41558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.Regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• 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. 

• 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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-bySection 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 postevent 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 outof-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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 recordkeeping 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 longterm 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41568 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Table of Size Standards,’’ U.S. Small Business 

Administration, January 31, 1996, 13 CFR Part 121. 

See also NAICS Codes 482111 and 482112. 

2See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). 

3For further information on the calculation of the 

specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR Part 1201. 

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

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. 

(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 shortline 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41569 

4 Jeffrey E. Warner & Manuel Solari Terra, 

‘‘Assessment of Texas Short Line Railroads,’’ Texas 

Transportation Institute (Nov. 15, 2005). 

5The 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. 

6U.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). 

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

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 § 237.35 

Proposed § 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41570 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual burden hours 

237.7—Notifications to FRA of Assignment of Bridge Responsibility 727 Railroads ... 15 notifications 90 minutes ........ 22 .5 

—Signed Statement by Assignee Concerning Bridge Responsibility 727 Railroads ... 15 signed statements.30 minutes ........ 7 .5 

237.13—Waivers—Petitions ............................................................... 727 Railroads ... 12 petitions ....... 4 hours ............. 48 

237.33—Development/Adoption of Bridge Management Program .... 727 Railroads ... 727 plans .......... Varies ............... 20,474 

237.59—Designation of Qualified Individuals ..................................... 727 Railroads ... 200 designations.30 minutes ........ 100 

237.73—Determination of Bridge Load Capacities ............................ 727 Railroads ... 2,000 determinations.8 hours ............. 16,000 

237.75—Issuance of Instructions to Railroad Personnel by Track 

Owner.

727 Railroads ... 2,000 instructions.2 hours ............. 4,000 

237.107—Special Bridge Inspections and Reports/Records ............. 727 Railroads ... 50 insp. and reports/rcds.40 hours ........... 2,000 

237.109 and 237.111—Nationwide Annual Bridge Inspections—Reports.727 Railroads ... 18,000 insp. and 

reports.

4 hours ............. 72,000 

—Records ........................................................................................... 727 Railroads ... 18,000 records 1 hour ............... 18,000 

237.113—Review of Bridge Inspection Reports by RR Bridge Engineers.727 Railroads ... 2,000 insp. rpt. 

reviews.

30 minutes ........ 1,000 

—Prescription of Bridge Insp. Procedure Modifications After Review 727 Railroads ... 200 insp. proc. 

modifications.

30 minutes ........ 100 

237.133—Design of Bridge Modifications or Bridge Repairs ............. 727 Railroads ... 500 designs ...... 16 hours ........... 8,000 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41571 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual burden hours 

237.155—Audits of Inspections .......................................................... 727 Railroads ... 727 insp. audits 80 hours/24 

hours/6 hours.

5,746 

237.157—Documents and Records ....................................................

—Establishment of RR Monitoring and Info. Technology Security 

Systems for Electronic Recordkeeping.

727 Railroads ... 5 systems ......... 80 hours ........... 400 

—Employees Trained in System ........................................................ 727 Railroads ... 100 employees 8 hours ............. 800 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. 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: 

robert.brogan@dot.gov; 

nakia.jackson@dot.gov. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 overweight 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 237.11. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41574 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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 § 237.7 of this chapter. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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: §§ 237.XX, 237.XX 

Subpart B—Railroad Bridge Safety 

Assurance 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 237.55 Railroad bridge inspectors. 

A railroad bridge inspector shall be a 

person who is determined by the track 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 237.75 Protection of bridges from overweight 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41577 

accurately describe the condition of the 

bridge. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

determinations of safe bridge loads. This 

provision is governed by § 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 § 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 § 237.107. 

10. Railroad Bridge Inspection Records 

(a) The requirement for recording and 

reporting bridge inspections is found in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3