriers and owners of track segments which are part of 
the general railroad system of transportation and which carry more than 
ten scheduled passenger trains per week implement their bridge safety 
programs by six months after the final rule's effective date. FRA 
proposes that Class II carriers which carry less than 10 scheduled 
passenger trains per week implement their bridge safety programs by 
twelve months after the final rule's effective date. Finally, FRA 
proposes that all other track owners subject to this part implement 
their bridge safety programs by 24 months after the final rule's 
effective date.
    FRA has proposed an implementation schedule which is considered 
realistic, with priorities given to railroads with the highest levels 
of freight or passenger traffic. The implementation dates apply to the 
bridge owning entity, not to specific track segments. However, it is 
reasonable to consider that the specific provisions of each program 
will be implemented in a manner that accords higher priority to 
individual track segments with high volumes of freight or passenger 
traffic.

Section 237.35 Content of Bridge Management Programs

    Certain elements of a bridge management program are essential to 
its effectiveness. Those elements are enumerated in this section. Track 
owners and individuals responsible for the safety of railroad bridges 
are encouraged to adapt these elements to the needs of their areas of 
responsibility, and to adopt additional elements not inconsistent with 
the requirements of this part.
    Paragraph (a). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
each track owner to ``develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its 
railroad bridges, which shall identify the location of each bridge, its 
configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span lengths, and 
all other information necessary to provide for the safe management of 
the bridges.'' Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(b)(1). FRA 
proposes that such an inventory be maintained. An accurate inventory of 
any property to be managed is essential so that the responsible 
individuals may schedule and track inspection, maintenance and repair 
of the property units.
    Paragraph (b). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
that the track owner ``maintain, and update as appropriate, a record of 
the safe capacity of each bridge which carries its track and, if 
available, maintain the original design documents of each bridge and a 
documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of the 
bridge.'' Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(b)(3). FRA 
proposes that a record of the safe load capacity of each bridge be 
established. The operation of excessively heavy loads over a bridge 
will seriously shorten its useful life and will reduce or even 
eliminate the margin of safety between structural integrity and 
catastrophic failure. It is essential that the track owner should know 
that the loads permitted to be operated on a bridge are within the safe 
limits of the bridge.
    Paragraph (c). FRA proposes that the track owner obtain and 
maintain the design documents of each bridge, if available, and to 
document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge. 
The determination of safe load capacity requires knowledge of the 
configuration of the bridge and the materials of which it is 
constructed. Although the configuration may be determined by actual 
measurements of all of the components, that procedure can be tedious 
and expensive. Good documentation of the design and history of a bridge 
will enable rapid and accurate determination of bridge capacity when 
such calculations are needed, as well as determination of the 
maintenance and service history of a bridge to detect and correct 
possible deterioration of its components.
    Paragraph (d). Bridge inspection is absolutely essential to an 
effective bridge management program. In this paragraph, FRA proposes 
that the track owner's bridge management program contain a bridge 
inspection program. Items (1) through (6) should be addressed in the 
program to the degree that promotes effective and efficient conduct of 
the inspection program. With regard to item (1), bridge inspection can 
present certain risks that are inherent in working at heights and 
around moving vehicles. A bridge inspection program should at least 
address the unique hazards associated with the process. With regard to 
item (2), a bridge inspection program should incorporate standards for 
the procedures and required details of any different types of 
inspection that are referenced in the program, such as annual 
inspections, post-event inspections, rating inspections and 
intermediate periodic inspections. A large railroad might find it 
convenient to describe the standard procedures for various types of 
inspections in some detail, while a small railroad that normally 
conducts only annual inspections might describe only that procedure as 
well as post-event special inspections, and then issue instructions of 
particular applicability for other types of inspections that occur only 
infrequently. With regard to items (3) through (6), use of a standard 
method of describing the condition of components

[[Page 41562]]

promotes effective and efficient communication between the inspector 
and the persons who review and evaluate a bridge using information from 
the inspection.

Section 237.51 Scope

    In subpart C, FRA proposes minimum standards for incorporation in 
railroad bridge management programs for qualification and designations 
of persons who perform safety critical functions that affect the 
integrity and safety of railroad bridges. Many aspects of railroad 
bridge work differ from other fields of engineering, inspection and 
maintenance. It is essential that the individuals who are responsible 
for these safety-critical functions be qualified by education, training 
and experience to perform them correctly.

Section 237.53 Railroad Bridge Engineers

    In this section, FRA proposes the minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge engineer must meet. Congress directed FRA to ``ensure that an 
engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering'' 
is responsible for the development of all inspection procedures, 
reviews all inspection reports, and determines whether bridges are 
being inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequency, 
and reviews any items noted by an inspector as exceptions. Section 
417(b)(7) of the RSIA. Railroad bridge engineering is based on the same 
principles of engineering as all other structural engineering work, but 
the application of many of those principles is unique to this 
particular field. The live loads carried on railroad bridges are 
generally much higher than the loads on highway bridges or other 
transportation structures. Overall configuration and details of 
construction of railroad bridges differ greatly from other classes of 
structures, to the extent that dealing with these features requires 
some experience with them as well as an understanding of the 
fundamentals of engineering.
    FRA understands that not all railroad bridge engineers will be 
faced with all aspects of railroad bridge engineering. For example, an 
engineer engaged to prescribe safe loads for short steel spans and 
timber trestles on a particular railroad might never have to perform a 
detailed analysis of a large truss bridge. The basic premise is that 
the engineer be competent to perform the functions that are encompassed 
by that individual's employment or engagement. The determination of 
qualifications by the track owner includes either employment or 
engagement of the engineer by the track owner, and designation of the 
engineer to exercise the authority called for in this part.
    Paragraph (b) of this section was added by FRA to the text 
recommended by the RSAC. FRA proposes that a railroad bridge engineer 
must also have either: (1) A bachelor's degree in engineering granted 
by a school of engineering with at least one program accredited or 
recognized by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 
(ABET) as a professional engineering curriculum; or (2) current 
registration as a professional engineer practicing within his or her 
licensed scope of practice. FRA believes that the critical nature of 
railroad bridge engineering work called for in this proposed rule 
requires persons who meet a minimal educational or experience standard 
which is common to the engineering profession and which is necessary 
for an individual who will perform the functions of an engineer as 
called for in this proposed rule. FRA developed this paragraph from the 
U.S. Office of Personnel Management's Basic Requirements for Federal 
Service's classification of an engineer.
    In paragraph (c), FRA proposes that nothing in this part is meant 
to affect the States' authority to regulate the licensure of 
professional engineers. This section represents a minimum standard to 
be attained by engineers who perform the functions called for in this 
regulation. Recognition by FRA as a railroad bridge engineer would not 
enable a person to provide professional engineering services in 
violation of a State law or regulation. FRA does not intend to pre-empt 
or interfere with any State laws regarding the professional practice of 
engineering.
    As the RBWG did not discuss the language in paragraphs (b) and (c) 
of this section, FRA welcomes public comment on the proposed regulatory 
text.

Section 237.55 Railroad Bridge Inspectors

    In this section, FRA proposes the minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge inspector must meet. Effective inspection of bridges is 
essential to preserving their integrity and serviceability. Inspectors 
must be able to understand and carry out the inspection procedure, 
including accessing inspection points on a bridge, measuring components 
and any changes, describing conditions found in a standard, unambiguous 
manner, and detecting the development of conditions that are critical 
to the safety of the bridge. It is essential that an inspector who 
detects a potential hazard to the safe operation of trains should be 
authorized by the track owner to place appropriate restrictions on the 
operation of railroad traffic pending review as necessary by a railroad 
bridge engineer. An individual who is not competent in railroad bridge 
work should not be permitted to overrule a determination made by a 
designated bridge inspector, supervisor or engineer.

Section 237.57 Railroad Bridge Supervisors

    In this section, FRA proposes minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge supervisor must meet. Individuals who supervise and take 
responsibility for construction, repair and modification of railroad 
bridges must be competent to ensure that the work is performed in 
accordance with valid standards and any specific specifications, plans 
and instructions applicable to the work to be performed. This provision 
applies to any such individual, regardless of job title, who directly 
oversees such work and approves or restricts the movement of railroad 
traffic during the progress of the work.

Section 237.59 Designations of Individuals

    In the RSIA, Congress mandated that the bridge regulations 
designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to 
authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage, 
or indications of potential structural problems. Public Law 110-432, 
Division A, Section 417(b)(8). In this section, FRA proposes that each 
track owner designate certain individuals as qualified railroad bridge 
engineers, inspectors, and supervisors, and provide a recorded basis 
for each designation in effect. The track owner must record 
designations of individuals, whether employees, consultants or 
contractors. If a consultant or contractor has several individuals 
performing the described functions under a contract or other 
engagement, then one or more individuals should be designated as being 
responsible to the track owner for the work performed under that 
engagement, with the others working under the responsible charge of 
that individual.

237.71 Scope

    In subpart D, FRA proposes to prescribe minimum standards to be 
incorporated in railroad bridge management programs to prevent the 
operation of equipment that could damage a bridge by exceeding safe 
stress levels in bridge components or by

[[Page 41563]]

extending beyond the horizontal or vertical clearance limits of the 
bridge. Protection of bridges and bridge components from overstress is 
essential to the continued integrity and serviceability of the bridge. 
It is also essential that equipment or loads that exceed the clearance 
limits of a bridge not be operated owing to the potential for severe 
damage to the bridge.

Section 237.73 Determination of Bridge Load Capacities

    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that each track 
owner determine the load capacity of each of its railroad bridges. It 
is essential that the track owner know that loads operated over a 
bridge not exceed the safe capacity of that bridge. However, once it is 
determined that a bridge has adequate capacity to carry the loads being 
operated, FRA proposes not to require that any additional effort be 
expended to precisely calculate the additional capacity of that bridge 
although that might well be useful from a planning or economic 
standpoint.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that the load 
capacity of each bridge be documented in the track owner's bridge 
management programs, together with the method by which the capacity was 
determined. Once the load capacity is determined, the value must be 
recorded in order for it to be useful. Examples of methods of 
determination could be the original design documents, recalculation, or 
rating inspection.
    Paragraph (c). In the RSIA, Congress mandated that a professional 
engineer competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering, or a 
qualified person under the supervision of the track owner, determine 
bridge capacity. Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(b)(2). 
Load capacity determination in most instances requires the education, 
experience and training of an engineer who is familiar with railroad 
bridges and the standard practices that are unique to that class of 
structure.
    The present standard references for railroad bridge design and 
analysis are found in the ``Manual for Railway Engineering'' of the 
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association 
(AREMA). The chapters in this Manual dealing with Timber, Concrete and 
Steel structures, and Seismic Design, are under continuous review by 
committees consisting of leading engineers in the railroad bridge 
profession, including representatives of FRA. Although bridges exist 
that were designed using different or earlier references, they can 
still be evaluated by use of the AREMA Manual.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that bridge load 
capacity shall be determined from existing design and modification 
records of a bridge, provided that the bridge substantially conforms to 
its records configuration. Determination of bridge load capacity 
requires information on the configuration of the bridge and the 
dimensions and material of its component parts. If the bridge is found 
to conform to the drawings of its original design and modifications, 
those drawings may serve as the basis for any rating calculation that 
might be performed, thus simplifying the process. Lacking that prior 
information, it is necessary that the configuration, dimensions and 
properties of the bridge and its components be determined by on-site 
measurement of the bridge as it currently exists.
    Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that a track owner 
shall schedule the evaluation of bridges for which the load capacity 
has not already been determined. This section provides for a phase-in 
period for determination of bridge capacities. There is probably not 
sufficient engineering expertise available in the United States for 
immediate rating of all unrated railroad bridges. This will provide a 
reasonable time period for track owners to accomplish this work. It is 
intended that the unrated bridges be given relative priority for 
rating, based on the judgment of a railroad bridge engineer. This 
prioritization can be accomplished either by observation or by 
evaluation of certain critical members of a bridge, as determined by 
the engineer using professional judgment.
    Paragraph (f). FRA proposes that a new capacity must be determined 
by a railroad bridge engineer when a bridge inspection record reveals 
that the condition of a bridge or a bridge component might affect the 
load capacity of the bridge. Accurate determination of current bridge 
capacity depends on accurate information about the current 
configuration and condition of the bridge. The engineer might determine 
that a change in condition or configuration calls for a revised rating 
calculation.
    Paragraph (g). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that bridge load 
capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a 
standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any case be stated in 
terms of weight and length of individual or combined cars and 
locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel. Engineers use 
standard definitions of loading combinations for design and rating of 
bridges. Common among these standard definitions is a series of 
proportional loads known as the Cooper System. The capacity of a bridge 
and its components can be described in terms of a Cooper Rating, and 
the effect of a load on a bridge can also be related to a Cooper System 
value.
    Proper application of this system requires a full understanding of 
its use and limitations. However, the results of its application can be 
translated into terms of equipment weights and configurations that can 
be effectively applied by persons who manage regular transportation 
operations of the railroad. This enables them to determine if a given 
locomotive, car or combination can be operated on a bridge with no 
further consideration, or if the equipment must be evaluated as an 
exceptional movement.
    Paragraph (h). FRA proposes that bridge load capacity may be 
expressed in terms of both normal and maximum load conditions. Normal 
bridge ratings generally define the loads that can be operated on a 
bridge for an indefinite period without damaging the bridge. In some 
cases, mostly involving steel or iron bridges, a higher rating, up to a 
maximum rating, can be given to the bridge to permit the operation of 
heavier loads on an infrequent basis. These heavier loads should not, 
in themselves, damage the bridge, but the cumulative effect of the 
higher resulting stresses in bridge members could cause their eventual 
deterioration.
    In this paragraph, FRA also proposes that operation of equipment 
that produces forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject 
to any restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad 
bridge engineer. An engineer can often prescribe compensating 
conditions that will permit the movement of equipment that is heavier 
than normal. Examples include speed restrictions to reduce the impact 
factor of the rolling load, the insertion of lighter-weight spacer cars 
between the heavier cars in a train, or the installation of temporary 
bents or other supports under specific points on the bridge.

Section 237.75 Protection of Bridges from Over-Weight and Over-
Dimension Loads

    Bridges can be seriously damaged by the operation of loads that 
exceed their capacity. Movement of equipment that exceeds the clear 
space on a bridge is an obvious safety hazard. In this section, FRA 
addresses Congress' mandate in the RSIA that the track owner ``develop, 
maintain, and enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its 
bridges are not loaded beyond their

[[Page 41564]]

capacities.'' Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(b)(4).
    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that each track 
owner shall issue instructions to its personnel who are responsible for 
the consist and operation of trains over its bridges to prevent the 
operation of cars, locomotives and other equipment that would exceed 
the capacity or dimensions of its bridges. Transportation personnel of 
a railroad are ultimately responsible for the movement of trains, cars 
and locomotives. It is essential that they should know and follow any 
restrictions that are placed on those movements.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that the 
instructions regarding weight shall be expressed in terms of maximum 
equipment weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or axle 
spacing. Transportation personnel have information on the weights and 
configuration of cars and locomotives, and they must be able to relate 
that information to any restrictions placed on the movement of that 
equipment.
    Paragraph (c). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that the 
instructions regarding dimensions shall be expressed in terms of feet 
and inches of cross section and equipment length, in conformance with 
common railroad industry practice for reporting dimensions of 
exceptional equipment in interchange in which height above top-of-rail 
is shown for each cross section measurement, followed by the width of 
the car or the shipment at that height. In the industry, a standard 
format exists for the exchange of information on dimensions of railroad 
equipment. This standard practice is practical, even if it is not 
intuitive. Use of the industry practice is necessary to avoid error and 
confusion.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that the 
instructions may apply to individual structures or to a defined line 
segment or groups of line segments where the published capacities and 
dimensions are within the limits of all structures on the subject line 
segments. Railroads commonly issue instructions related to equipment 
weights and dimensions to be effective on line segments of various 
lengths. It is not necessary that transportation personnel be advised 
of the capacity of every bridge as long as each bridge in the line 
segment has the capacity to safely carry the loads permitted on that 
line.

Section 237.101 Scope

    In subpart E, FRA proposes minimum standards to be incorporated 
into railroad bridge management programs to provide for an effective 
program of bridge inspections. Bridge inspection is a vital component 
in any bridge management program. A bridge with undetected or 
unreported damage or deterioration can present a serious hazard to the 
safe operation of trains. Bridge inspection and evaluation is a multi-
tiered process, unlike many other types of inspection on a railroad. 
Where track, equipment and signal inspectors usually can compare 
measurements against common standards to determine whether the 
inspected feature complies with the standards, such is not the case 
with most bridges. The evaluation of a bridge requires the application 
of engineering principles by a competent person, who is usually not 
present during the inspection. It is therefore necessary that an 
inspection report should show any conditions on the bridge that might 
lead to a reduction in capacity, initiation of repair work, or a more 
detailed inspection to further characterize the condition.

Section 237.103 Scheduling of Bridge Inspections

    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA proposes regulations to 
address Congress' mandate that the track owner ``conduct regular 
comprehensive inspections of each bridge, at least once every year, and 
maintain records of those inspections that include the date on which 
the inspection was performed, the precise identification of the bridge 
inspected, the items inspected, and accurate description of the 
condition of those items, and a narrative of any inspection item that 
is found by the inspector to be a potential problem.'' Public Law 110-
432, Division A, Section 417(b)(5). Annual inspection of bridges has 
been an industry practice for over a century, and has proven to be an 
effective tool of bridge management. Even where a bridge sees very low 
levels of railroad traffic, the potential still exists for damage from 
external sources or natural deterioration. This paragraph calls for one 
inspection per calendar year, with not more than 540 days between 
successive inspections. Both criteria apply. For example, if a bridge 
is inspected on January 2, 2009, it becomes overdue for inspection on 
June 27, 2010, 541 days later. If it is inspected on December 18, 2011, 
it becomes overdue on January 1, 2013, since it was not inspected in 
calendar year 2012.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that a bridge shall 
be inspected more frequently than the period referenced in paragraph 
(a), above, when a railroad bridge engineer determines that such 
inspection frequency is necessary. The responsibility for adequate 
inspection remains with the track owner, with the conditions prescribed 
by a railroad bridge engineer. The inspection regimen for every bridge 
should be determined from its condition, configuration, environment and 
traffic levels.
    Paragraph (c). FRA proposes that each bridge management program 
define requirements for the special inspection of a bridge to be 
performed whenever the bridge is involved in an event which might have 
compromised the integrity of the bridge, including flood, fire, 
earthquake, derailment, or other vehicular or vessel impact. It is 
essential that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge 
failure caused by damage from an event caused by natural or non-
railroad agents. The track owner should have in place a means to 
receive notice of such an event, including weather and earthquakes, and 
a procedure to conduct an inspection following such an event.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that any railroad 
bridge that has not been in railroad service and has not been inspected 
in accordance with this section within the previous 540 days be 
inspected and the inspection report reviewed by a railroad bridge 
engineer prior to the resumption of railroad service. The inspection 
frequency requirements of this section do not apply to bridges that are 
not in railroad service, but that does not relieve a track owner from 
responsibility for any damage to outside parties that might be caused 
by the condition of the bridge. If a bridge not in service has been 
inspected within the 540 day period, the track owner may accept that 
inspection and begin railroad service, subject to any determination in 
that regard by a railroad bridge engineer. The inspection period would 
date from the last inspection, with no credit for out-of-service time.

Section 237.105 Bridge Inspection Procedures

    In this section, FRA proposes that each bridge management program 
specify the procedure to be used for inspection of individual bridges 
or classes and types of bridges. As mandated by the RSIA, FRA proposes 
that the bridge inspection procedures must be as specified by a 
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the 
conduct and review of the inspections. Public Law 110-432, Division A, 
Section 417(b)(7)(A). In the RSIA, Congress also mandated that the 
bridge safety regulations must ``ensure that the level of detail and 
the inspection procedures are appropriate to the configuration of the 
bridge,

[[Page 41565]]

conditions found during the previous inspections, and the nature of the 
railroad traffic moved over the bridge, including car weights, train 
frequency and lengths, levels of passenger and hazardous materials 
traffic, and vulnerability of the bridge to damage.'' Accordingly, FRA 
proposes that the bridge inspection procedures must ensure that the 
level of detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate to the 
configuration of the bridge. Additionally, the bridge inspection 
procedures must be designed to detect, report and protect deterioration 
and deficiencies before they present a hazard to safe train operation. 
The responsibility for adequate inspection remains with the track 
owner, with the conditions prescribed by a railroad bridge engineer. 
The inspection regimen for every bridge should be determined from its 
condition, configuration, environment and traffic levels. The 
instructions for bridge inspection may be both general, as by bridge 
type or line segment; and specific as needed by particular 
considerations for an individual bridge.

Section 237.107 Special Inspections

    Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that each bridge 
management program prescribe a procedure for protection of train 
operations and for inspection of any bridge that might have been 
damaged by a natural or accidental event, including flood, fire, 
earthquake, derailment or vehicular or vessel impact. It is essential 
that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge failure caused 
by damage from an event caused by natural or non-railroad agents. The 
track owner should have in place a means to receive notice of such an 
event, including weather and earthquakes, and a procedure to conduct an 
inspection following such an event.
    Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that each bridge 
management program provide for the detection of scour or deterioration 
of bridge components that are submerged or subject to water flow. The 
condition of bridge components located under water is usually not 
evident from above. Means to determine their condition might be as 
simple as using measuring rods from the surface, or might call for 
periodic or special diving inspection. Advanced technology might also 
provide devices that can be used to determine underwater conditions.

Section 237.109 Conduct of Bridge Inspections

    In this section, FRA proposes that bridge inspections be conducted 
under the direct supervision of a designated bridge inspector, who 
shall be responsible for the accuracy of the results and the conformity 
of the inspection to the bridge management program. Bridge inspections 
can often require more than one person for safety and efficiency. This 
provision permits others to assist the designated inspector, who 
remains responsible for the results of the inspection.

Section 237.111 Bridge Inspection Records

    In this section, FRA proposes that each track owner to which this 
part applies keep a record of each inspection required to be performed 
on those bridges under this part. A bridge inspection has little value 
unless it is recorded and reported to the individuals who are 
responsible for the ultimate determination of the safety of the bridge. 
Bridge inspectors may use a variety of methods to record their findings 
as they move about the bridge. These include notebooks, voice 
recordings, having another individual transcribe notes, and 
photographs. These notes and other items are usually compiled into a 
prescribed report form at the end of the day or at the conclusion of 
the inspection. In paragraph (c), FRA delineates the essential elements 
that must be addressed and reported in any bridge inspection.
    Paragraph (d). In this paragraph, FRA proposes that an initial 
report of each bridge inspection be placed in the location designated 
by the bridge management program within 14 calendar days of the 
completion of the field portion of the inspection. The initial report 
must include the information delineated in paragraph (c)(1) through 
(c)(5). The RBWG did not reach consensus on this item. FRA drafted this 
provision with the intent that the actual conduct of the inspection 
should be reported and recorded, showing the fact that the bridge was 
actually inspected on a certain date, the type of inspection performed, 
by whom it was performed, and whether or not any critical conditions 
were detected. Inspection and reporting procedures vary widely among 
different railroads and circumstances. In many cases, especially on 
larger railroads, an inspector would prepare the report before leaving 
the bridge. The reports might be forwarded by mail, by electronic 
means, or by hand delivery. They might be forwarded daily, weekly, or 
even less frequently. In other circumstances, a consulting engineer 
might be engaged by a small railroad to inspect all of the bridges on 
all or part of the line, and the final report might be prepared by the 
engineering firm after all of the inspections are completed. Similarly, 
a large railroad might begin a comprehensive inspection and evaluation 
of a large structure that will take several months to complete.
    FRA recognizes the wide range of time periods required for these 
various inspections and reporting procedures, so this provision was 
recommended as a means for the track owner to track inspection 
progress, bridge by bridge, with a simple line item showing:
    (1) The identification of the bridge inspected.
    (2) The date of completion of the inspection.
    (3) The identification of the inspector.
    (4) The type of inspection performed.
    (5) An indication on the report as to whether any item noted 
thereon requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge 
engineer, and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection.
    These five items can usually be listed on a single line of a 
report, which might include all of the bridges inspected by one 
individual in a week or two. The report could be transmitted to the 
track owner by U.S. Mail or electronically. FRA does not anticipate 
that the initial or summary report include all of the data called for 
in the bridge management program, together with any narrative 
descriptions necessary for the correct interpretation of the report. 
This information would be included in the complete inspection report. 
As consensus was not reached by the RBWG, FRA particularly requests 
comments on this issue.
    Paragraph (e). The RBWG did not reach consensus on paragraph (e). 
In this paragraph, FRA proposes that a complete report of each bridge 
inspection shall be placed in the location designated in the bridge 
management program within 45 days of the completion of the field 
portion of the inspection. FRA stipulates that a bridge inspection is 
not complete until the report of the inspection is filed and available 
to the persons who are responsible for the management of the bridges 
inspected. This time period does not include the time used by a 
consultant or in-house engineering group to complete an analysis of the 
results of the inspection, and it is not expected that the analysis 
need be completed within that time period. In cases where a detailed 
analysis is required, FRA intends that the inspection report on which 
the analysis is based would be separated from the analysis and filed 
within the required time frame. As consensus was not reached by the 
RBWG, FRA requests comments with regard to this issue.

[[Page 41566]]

    Paragraph (f). FRA proposes that each bridge inspection program 
shall specify the retention period and location for bridge inspection 
records. There are several good reasons for retaining bridge inspection 
reports over the period of several years or inspection cycles. First, a 
comparison of successive reports can reveal any accelerating rates of 
deterioration or degradation of bridge components. Second, an audit or 
review of the effectiveness of a bridge inspection program requires 
comparison of previous inspection reports with the actual condition of 
a bridge included in the audit. The practice of comparing previous 
inspection reports with actual bridge conditions has been followed by 
FRA for more than a decade when evaluating railroad bridge management 
programs. It is provides a valuable factor in determining the 
effectiveness of a railroad's program.

Section 237.113 Review of Bridge Inspection Reports

    The RSIA requires that an engineer who is competent in the field of 
railroad bridge engineering review all inspection reports and determine 
whether bridges are being inspected according to the applicable 
procedures and frequencies, and review any items noted by an inspector 
as exceptions. Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(b)(7). In 
this section, FRA proposes that responsible railroad bridge supervisors 
and railroad bridge engineers review bridge inspection reports. Bridge 
inspection is usually a multi-tiered procedure. The inspector reports 
on the conditions noted in the inspection, but an engineer will 
necessarily evaluate those noted conditions and determine what, if any, 
further action is required.
    FRA does not intend that a railroad bridge engineer must review 
every inspection report, so long as the responsible management 
personnel keep track of the conduct of inspections to see that they are 
performed in accordance with the schedule and other requirements of 
this rule and the railroad's program. It should be a simple matter for 
the inspector to indicate on a report whether or not the report would 
require higher-level or engineering review. That could provide that the 
engineering staff would review the reports that indicate problems or 
issues for them to resolve, and would relieve the engineers from 
reviewing a majority of the reports that do not indicate an issue 
needing their review. Section 237.155 audits of inspections, which 
follow, would include a provision for sampling of routine inspection 
reports to assure that the inspectors are properly identifying reports 
that require higher-level review.

Section 237.131 Scope

    In subpart F, FRA proposes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for adequate design and 
effective supervision of bridge modification and repair which will 
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any 
primary load carrying component of the bridge. This section provides 
for correct design and adequate supervision of repair and modification 
of bridges where the work could materially affect the capacity of the 
bridge, or its continued integrity. FRA does not intend that minor 
repairs that do not affect the capacity of the bridge must be designed 
by an engineer, but the supervision of that work should be performed by 
a person who is competent to assure that the work does not 
inadvertently compromise the integrity of the bridge. For instance, arc 
welding handrails to the members of a through truss might appear to 
some to be a minor repair, but it could seriously compromise the 
structural integrity of the bridge.

Section 237.133 Design

    In this section, FRA proposes that each repair or modification to a 
bridge pursuant to this part shall be designed by a railroad bridge 
engineer. Design of entire railroad bridges, modifications and repairs 
which materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in 
any primary load-carrying component of the bridge require the 
intelligent application of the principles of engineering and can only 
be performed by an engineer with training and experience in the field 
of railroad bridges. Railroads have typically issued standard 
instructions for the performance of common maintenance repairs, such as 
replacement or upgrading of components of timber trestles. This section 
specifically permits such a practice.

Section 237.135 Supervision of Repairs and Modifications

    In this section, FRA proposes that each repair or modification 
pursuant to this part shall be performed under the immediate 
supervision of a railroad bridge supervisor as defined in Sec.  237.57 
of this part and who is designated and authorized by the track owner to 
supervise the particular work to be performed. Modifications and 
repairs which materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the 
stresses in any primary load-carrying component of the bridge must be 
performed according to the specific or general specifications and 
instructions issued by a railroad bridge engineer. Particularly when 
trains are permitted to pass over a bridge which is being repaired or 
modified, the supervisor at the bridge must be able to make the 
necessary determination to either permit, restrict or halt train 
operation depending on the state of the bridge.

Section 237.151 Scope

    Documentation is essential to any effective management program. In 
subpart G, FRA proposes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for verification of the 
effectiveness of the program and the accuracy of the information 
developed thereby, by the track owner and by FRA to evaluate compliance 
with this regulation.

Section 237.153 Audits, General

    In this section, FRA proposes that each program adopted to comply 
with this part include provisions for auditing the effectiveness of the 
several provisions of that program, including the validity of bridge 
inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and the correct 
application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment of 
exceptional weight or configuration. Effective management of a safety-
critical program such as this requires an adequate level of checks to 
assure that the requisite work is being performed correctly.

Section 237.155 Audits of Inspections

    FRA has found over the years during which it has conducted 
evaluations of railroad bridge programs that one of the most important 
indicators of the effectiveness of a program is a comparison of recent 
bridge inspection reports against actual conditions found at the 
subject bridges. This is fundamental to an effective audit of a bridge 
management program. Therefore, in this section, FRA proposes that each 
bridge management program incorporate provisions for an internal audit.

Section 237.157 Documents and Records

    In this section, FRA proposes that each track owner required to 
implement a bridge management program and keep records under this part 
make those program documents and records available for inspection and 
reproduction by the FRA. This section addresses Congress' mandate in 
the RSIA to establish a program to periodically review bridge 
inspection and maintenance data from railroad carrier bridge inspectors 
and FRA bridge

[[Page 41567]]

experts. Public Law 110-432, Division A, Section 417(d). As in the case 
of all railroad safety regulations, FRA has an enforcement 
responsibility. FRA will require access to the vital documents and 
records of the various bridge management programs to enable it to carry 
out that responsibility.
    Paragraphs (a) and (b). In these paragraphs, FRA proposes minimum 
standards for electronic record-keeping provisions that a track owner 
may elect to utilize to comply with the record-keeping provisions of 
this part. The RBWG was unable to reach consensus on these paragraphs. 
FRA therefore solicits comments on whether or not this provision is 
needed to protect the utility, integrity and security of an electronic 
recordkeeping system that would be applied to a railroad bridge 
management system.

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

    A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges was 
originally published by FRA in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal Track 
Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 213. With the issuance of 49 CFR Part 
237, Railroad Bridge Safety Standards, certain non-regulatory 
provisions in that Policy Statement have been incorporated in that 
regulation. However, FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items 
are still useful as information and guidance. Those provisions of the 
Policy Statement are therefore retained and placed in this Appendix in 
lieu of their former location in the Track Safety Standards. FRA 
requests comment on this appendix, and is interested in whether the 
public sees value in having this additional guidance.

Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties

    Appendix B to part 237 will contain a schedule of civil penalties 
for use in connection with this part. Consistent with FRA's Statement 
of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety 
Laws, a penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a 
willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a 
penalty of up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances 
warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under both 
Executive Order 128566 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a 
regulatory impact analysis addressing the economic impacts from this 
proposed rule.
    As part of the regulatory impact analysis FRA has assessed 
quantitative measurements of the cost and benefit streams expected from 
the adoption of this proposed rule. For the twenty-year period the 
estimated quantified costs total $159.2 million, and have a present 
value (PV, 7%) of $80.5 million. For the same period of time the 
estimated quantified benefits total $19.4 million and have a PV(7%) of 
$9.8 million. These benefits are exclusive of long-term efficiencies to 
the railroads with respect to conservation of the capital value of the 
structures in question. Very often targeted repairs or restoration at 
an early stage in the deterioration of a bridge may significantly 
extend the useful life of a bridge. The benefits also do not consider 
the potential for a catastrophic event resulting in a bridge failure 
and consequent fatalities to railroad personnel, rail passengers, or 
persons underneath the bridge. Although FRA has verified through its 
bridge program that most railroads properly manage their bridges most 
of the time, in the recent past FRA has also determined circumstances--
even on Class I railroads--where proper inspections or repairs have 
been inappropriately deferred. Accordingly, this rule offers the 
opportunity to capture and extend the current heightened attention to 
bridge management achieved through industry and FRA efforts over the 
past several years.

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

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess 
their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and 
certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOT has not 
determined whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
publishing this IRFA to aid the public in commenting on the potential 
small business impacts of the proposals in this NPRM. We invite all 
interested parties to submit data and information regarding the 
potential economic impact that would result from adoption of the 
proposals in this NPRM. We will consider all comments received in the 
public comment process when making a determination in the final 
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment (RFA).
    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an IRFA must 
contain:
    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and the legal basis 
for, the proposed rule;
    (3) A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 
which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(b), (c).
1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action
    As discussed in section I of the preamble to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad 
tracks is important because the severity of a train accident is usually 
compounded when a bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the 
accident. In 2000, FRA published a final statement of agency policy for 
the safety of railroad bridges establishing criteria to ensure the 
structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. RSIA 2008 
directs FRA to issue, by October 16, 2009, regulations requiring 
railroad track owners to adopt and follow specific procedures to 
protect the safety of their bridges.
    There are over 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States. 
Federal regulations offer the benefit of uniformity that would allow 
railroads that operate in more than one State to develop and implement 
a single management program that would apply to all of their railroad 
bridges, which support one or more tracks, rather than more than one 
program each tailored to

[[Page 41568]]

meet the different requirements of different State or local 
jurisdictions.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule
(a). Legal Basis for Proposed Rule
    As discussed earlier in the preamble, FRA is issuing this proposed 
rule to promulgate minimum bridge safety standards as mandated by the 
Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 section 417, Public Law 110-432 
(Oct. 16, 2008) (codified at 9 U.S.C. 20157).
(b). Objective of Proposed Rule
    As stated in the RSIA 2008, the objective of this rulemaking is to 
prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges and reduce the risk of 
human casualties, environmental damage, and disruption to the Nation's 
railroad transportation system that would result from a catastrophic 
bridge failure.
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Affected
    The ``universe'' of the entities to be considered in an IRFA 
generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be 
expected to be directly regulated by the proposed action. Two types of 
small entities are potentially affected by this proposed rule: (1) 
Railroads that own track supported by a bridge, and (2) governmental 
jurisdictions of small communities that own bridges.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Section 601(3) defines 
a ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as ``small business 
concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any 
small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is 
not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4) includes not-
for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and 
are not dominant in their field of operations within the definition of 
``small entities.'' Additionally, section 601(5) defines as ``small 
entities'' governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts with populations less than 
50,000.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates ``size 
standards'' for small entities. It provides that the largest a for-
profit railroad business firm may be (and still classify as a ``small 
entity'') is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul Operating'' railroads, and 
500 employees for ``Short-Line Operating'' railroads.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    SBA size standards may be altered by Federal agencies in 
consultation with SBA, and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant 
to the authority provided to it by SBA, FRA has published a final 
policy, which formally establishes small entities as railroads that 
meet the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.\2\ 
Currently, the revenue requirements are $20 million or less in annual 
operating revenue, adjusted annually for inflation. The $20 million 
limit (adjusted annually for inflation) is based on the Surface 
Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which 
is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment.\3\ 
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a 
railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity. DOT proposes to use 
this definition for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(a). Governmental Jurisdictions of Small Communities
    Small entities that are classified as governmental jurisdictions of 
small communities may also be affected by the proposals in this NPRM. 
As stated above, and defined by SBA, this term refers to governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts with populations of less than 50,000. The potential 
impact of this rulemaking to these entities is related to their 
ownership of a bridge and possibly the track supported by the bridge as 
well. Such bridges are usually built by communities, with railroad 
collaboration, to achieve highway-rail grade separation. FRA does not 
have information regarding the number of small communities that own 
such bridges. In such cases, however, the government entity and the 
railroad usually apportion ownership, expenses and maintenance 
responsibility according to the provisions of an order from the State 
regulatory agency that governs highway/railroad crossing improvements. 
It is most common for the railroad to retain the responsibility for the 
actual inspection and management of the bridge. To the extent that 
agreements require cost-sharing and existing bridge management programs 
would have to be enhanced to meet the proposed regulation, there may be 
some burden passed on to small government jurisdictions; however, such 
burden is not expected to be substantial. To the extent that any burden 
does result, it is likely that insurance premiums will be adjusted to 
reflect the risk reduction, resulting in some level of savings in 
addition to the cost of the program enhancement. This would, of course, 
be in addition to safety benefits related to fewer accidents.
    Accordingly, FRA cannot accurately assess the number of 
governmental jurisdictions of small communities that would be directly 
impacted by this proposed regulation and what the impact would be. FRA 
requests comment from affected governmental jurisdictions as to the 
impact the proposed rule will have on them.
(b). Railroads
    There are approximately 687 small railroads meeting the definition 
of ``small entity'' as described above. FRA estimates that 
approximately 95 percent of these small entities, or approximately 653, 
own track supported by a bridge. Because the proposed rule would apply 
to all of these small railroads, we have concluded that a substantial 
number of such entities would be impacted. Note, however, that 
approximately 90 of these railroads are subsidiaries of large short-
line holding companies with the expertise and resources comparable to 
larger railroads. In addition, absent this rulemaking, most railroads 
that own track supported by bridges, including many of the railroads 
identified as small entities, would to some extent voluntarily incur 
the expense associated with implementation of the bridge management 
programs in accordance with the requirements proposed by FRA to address 
the risk associated with structural failure of a bridge. In fact, the 
ASLRRA, which represents most of the small railroads impacted by this 
rulemaking, has developed a model bridge management program intended to 
keep bridge and culvert infrastructure safe and structurally sound. 
Member railroads are expected to take the generic plan and customize to 
meet their specific circumstances and meet the requirements proposed in 
this notice. Such initiative would minimize the program development 
cost. Nevertheless, program implementation costs may be substantial for 
those small railroads that do not currently have bridge management 
programs and do not inspect railroad bridges regularly.
    While we recognize that some small railroads do not currently have 
bridge management programs, we believe that many railroads have already 
made or are making the transition to track structures and bridges 
capable of handling 286,000-pound cars in line with the general 
movement in the industry toward these heavier freight cars. To protect 
such investments, which are

[[Page 41569]]

usually quite significant, railroads are already implementing bridge 
management programs.
    For example, in 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute reported 
that 42 percent of the short-line railroad miles that were operated in 
Texas that year had already been upgraded, nine percent would not need 
an upgrade, and 47 percent needed upgrading if they wanted to transport 
any type of 286,000-pound shipments.\4\ In addition, the results of a 
1998-1999 survey conducted by the ASLRRA indicated that 41 percent of 
respondent short-line railroads could handle 286,000-pound rail cars 
and 87 percent of the respondent short-line railroads indicated that 
they would need to accommodate 286,000-pound railcars in the future.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition, at least one Class I railroad has arranged for short-
line and regional railroads that connect with it to send participants 
to several multi-day bridge inspection classes this year.
    In general, implementation of the proposed rule will significantly 
burden only a small portion of the small railroads potentially 
affected. We invite commenters to submit information that might assist 
us in assessing the cost impacts on small railroads of the proposals in 
this NPRM.
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements and Impacts on Small Entities Resulting From Specific 
Proposed Requirements
    The impacts from this proposed rulemaking would primarily result 
from complying with the requirements for the adoption of bridge 
management programs. The proposed rule provides affected entities 6 to 
24 month periods of time in which to adopt such programs. Class III 
railroads would have the full 24 month period.
    (a). Recordkeeping Requirement of Proposed Sec.  237.35
    Proposed Sec.  237.35 requires that each bridge management program 
include an accurate inventory of railroad bridges; a record of the safe 
load capacity of each bridge; a provision to obtain and maintain the 
design documents of each bridge if available, and to document all 
repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge; and a bridge 
inspection program covering the method of documenting inspections 
including standard forms and formats.
    FRA believes that most railroads, regardless of size, already 
maintain an accurate inventory of their railroad bridges, records of 
the safe load capacity of their bridges, and design documents to the 
extent they are available. Likewise, most railroads maintain documents 
related to all repairs, modifications, and inspections of bridges 
because it is good business practice to do so. The States of Ohio, 
Michigan, and New York have existing bridge regulations requiring 
railroads to maintain bridge inventories and inspect bridges annually. 
There are approximately 100 small railroads that operate in those 
States. However, some railroads may not include in their documentation 
some of the particular data items specified in the proposal. Thus these 
requirements would impose a nominal additional recordkeeping burden on 
some small railroads.
    As noted above not all small railroads have inspection programs. 
The ASLRRA, however, has developed a model program for its members, 
thus minimizing the burden associated with development of such plans. 
FRA estimates that the burden for individual railroad customization of 
the program would range from $570, for the smaller Class III railroads, 
to $3,000 for the larger Class III railroads. Costs associated with 
maintenance, modifications and updates to bridge management plans will 
average approximately 15% of the initial development costs, or between 
$85 and $450 annually. Therefore, this reporting requirement would have 
very little impact on small entities.
    Determination of bridge load capacity would be made by a bridge 
engineer, who is a person that is determined by the bridge owner to be 
competent to perform the functions necessary for the determination of 
load capacity. Bridge inspection procedures would be specified by a 
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the 
conduct and review of the inspections.
(b). Bridge Inspections
    Bridge management programs would be required to contain bridge 
inspection programs. Proposed subpart E requires calendar year 
inspection of bridges according to specified procedures as well as 
special inspection of bridges that might be damaged by a natural or 
accidental event. This subpart also specifies that bridge inspections 
must be conducted under the direct supervision of a designated bridge 
inspector who is a person determined to be technically competent to 
supervise the construction, modification or repair of a railroad 
bridge. FRA expects there would be a significant increase in the number 
of bridge inspections conducted by small railroads or their 
contractors. FRA requests comments and input regarding the extent to 
which Class III railroads already conduct annual inspection of bridges 
and the extent to which they would have to conduct additional bridge 
inspections.
    Most small railroads do not have bridge engineers or inspectors on 
staff. They contract out bridge inspections. A typical contract will be 
for the inspection of most if not all the bridges the railroad owns, 
with delivery of a final report addressing the state of all bridges. 
Interim reports may be provided to the railroad as necessary on bridges 
requiring more immediate attention. FRA believes that small railroads 
will take advantage of such flexibility and require contractors to file 
interim reports.
    Some States provide short-line railroads funding via grants and 
loans for infrastructure improvements including bridge rehabilitation; 
track maintenance; and bridge inspection. For instance, the Tennessee 
Department of Transportation (DOT) provides significant grants for such 
projects to most of the 20 Class III railroads in the State.\6\ 
Pennsylvania DOT administers a matching grant program to support 
freight railroad maintenance and construction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FRA believes that small railroads own or would otherwise be 
responsible for inspecting approximately 20,000 bridges. FRA estimates 
that the average cost per bridge inspection is $750 and that 
approximately 10,000 bridges are being inspected less frequently than 
once a year, while 5,000 are not inspected at all. Some small railroads 
may own track supported by several bridges, especially in some areas 
where the terrain requires such structures. FRA requests comment 
regarding the level of cost burden that the proposed annual inspection 
would impose.
(c). Determination of Bridge Load Capacities
    Proposed Subpart D requires the determination of bridge load 
capacities. FRA believes that railroad bridge owners are generally 
aware of bridge load capacities. Nevertheless, it is likely that some 
railroads will have to take action to verify this information in order

[[Page 41570]]

to develop the type of documentation required by this subpart. Bridge 
load capacity information is vital to ensuring that safe capacity is 
not exceeded. Small railroads impacted by this requirement would likely 
have a contractor perform such calculations.
(d). Repair and Modification of Bridges
    Proposed Subpart F prescribes minimum standards for the bridge 
modification and repair that will materially modify the capacity of a 
bridge or the stresses in any primary load carrying component of the 
bridge. Modifications and repairs to bridges (except for minor 
modifications and repairs) would have to be designed by railroad bridge 
engineers, and the work would have to be supervised by designated 
bridge supervisors. Small railroads will generally contract out such 
modifications and repairs. Contractors as common practice meet the 
design and supervision requirements proposed. Thus, the additional cost 
of such compliance with this requirement is not important to this 
assessment. DOT believes that there would be no additional burden 
imposed on small entities as a result of this requirement.
(e). Audits
    Each program would have to include provisions for auditing the 
effectiveness of several provisions of the program, including the 
validity of bridge inspection reports and bridge inventory data, and 
the correct application of movement restrictions to railroad equipment 
of exceptional weight or configuration. FRA anticipates that Class III 
railroad audits would generally be performed by a company official 
following guidance in the ASLRRA model program and without assistance 
from an external financial or engineering auditor.
5. Identification of Relevant Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting 
Federal Rules
    There are no Federal rules that would duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this proposed rule.
6. Alternatives Considered
    In proposed Sec.  237.33, FRA sets the schedule for railroads to 
adopt bridge safety management programs. In consideration of the impact 
on small railroads that may not already have such programs, this 
schedule provides small railroads with an additional 18 months over 
Class I carriers and an additional 12 months over Class II carriers to 
adopt these.
    FRA has identified no additional significant alternative to the 
proposed rule which satisfies the mandate of RSIA 2008 or meets the 
agency's objective in promulgating this rule, and that would minimize 
the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. As in all 
aspects of this IRFA, FRA requests comments on this finding of no 
significant alternative related to small entities.
    The process by which this proposed rule was developed provided 
outreach to small entities. As noted in section III of this notice, 
this notice was developed in consultation with industry representatives 
via the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), which includes small 
railroad representatives. On December 10, 2008 the RSAC referred to the 
Railroad Bridge Working Group, which had been established in March 
2008, to develop a draft rule requiring owner of track carried on one 
or more railroad bridges to adopt a bridge safety management program to 
reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and 
disruption to the Nations' railroad transportation system that would 
result from catastrophic bridge failure. The Working Group met twice, 
on January 28-29, 2009 and February 23-25, 2009. Small railroad 
representatives participated in both meetings and raised issues of 
concern to small railroads. Of specific concern to small railroads that 
own several bridges and contract out the inspection of these bridges 
was the ability to continue to enter into such contractual agreements 
structured such that final inspection reports are submitted as part of 
a single report at the completion of the contract, which could span 
several months. This proposed rule takes into account this expressed 
concern and accommodates such current contract structures, as long as 
interim reports are filed.
    Subsequent to publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking, 
FRA will hold a public hearing if it is requested. At that time, FRA 
will gather more information, including the rule's potential impact on 
small entities, and FRA encourages the active participation of any 
small entity potentially affected.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total annual        Average time per      Total annual
         CFR section           Respondent universe        responses             response          burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
237.7--Notifications to FRA   727 Railroads.......  15 notifications....  90 minutes..........             22.5
 of Assignment of Bridge
 Responsibility.
--Signed Statement by         727 Railroads.......  15 signed statements  30 minutes..........              7.5
 Assignee Concerning Bridge
 Responsibility.
237.13--Waivers--Petitions..  727 Railroads.......  12 petitions........  4 hours.............             48
237.33--Development/Adoption  727 Railroads.......  727 plans...........  Varies..............         20,474
 of Bridge Management
 Program.
237.59--Designation of        727 Railroads.......  200 designations....  30 minutes..........            100
 Qualified Individuals.
237.73--Determination of      727 Railroads.......  2,000 determinations  8 hours.............         16,000
 Bridge Load Capacities.
237.75--Issuance of           727 Railroads.......  2,000 instructions..  2 hours.............          4,000
 Instructions to Railroad
 Personnel by Track Owner.
237.107--Special Bridge       727 Railroads.......  50 insp. and reports/ 40 hours............          2,000
 Inspections and Reports/                            rcds.
 Records.
237.109 and 237.111--         727 Railroads.......  18,000 insp. and      4 hours.............         72,000
 Nationwide Annual Bridge                            reports.
 Inspections--Reports.
--Records...................  727 Railroads.......  18,000 records......  1 hour..............         18,000
237.113--Review of Bridge     727 Railroads.......  2,000 insp. rpt.      30 minutes..........          1,000
 Inspection Reports by RR                            reviews.
 Bridge Engineers.
--Prescription of Bridge      727 Railroads.......  200 insp. proc.       30 minutes..........            100
 Insp. Procedure                                     modifications.
 Modifications After Review.
237.133--Design of Bridge     727 Railroads.......  500 designs.........  16 hours............          8,000
 Modifications or Bridge
 Repairs.

[[Page 41571]]

 
237.155--Audits of            727 Railroads.......  727 insp. audits....  80 hours/24 hours/6           5,746
 Inspections.                                                              hours.
237.157--Documents and        727 Railroads.......  5 systems...........  80 hours............            400
 Records.
--Establishment of RR
 Monitoring and Info.
 Technology Security Systems
 for Electronic
 Recordkeeping.
--Employees Trained in        727 Railroads.......  100 employees.......  8 hours.............            800
 System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these 
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information 
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of 
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, 
Information Clearance Officer, at (202) 493-6292, or Ms. Nakia Jackson 
at (202) 493-6073.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert 
Brogan or Ms. Nakia Jackson, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also 
be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Jackson at the following 
addresses: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f3d202d2a3d3b612d3d20282e210f2b203b61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3918c81869197cd81918c84828da3878c97cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f09e919b9991de9a91939b839f9eb0949f84de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f99798929098d793989a928a9697b99d968dd79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control 
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from 
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule. 
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate 
notice in the Federal Register.

D. Environmental Impact

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

E. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), 
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency 
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or 
the agency consults with State and local government officials early in 
the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has 
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to 
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the 
regulation.
    This proposed rule has preemptive effect. Subject to a limited 
exception for essentially local safety or security hazards, the 
requirements of the final rule would be intended to establish a uniform 
Federal safety standard that must be met, and State requirements 
covering the same subject would be displaced, whether those standards 
are in the form of State statutes, regulations, local ordinances, or 
other forms of State law, including common law. Section 20106 of Title 
49 of the United States Code provides that all regulations prescribed 
by the Secretary related to railroad safety preempt any State law, 
regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, except a 
provision necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety 
or security hazard that is not incompatible with a Federal law, 
regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden interstate 
commerce. This is consistent with past practice at FRA, and within the 
Department of Transportation.
    FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This final 
rule will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of 
government. This final rule will not have federalism implications that 
impose any direct compliance costs on State and local governments.
    FRA notes that RSAC, which endorsed and recommended the majority of 
this final rule, has as permanent members two organizations 
representing State and local interests: AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these 
State organizations concurred with the

[[Page 41572]]

RSAC recommendation endorsing this proposed rule. RSAC regularly 
provides recommendations to the FRA Administrator for solutions to 
regulatory issues that reflect significant input from its State 
members. To date, FRA has received no indication of concerns about the 
federalism implications of this rulemaking from these representatives 
or from any other representatives of State government. Consequently, 
FRA concludes that this proposed rule has no federalism implications.
    This regulation does not preempt an action under State law seeking 
damages for personal injury, death, or property damage alleging that a 
party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care 
established by this part, including a bridge management program 
required by this part. Provisions of a bridge management program which 
exceed the requirements of this part are not included in the Federal 
standard of care. It is strongly in the interest of railroad safety for 
railroads to exceed the requirements of Federal law and FRA encourages 
railroads to do so. A railroad would be discouraged from setting a 
higher standard for itself if it would be held liable in tort for 
exceeding the requirements of Federal law, but failing to attain the 
higher standard it set for itself. The statute supports this 
distinction.
    It is a settled principle of statutory construction that, if the 
statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied according to its 
terms. Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S.--(2009). Read by itself, Section 
20106(a) preempts State standards of care, but does not expressly state 
whether anything replaces the preempted standards of care for purposes 
of tort suits. The focus of that provision is clearly on who regulates 
railroad safety: the Federal government or the States. It is about 
improving railroad safety, for which Congress deems nationally uniform 
standards to be necessary in the great majority of cases. That purpose 
has collateral consequences for tort law which new Section 20106 
subsections (b) and (c) address. New subsection (b)(1) creates three 
exceptions to the possible consequences flowing from subsection (a). 
One of those exceptions ((b)(1)(B)) precisely addresses an issue 
presented in Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 507 F.Supp.2d 1006 
(D.Minn., 2007) Congress wished to rectify: it allows plaintiffs to sue 
a railroad in tort for violation of its own plan, rule, or standard 
that it created pursuant to a regulation or order issued by either of 
the Secretaries. None of those exceptions covers a plan, rule, or 
standard that a regulated entity creates for itself in order to produce 
a higher level of safety than Federal law requires, and such plans, 
rules, or standards were not at issue in Lundeen. The key concept of 
section 20106(b) is permitting actions under State law seeking damages 
for personal injury, death, or property damage to proceed using a 
Federal standard of care. A plan, rule, or standard that a regulated 
entity creates pursuant to a Federal regulation logically fits the 
paradigm of a Federal standard of care--Federal law requires it and 
determines its adequacy. A plan, rule, or standard, or portions of one, 
that a regulated entity creates on its own in order to exceed the 
requirements of Federal law does not fit the paradigm of a Federal 
standard of care--Federal law does not require it and, past the point 
at which the requirements of Federal law are satisfied, says nothing 
about its adequacy. That is why FRA believes section 20106(b)(1)(B) 
covers the former, but not the latter. The basic purpose of the 
statute--improving railroad safety--is best served by encouraging 
regulated entities to do more than the law requires and would be 
disserved by increasing the potential tort liability of regulated 
entities that choose to exceed Federal standards, which would 
discourage them from ever exceeding Federal standards again.
    In this manner, Congress adroitly preserved its policy of national 
uniformity of railroad safety regulation expressed in Section 
20106(a)(1) and assured plaintiffs in tort cases involving railroads, 
such as Lundeen, of their ability to pursue their cases by clarifying 
that Federal railroad safety regulations preempt the standard of care, 
not the underlying causes of action in tort. Under this interpretation, 
all parts of the statute are given meanings that work together 
effectively and serve the safety purposes of the statute.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless 
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector 
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general 
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the 
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) [currently $141,300,000] in any 1 
year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice 
of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a 
written statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not result 
in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $141,300,000 or more in any 
one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

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

H. Privacy Act Statement

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

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

[[Page 41573]]

49 CFR Part 237

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

The Proposed Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter 
II, Subtitle B, of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows.

PART 213--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix C--[Removed]

    2. In part 213, remove appendix C.
    3. Add part 237 to read as follows:

PART 237--BRIDGE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

Subpart A--General


Sec.  237.1  Scope of part.

    This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for management of 
railroad bridges which support one or more tracks. This part does not 
restrict a track owner from adopting and enforcing additional or more 
stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.


Sec.  237.3  Preemptive effect.

    (a) Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of these regulations preempts 
any State law, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, 
except an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order that 
is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard; 
is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United 
States Government; and that does not impose an unreasonable burden on 
interstate commerce.
    (b) This part establishes a Federal standard of care for the 
maintenance and inspection of railroad bridges. This part does not 
preempt an action under State law seeking damages for personal injury, 
death, or property damage alleging that a party has failed to comply 
with the Federal standard of care established by this part, including a 
bridge management program required by this part. Provisions of a bridge 
management program which exceed the requirements of this part are not 
included in the Federal standard of care.


Sec.  237.5  Application.

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


Sec.  237.7  Responsibility for compliance.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an owner 
of track to which this part applies is responsible for compliance.
    (b) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns 
responsibility for the bridges which carry the track to another person 
(by lease or otherwise), written notification of the assignment shall 
be provided to the appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 30 days in 
advance of the assignment. The notification may be made by any party to 
that assignment, but shall be in writing and include the following--
    (1) The name and address of the track owner;
    (2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is 
assigned (assignee);
    (3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner 
and the assignee;
    (4) A precise identification of the track segment and the 
individual bridges in the assignment;
    (5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to 
carry out the bridge safety duties of the track owner under this part; 
and
    (6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment 
to him of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this part.
    (c) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee or 
both responsible for compliance with this part and subject to penalties 
under Sec.  237.11.
    (d) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface 
Transportation Board to provide service over the track of another 
railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner of that track 
for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the 
directed service order remains in effect.
    (e) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track 
owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is 
required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
    (f) Where an owner of track to which this part applies has 
previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to another 
person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification to FRA 
is not required, and the Administrator may hold the track owner or the 
assignee or both responsible for compliance with this part and subject 
to penalties under Sec.  237.11.

[[Page 41574]]

Sec.  237.9  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this part--
    Bridge modification means a change to the configuration of a 
railroad bridge that affects the load capacity of the bridge.
    Bridge repair means remediation of damage or deterioration which 
has affected the structural integrity of a railroad bridge.
    Railroad bridge means any structure with a deck, regardless of 
length, which supports one or more railroad tracks, and any other 
undergrade structure with an individual span length of 10 feet or more 
located at such a depth that it is affected by live loads.
    Track owner means a person responsible for compliance in accordance 
with Sec.  237.7 of this chapter.


Sec.  237.11  Penalties.

    (a) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes 
the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of 
at least $650 and not more than $25,000 per violation, except that: 
Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful 
violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of 
repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury 
to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed 
$100,000 per violation may be assessed. ``Person'' means an entity of 
any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the 
following: a railroad; a manager, supervisor, official, or other 
employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or 
lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent 
contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; any employee of 
such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor; 
and anyone held by the Federal Railroad Administrator to be responsible 
under Sec.  237.7(d). Each day a violation continues shall constitute a 
separate offense. See Appendix B to this part for a statement of agency 
civil penalty policy.
    (b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or 
report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under 
49 U.S.C. 21311.


Sec.  237.13  Waivers.

    Each petition for a waiver under this section shall be filed in the 
manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  237.15  Information collection.

    (a) The information collection requirements of this part were 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and are 
assigned OMB control number XXXX-XXXX.
    (b) The information collection requirements are found in the 
following sections: Sec. Sec.  237.XX, 237.XX

Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance


Sec.  237.31  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for persons 
responsible for railroad bridges to implement programs to assure the 
structural integrity of those bridges and to protect the safe operation 
of trains over those bridges.


Sec.  237.33  Adoption of bridge management programs.

    Each track owner shall adopt a bridge safety management program to 
prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges by preserving their 
capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated over them; and 
reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and 
disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system that would 
result from a catastrophic bridge failure, not later than the dates in 
the following schedule:
    (a) (Effective date of the final rule + 6 months): Class I 
carriers;
    (b) (Effective date of the final rule + 6 months): Owners of track 
segments which are part of the general railroad system of 
transportation and which carry more than ten scheduled passenger trains 
per week;
    (c) (Effective date of the final rule + 12 months): Class II 
carriers to which paragraph (b) of this section does not apply; and
    (d) (Effective date of the final rule + 24 months): All other track 
owners subject to this part and not described above.


Sec.  237.35  Content of bridge management programs.

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

Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons


Sec.  237.51  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs for qualification and designation 
of persons who perform safety-critical functions that affect the 
integrity and safety of railroad bridges.


Sec.  237.53  Railroad bridge engineers.

    (a) For the purpose of compliance with this part, a railroad bridge 
engineer shall be a person who is determined by the track owner to be 
competent to perform the following functions as they apply to the 
particular engineering work to be performed:
    (1) Determine the forces and stresses in railroad bridges and 
bridge components;
    (2) Prescribe safe loading conditions for railroad bridges;
    (3) Prescribe inspection and maintenance procedures for railroad 
bridges; and
    (4) Design repairs and modifications to railroad bridges.
    (b) The educational qualifications of a railroad bridge engineer 
shall include either:
    (1) A bachelor's degree in engineering granted by a school of 
engineering with at least one program accredited or recognized by the 
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as a 
professional engineering curriculum, or
    (2) Current registration as a professional engineer practicing 
within his or her licensed scope of practice.
    (b) Nothing in this part is meant to affect the States' authority 
to regulate the licensure of professional engineers.


Sec.  237.55  Railroad bridge inspectors.

    A railroad bridge inspector shall be a person who is determined by 
the track

[[Page 41575]]

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


Sec.  237.57  Railroad bridge supervisors.

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


Sec.  237.59  Designations of individuals.

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

Subpart D--Capacity of Bridges


Sec.  237.71  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to prevent the operation of 
equipment that could damage a bridge by exceeding safe stress levels in 
bridge components or by extending beyond the horizontal or vertical 
clearance limits of the bridge.


Sec.  237.73  Determination of bridge load capacities.

    (a) Each track owner shall determine the load capacity of each of 
its railroad bridges. The load capacity need not be the ultimate or 
maximum load capacity but a safe load capacity.
    (b) The load capacity of each bridge shall be documented in the 
track owner's bridge management program, together with the method by 
which the capacity was determined.
    (c) The determination of load capacity shall be made by a railroad 
bridge engineer using appropriate engineering methods and standards 
that are particularly applicable to railroad bridges.
    (d) Bridge load capacity may be determined from existing design and 
modification records of a bridge, provided that the bridge 
substantially conforms to its recorded configuration. Otherwise, the 
load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and 
calculation of the properties of its individual components, or other 
methods as determined by a railroad bridge engineer.
    (e) If a track owner has a group of bridges for which the load 
capacity has not already been determined, the owner shall schedule the 
evaluation of those bridges according to their relative priority, to be 
established by a railroad bridge engineer. The initial determination of 
load capacity shall be completed not later than five years following 
the date of initial adoption of the track owner's bridge management 
program in conformance with Sec.  237.33 of this chapter.
    (f) Where a bridge inspection reveals that the condition of a 
bridge or a bridge component might affect the load capacity of the 
bridge, a new capacity shall be determined by a railroad bridge 
engineer.
    (g) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical 
values related to a standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any 
case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual or combined 
cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.
    (h) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of both normal 
and maximum load conditions. Operation of equipment that produces 
forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any 
restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge 
engineer.


Sec.  237.75  Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension 
loads.

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

Subpart E--Bridge Inspection


Sec.  237.101  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for an effective program 
of bridge inspections.


Sec.  237.103  Scheduling of bridge inspections.

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


Sec.  237.105  Bridge inspection procedures.

    (a) Each bridge management program shall specify the procedure to 
be used for inspection of individual bridges or classes and types of 
bridges.
    (b) The bridge inspection procedures shall be as specified by a 
railroad bridge engineer who is designated as responsible for the 
conduct and review of the inspections. The inspection procedures shall 
incorporate the methods, means of access, and level of detail to be 
recorded for the various components of that bridge or class of bridges.
    (c) The bridge inspection procedures shall ensure that the level of 
detail and the inspection procedures are appropriate to the 
configuration of the bridge, conditions found during

[[Page 41576]]

previous inspections, and the nature of the railroad traffic moved over 
the bridge, including equipment weights, train frequency and length, 
levels of passenger and hazardous materials traffic, and vulnerability 
of the bridge to damage.
    (d) The bridge inspection procedures shall be designed to detect, 
report and protect deterioration and deficiencies before they present a 
hazard to safe train operation.


Sec.  237.107  Special inspections.

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


Sec.  237.109  Conduct of bridge inspections.

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


Sec.  237.111  Bridge inspection records.

    (a) Each track owner to which this part applies shall keep a record 
of each inspection required to be performed on those bridges under this 
part.
    (b) Each record of an inspection under the bridge management 
program prescribed in this part shall be prepared from notes taken on 
the day(s) the inspection is made, supplemented with sketches and 
photographs as needed. Such record will be dated with the date(s) the 
physical inspection takes place and signed or otherwise certified by 
the person making the inspection.
    (c) Each bridge management program shall specify that every bridge 
inspection report shall include, as a minimum, the following 
information:
    (1) A precise identification of the bridge inspected;
    (2) The date on which the inspection was completed;
    (3) The identification and written or electronic signature of the 
inspector;
    (4) The type of inspection performed, in conformance with the 
definitions of inspection types in the bridge management program;
    (5) An indication on the report as to whether any item noted 
thereon requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge 
engineer, and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection; 
and
    (6) The condition of components inspected, which may be in a 
condition reporting format prescribed in the bridge management program, 
together with any narrative descriptions necessary for the correct 
interpretation of the report.
    (d) An initial report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in 
the location designated in the bridge management program within 14 
calendar days of the completion of the inspection. The initial report 
shall include the information required by paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(c)(5) of this section.
    (e) A complete report of each bridge inspection, including as a 
minimum the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of 
this section, shall be placed in the location designated in the bridge 
management program within 45 calendar days of the completion of the 
inspection.
    (f) Each bridge inspection program shall specify the retention 
period and location for bridge inspection records. The retention period 
shall be no less than two years following the completion of the 
inspection, or until the completion of the next two inspections of the 
same type, whichever is longer.


Sec.  237.113  Review of bridge inspection reports.

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

Subpart F--Repair and Modification of Bridges


Sec.  237.131  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for adequate design and 
effective supervision of bridge modification and repair which will 
materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any 
primary load-carrying component of the bridge.


Sec.  237.133  Design.

    Each repair or modification to a bridge pursuant to this part shall 
be designed by a railroad bridge engineer. The design shall specify the 
manner in which railroad traffic or other live loads may be permitted 
on the bridge while it is being modified or repaired. Designs and 
procedures for repair or modification of bridges of a common 
configuration, such as timber trestles, or instructions for in-kind 
replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common standard.


Sec.  237.135  Supervision.

    Each repair or modification pursuant to this part shall be 
performed under the immediate supervision of a railroad bridge 
supervisor as defined in Sec.  237.57 of this part and who is 
designated and authorized by the track owner to supervise the 
particular work to be performed. The railroad bridge supervisor shall 
ensure that railroad traffic or other live loads permitted on the 
bridge under repair or modification are in conformity with the 
specifications in the design.

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


Sec.  237.151  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in 
railroad bridge management programs to provide for verification of the 
effectiveness of the program and the accuracy of the information 
developed thereby, by the track owner as well as by the Federal 
Railroad Administration.


Sec.  237.153  Audits; general.

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


Sec.  237.155  Audits of inspections.

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

[[Page 41577]]

accurately describe the condition of the bridge.


Sec.  237.157  Documents and records.

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

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

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

General

    1. The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad 
tracks is important to the safety of railroad employees and to the 
public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is 
specified in Sec.  237.7, ``Responsibility for Compliance.''
    2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be 
determined only by intelligent application of engineering principles 
and the law of physics. Track owners should use those principles to 
assess the integrity of railroad bridges.
    3. The long term ability of a structure to perform its function 
is an economic issue beyond the intent of this policy. In assessing 
a bridge's structural condition, FRA focuses on the present safety 
of the structure, rather than its appearance or long term 
usefulness.
    4. FRA inspectors conduct regular evaluations of railroad bridge 
inspection and management practices. The objective of these 
evaluations is to document the practices of the evaluated railroad, 
to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety of 
the public or railroad employees, and to assure compliance with the 
terms of this regulation. If the evaluation discloses problems, FRA 
seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is jeopardized by a track 
owner's failure to resolve a bridge problem, FRA will use 
appropriate measures, including assessing civil penalties and 
issuance of emergency orders, to protect the safety of railroad 
employees and the public.
    5. This policy statement addresses the integrity of bridges that 
carry railroad tracks. It does not address the integrity of other 
types of structures on railroad property (i.e. tunnels, highway 
bridges over railroads, or other structures on or over the right-of-
way).
    6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory, 
rather than regulatory, in nature. They supplement the requirements 
of part 237 and are retained for information and guidance.

Guidelines

1. Responsibility for Safety of Railroad Bridges

    (a) The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is 
specified in Sec.  237.7.
    (b) The track owner should maintain current information 
regarding loads that may be operated over the bridge, either from 
its own engineering evaluations or as provided by a competent 
engineer representing the track owner. Information on permissible 
loads may be communicated by the track owner either in terms of 
specific car and locomotive configurations and weights, or as values 
representing a standard railroad bridge rating reference system. The 
most common standard bridge rating reference system incorporated in 
the Manual for Railway Engineering of the American Railway 
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association is the dimensional 
and proportional load configuration devised by Theodore Cooper. 
Other reference systems may be used where convenient, provided their 
effects can be defined in terms of shear, bending and pier reactions 
as necessary for a comprehensive evaluation and statement of the 
capacity of a bridge.
    (c) The owner of the track on a bridge should advise other 
railroads operating on that track of the maximum loads permitted on 
the bridge stated in terms of car and locomotive configurations and 
weights. No railroad should operate a load which exceeds those 
limits without specific authority from, and in accordance with 
restrictions placed by, the track owner.

2. Capacity of Railroad Bridges

    (a) The safe capacity of bridges should be determined pursuant 
to Sec.  237.73.
    (b) Proper analysis of a bridge requires knowledge of the actual 
dimensions, materials and properties of the structural members of 
the bridge, their condition, and the stresses imposed in those 
members by the service loads.
    (c) The factors which were used for the design of a bridge can 
generally be used to determine and rate the load capacity of a 
bridge provided:
    (i) The condition of the bridge has not changed significantly; 
and
    (ii) The stresses resulting from the service loads can be 
correlated to the stresses for which the bridge was designed or 
rated.

3. Railroad Bridge Loads

    (a) Control of loads is governed by Sec.  237.75.
    (b) Authority for exceptions. Equipment exceeding the nominal 
weight restriction on a bridge should be operated only under 
conditions determined by a competent railroad bridge engineer who 
has properly analyzed the stresses resulting from the proposed loads 
and has determined that the proposed operation can be conducted 
safely without damaging the bridge.
    (c) Operating conditions. Operating conditions for exceptional 
loads may include speed restrictions, restriction of traffic from 
adjacent multiple tracks, and weight limitations on adjacent cars in 
the same train.

4. Railroad Bridge Records

    (a) The organization responsible for the safety of a bridge 
should keep design, construction, maintenance and repair records 
readily accessible to permit the determination of safe loads. Having 
design or rating drawings and calculations that conform to the 
actual structure greatly simplifies the process of making accurate

[[Page 41578]]

determinations of safe bridge loads. This provision is governed by 
Sec.  237.35.
    (b) Organizations acquiring railroad property should obtain 
original or usable copies of all bridge records and drawings, and 
protect or maintain knowledge of the location of the original 
records.

5. Specifications for Design and Rating of Railroad Bridges

    (a) The recommended specifications for the design and rating of 
bridges are those found in the Manual for Railway Engineering 
published by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way 
Association. These specifications incorporate recognized principles 
of structural design and analysis to provide for the safe and 
economic utilization of railroad bridges during their expected 
useful lives. These specifications are continually reviewed and 
revised by committees of competent engineers. Other specifications 
for design and rating, however, have been successfully used by some 
railroads and may continue to be suitable.
    (b) A bridge can be rated for capacity according to current 
specifications regardless of the specification to which it was 
originally designed.

6. Periodic Inspections of Railroad Bridges

    (a) Periodic bridge inspections by competent inspectors are 
necessary to determine whether a structure conforms to its design or 
rating condition and, if not, the degree of nonconformity. See Sec.  
237.103. Section 237.103(a) calls for every railroad bridge to be 
inspected at least once in each calendar year. Deterioration or 
damage may occur during the course of a year regardless of the level 
of traffic that passes over a bridge. Inspections at more frequent 
intervals may be required by the nature or condition of a structure 
or intensive traffic levels.

7. Underwater Inspections of Railroad Bridges

    (a) Inspections of bridges should include measuring and 
recording the condition of substructure support at locations subject 
to erosion from moving water.
    (b) Stream beds often are not visible to the inspector. Indirect 
measurements by sounding, probing, or any other appropriate means 
are necessary in these cases. A series of records of these readings 
will provide the best information in the event unexpected changes 
suddenly occur. Where such indirect measurements do not provide the 
necessary assurance of foundation integrity, diving inspections 
should be performed as prescribed by a competent engineer.

8. Seismic Considerations

    (a) Owners of bridges should be aware of the risks posed by 
earthquakes in the areas in which their bridges are located. 
Precautions should be taken to protect the safety of trains and the 
public following an earthquake.
    (b) Contingency plans for seismic events should be prepared in 
advance, taking into account the potential for seismic activity in 
an area.
    (c) The predicted attenuation of ground motion varies 
considerably within the United States. Local ground motion 
attenuation values and the magnitude of an earthquake both influence 
the extent of the area affected by an earthquake. Regions with low 
frequency of seismic events produce less data from which to predict 
attenuation factors. That uncertainty should be considered when 
designating the area in which precautions should be taken following 
the first notice of an earthquake. In fact, earthquakes in such 
regions might propagate their effects over much wider areas than 
earthquakes of the same magnitude occurring in regions with frequent 
seismic activity.

9. Special Inspections of Railroad Bridges

    Requirements for special inspections of railroad bridges are 
found in Sec.  237.107.

10. Railroad Bridge Inspection Records

    (a) The requirement for recording and reporting bridge 
inspections is found in Sec.  237.111.
    (b) Information from bridge inspection reports should be 
incorporated into a bridge management program to ensure that 
exceptions on the reports are corrected or accounted for. A series 
of inspection reports prepared over time should be maintained so as 
to provide a valuable record of trends and rates of degradation of 
bridge components. The reports should be structured to promote 
comprehensive inspections and effective communication between an 
inspector and an engineer who performs an analysis of a bridge.
    (c) An inspection report should be comprehensible to a competent 
person without interpretation by the reporting inspector.

11. Railroad Bridge Inspectors and Engineers

    (a) Bridge inspections should be performed by technicians whose 
training and experience enable them to detect and record indications 
of distress on a bridge. Inspectors should provide accurate 
measurements and other information about the condition of the bridge 
in enough detail so that an engineer can make a proper evaluation of 
the safety of the bridge. Qualifications of personnel are addressed 
in Subpart C to part 237.
    (b) Accurate information about the condition of a bridge should 
be evaluated by an engineer who is competent to determine the 
capacity of the bridge. The inspector and the evaluator often are 
not the same individual; therefore, the quality of the bridge 
evaluation depends on the quality of the communication between them. 
Review of inspection reports is addressed in Sec.  237.113.

12. Scheduling Inspections

    (a) A bridge management program should include a means to ensure 
that each bridge under the program is inspected at the frequency 
prescribed for that bridge by a competent engineer. Scheduling of 
bridge inspections is addressed in Sec.  237.103.
    (b) Bridge inspections should be scheduled from an accurate 
bridge inventory list that includes the due date of the next 
inspection.

13. Special Considerations for Railroad Bridges

    Railroad bridges differ from other types of bridges in the types 
of loads they carry, in their modes of failure and indications of 
distress, and in their construction details and components. Proper 
inspection and analysis of railroad bridges require familiarity with 
the loads, details and indications of distress that are unique to 
this class of structure. Particular care should be taken that 
modifications to railroad bridges, including retrofits for 
protection against the effects of earthquakes, are suitable for the 
structure to which they are to be applied. Modifications should not 
adversely affect the serviceability of either the bridge or its 
accessibility for periodic or special inspection.

14. Railroad Implementation of Bridge Safety Programs

    FRA recommends that each track owner or other entity which is 
responsible for the integrity of bridges which support its track 
should comply with the intent of this regulation by adopting and 
implementing an effective and comprehensive program to ensure the 
safety of its bridges. The bridge safety program should incorporate 
the following essential elements, applied according to the 
configuration of the railroad and its bridges. The basis of the 
program should be in one comprehensive and coherent document which 
is available to all railroad personnel and other persons who are 
responsible for the application of any portion of the program. The 
program should include:
    (a) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all persons 
who are designated or authorized to make designations regarding the 
integrity of the track owner's bridges. The definitions may be made 
by position or by individual;
    (b) Provisions for a complete inventory of bridges that carry 
the owner's track, to include the following information on each 
bridge:
    (1) A unique identifier, such as milepost location and a 
subdivision code;
    (2) The location of the bridge by nearest town or station, and 
geographic coordinates;
    (3) The name of the geographic features crossed by the bridge;
    (4) The number of tracks on the bridge;
    (5) The number of spans in the bridge;
    (6) The lengths of the spans; and
    (7) Types of construction of:
    (i) Substructure;
    (ii) Superstructure; and
    (iii) Deck;
    (8) Overall length of the bridge;
    (9) Dates of:
    (i) Construction;
    (ii) Major renovation; and
    (iii) Strengthening; and
    (10) Identification of entities responsible for maintenance of 
the bridge or its different components.
    (c) Known capacity of its bridges as determined by rating by 
competent railroad bridge engineers or by design documents;
    (d) Procedures for the control of movement of high, wide or 
heavy loads exceeding the nominal capacity of bridges;
    (e) Instructions for the maintenance of permanent records of 
design, construction, modification, and repair;
    (f) Railroad-specific procedures and standards for design and 
rating of bridges;
    (g) Detailed bridge inspection policy, including:

[[Page 41579]]

    (1) Inspector Qualifications; including
    (i) Bridge experience or appropriate educational training;
    (ii) Training on bridge inspection procedures; and
    (iii) Training on Railroad Workplace Safety;
    (2) Type and frequency of inspection; including
    (i) Periodic (at least annually);
    (ii) Underwater;
    (iii) Special;
    (iv) Seismic; and
    (v) Cursory inspections of overhead bridges that are not the 
responsibility of the railroad;
    (3) Inspection schedule for each bridge;
    (4) Documentation of inspections; including
    (i) Date;
    (ii) Name of inspector;
    (iii) Reporting Format; and
    (iv) Coherence of information;
    (5) Inspection Report Review Process;
    (6) Record retention; and
    (7) Tracking of critical deficiencies to resolution.
    (h) Provide for the protection of train operations following an 
inspection, noting a critical deficiency, repair, modification or 
adverse event and should include:
    (1) A listing of qualifications of personnel permitted to 
authorize train operations following an adverse event; and
    (2) Detailed internal program audit procedures to ensure 
compliance with the provisions of the program.

Appendix B to Part 237--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2009.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Federal Railroad Administrator.

[FR Doc. E9-19367 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>