[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27396-27437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09512]



[[Page 27395]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 88

May 6, 2022

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Highway Administration





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





23 CFR Part 650





National Bridge Inspection Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 27396]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 650

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


National Bridge Inspection Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 FHWA also is repealing two outdated regulations: 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

DATES: This final rule is effective June 6, 2022. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Drda, P.E., Office of 
Bridges and Structures, HIBS-30, (919) 747-7011, or Mr. William Winne, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all 
comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at 
http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. 
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. 
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic 
copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the 
Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the 
Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

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

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

    This final rule revises the existing NBIS relative to the National 
Bridge Inventory (NBI), including the requirement to collect element 
level data for National Highway System (NHS) bridges. The regulations 
require inspections of bridges on all public roads, on and off Federal-
aid highways, including tribally and federally owned bridges, and 
private bridges connected on each end by a public road. The regulations 
include several new terms to provide consistency and clarity in the 
implementation of the regulations. This revision includes renaming some 
existing terms in a more descriptive way, such as fracture critical 
member being renamed nonredundant steel tension member (NSTM).
    The final rule requires the bridge inspection organizations to 
maintain a registry of nationally certified bridge inspectors to align 
with a similar provision in the National Tunnel Inspection Standards 
(NTIS) in 23 CFR part 650, subpart E. Training requirements for program 
managers and team leaders have been modified by defining a required 
amount of refresher training for both roles and defining training 
needed to be a team leader on a NSTM inspection.
    The regulations prescribe the permissible inspection intervals for 
bridges, including options for more rigorous, risk-based intervals 
based on the consideration of certain factors. They provide options for 
establishing inspection intervals for each inspection type. An 
inspection interval tolerance of 3 months beyond the inspection date is 
included. Specific criteria have been established to allow for extended 
routine inspection intervals up to 48 months, and 72 months for 
underwater inspections. Similarly, requirements are described to enable 
the establishment of more rigorous, risk-based intervals in 
consideration of certain factors associated with bridges for routine, 
underwater, and nonredundant steel tension member inspections that 
would allow some inspection intervals to be up to 72 months.
    The final rule requires written reports to FHWA of critical 
findings identified during inspections and they provide minimum 
criteria for what a critical finding is, for national consistency. The 
regulations also require that a bridge inspection organization provide 
information to FHWA for annual compliance reviews.
    The updated regulations include new time frames for updating 
inventory data, and a process for tracking the updates of inventory 
data. In addition, they include a new document to identify data items 
for the NBI. This document, ``Specifications for the National Bridge 
Inventory (SNBI),'' replaces the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the 
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (Coding 
Guide).'' The final SNBI document is included in the docket.

III. Costs and Benefits

    The total cost of the final rule is calculated over the 10-year 
analysis period (2022--2031) assuming that either 30 or 65 percent of 
eligible bridges will use the Method 1 risk-based 48-month inspection 
interval rather than the 24-month inspection interval. The total cost 
savings of the rule for the 10-year study period (2022--2031) is

[[Page 27397]]

between -$4.6 and -$195.4 million discounted at 7 percent.
    The provisions required by MAP-21 (Sections 650.303, 650.309, and 
650.313) have total cost of $7.1 million over the 10-year analysis 
period when discounted at 7 percent. The other discretionary provisions 
that impose costs have a 10-year discounted value of -$11.7 to -$202.5 
million. The cost savings associated with the provision related to 
expanded inspection intervals has a plausible range for 10-year 
discounted costs of -$131.0 to -$321.7 million.
    The FHWA believes the final rule will be net beneficial to society 
but is unable to monetize or quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. 
More detail on the costs and benefits of the rule can be found later in 
this document and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis posted to the 
docket for this rulemaking.

Background and Legal Authority

    FHWA bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a 
result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat. 
815), which required the Secretary to establish the NBIS to ensure the 
safety of the traveling public on highway bridges, and directed the 
States to maintain an inventory of Federal-aid highway system bridges. 
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713) 
limited the NBIS to bridges on the Federal-aid highway system. The 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 
2689) extended the NBIS requirements to bridges on all public roads. 
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
1987 (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132) expanded the scope of highway 
bridge inspection programs to include special inspection procedures for 
fracture critical members and underwater inspection. Section 1111 of 
MAP-21 modified 23 U.S.C. 144 by revising the NBIS and adding 
requirements for a parallel NTIS framework. FHWA adopted procedures for 
the NTIS via rulemaking on July 14, 2015, at 80 FR 41350. In order to 
update the NBIS regulations for MAP-21, and to align them with the 
successful procedures in place for NTIS, FHWA is making a number of 
changes to 23 CFR part 650.
    The framework of this regulation is aligned with the current NBIS 
framework. Both start with sections discussing the purpose, 
applicability, and definitions. These are followed by sections on 
organization responsibilities, qualifications of select personnel, 
inspection intervals, and inspection procedures. The current and new 
regulation end with sections on inventorying bridges, submitting data, 
and incorporated references. Specific discussions on each section are 
detailed later.
    FHWA is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h), as amended by MAP-21, to 
update the NBIS to address the methodology, training, and 
qualifications for inspectors, as well as the frequency of bridge 
inspections. In carrying out the MAP-21 provisions, the Secretary is 
required to consider a risk-based approach to determining the frequency 
of bridge inspections.
    The NBIS is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2), as amended by MAP-21, 
to specify the method by which the inspections shall be carried out by 
the States, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments, or their agents. 
The NBIS is also required to establish the maximum time period between 
inspections and the qualifications for those charged with carrying out 
the inspections. The NBIS requires each State, Federal agency, and 
Tribal government to maintain and make available to the Secretary, on 
request, written reports on the results of highway bridge inspections 
and notations of any action taken pursuant to the findings of the 
inspections and current inventory data for all highway bridges 
reflecting the findings of the most recent inspections conducted. The 
NBIS includes a procedure for national certification of highway bridge 
inspectors.
    A requirement was introduced in 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2), as amended by 
MAP-21, for each State and Federal agency to report element level 
bridge inspection data to the Secretary, as each bridge is inspected, 
for all highway bridges on the NHS.
    The Secretary is required by 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(3)(B), as amended by 
MAP-21, to establish procedures for States in reporting critical 
findings relating to structural or safety-related deficiencies of 
highway bridges and reports on subsequent activities and corrective 
actions taken in response to a critical finding.
    Under the authority delegated to FHWA in 49 CFR 1.85 and the above 
mentioned statutory authority, FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 12, 2019, at 84 FR 61494. Based on the 
comments received on the NPRM, FHWA is issuing this final rule to 
update the NBIS for highway bridges.

Summary of Comments

    FHWA received 265 submissions to the docket resulting in more than 
3000 individual comments in response to the NPRM. FHWA received 
comments from the American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), American Council of Engineering Companies, American 
Society of Civil Engineers, National Steel Bridge Alliance, American 
Association for Laboratory Accreditation, 41 State DOTs, the National 
Transportation Safety Board, 4 Federal agencies, city and county 
governmental agencies, consulting firms, and individual private 
citizens. FHWA has considered these comments in the development of the 
final rule. Docket comments and summaries of FHWA's analyses and 
determinations are discussed as follows.

Summary of Significant Changes Made in the Final Rule

    The final rule was developed in response to comments received on 
the NPRM. The following paragraphs summarize the most significant of 
those changes. Editorial or slight changes in language are not 
addressed in this document.
    Section 650.307(f) was revised to require that delegated roles and 
functions be documented. The proposed NPRM requirement for formal 
written agreements was removed.
    Sections 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and 650.311(b)(1)(ii) were modified to 
allow a special inspection in lieu of routine or underwater inspection 
reduced interval inspections. This modification provides an option to 
monitor areas of concern, rather than requiring inspection of the 
entire bridge at reduced intervals.
    Section 650.311(a)(1)(iii) was modified so that the extended 
routine inspection interval criteria more closely aligns with current 
FHWA approved extended inspection interval policies.
    Section 650.313(q) was revised to change the critical finding 
condition rating threshold from serious (3) to critical (2) as defined 
in the 0-9 scale for superstructure and substructure condition ratings 
in the SNBI. FHWA has also included the Deck Condition and Culvert 
Condition ratings in these criteria.
    Section 650.317(a)(1) was updated to incorporate only specific 
sections of the ``AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Third Edition, 
(AASHTO Manual) and the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions.

Section-by-Section Discussion

    The final rule was developed in response to comments received on 
the NPRM. The following paragraphs summarize major comments received 
and any substantive changes made to each section in the final rule. 
Editorial

[[Page 27398]]

or slight changes in language are not addressed in this document. For 
sections where no substantive changes are discussed, the substantive 
proposal from the NPRM has been adopted in the final rule.

Section 650.303 Applicability

    Thirty-five commenters requested clarification of the definition 
for a private bridge for determining applicability of this regulation. 
Three commenters were in support of inspecting private bridges 
connected to a public road on both ends of the bridge.
    FHWA Response: Because of the seamless nature of the transportation 
infrastructure across the Nation, FHWA believes that 23 U.S.C. 144 is 
intended to apply to all highway bridges carrying public roads. The 
inventory and inspection of all highway bridges open to public travel 
is essential to protect the safety of the traveling public and allow 
for the efficient movement of people and goods on which the economy of 
the United States relies. In certain cases, a public road is connected 
to a private highway bridge. The applicability of the NBIS to such 
private bridges is limited to where the public road directly carries 
the traveling public to the bridge, the public road continues on the 
other side, and the bridge is open to public travel.
    Sixteen commenters indicated there may be State specific 
legislation restricting access to private property therefore preventing 
the ability of the State to perform inspections.
    FHWA Response: The NBIS requires inspection of certain private 
bridges; however, it is not a requirement that the inspection be 
performed by State DOT inspectors. Rather, State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, and Tribal governments must cause inspections and evaluations 
of private bridges to be performed in accordance with the NBIS.
    One commenter indicated support if the ``private bridge'' was 
referring to toll bridges.
    FHWA Response: The vast majority of toll bridges identified in the 
National Bridge Inventory are publicly owned, often by a publicly 
chartered toll authority; therefore, they are subject to the NBIS. In 
the case of a privately owned toll bridge, the applicability of the 
NBIS is limited to where a public road directly carries the traveling 
public to the bridge, the public road continues on the other side, and 
the bridge is open to the public travel.
    Three commenters requested clarification on the inspection 
requirements of pedestrian and bicycle bridges.
    FHWA Response: The NBIS is only applicable to ``highway bridges'' 
located on ``public roads.'' Bridges that only carry pedestrian and 
bicycle traffic are not highway bridges and therefore are not subject 
to the NBIS. Similarly, the NBIS does not apply to railroad, pipeline, 
or other types of non-highway bridges, sign support structures, high 
mast lighting, retaining walls, noise barriers structures, and overhead 
traffic signs. Owners are strongly encouraged to inspect these non-
highway bridges and other significant structures.
    The FHWA adopts the private bridge portion of this section as 
proposed in the NPRM without further modification.

Section 650.305 Definitions

    AASHTO Manual--The definition of the AASHTO Manual is updated in 
the final rule to include the sections incorporated by reference. This 
change reflects the effort that AASHTO has made to limit the provisions 
needed to implement the NBIS to specific sections. The intent of this 
effort was to avoid inadvertently creating unnecessary additional 
requirements on highway bridge owners by incorporating all of the 
AASHTO Manual as a reference.
    Bridge inspection experience--Seven commenters suggested clarifying 
how much of an inspector's experience should be from performing bridge 
inspections. Two commenters recommended adding bridge load rating 
evaluations to the list of relevant bridge inspection experience.
    FHWA Response: FHWA recognizes that there are many factors involved 
in evaluating an individual's bridge inspection experience and believes 
that the definition allows for some flexibility in this area. The 
individual's experience must include development of the necessary 
skills to properly perform NBIS bridge inspections. However, the 
predominate amount, or more than 50 percent, should come from NBIS 
bridge safety inspection experience. Other experience in bridge design, 
bridge load rating, bridge maintenance, or bridge construction may be 
used to provide the additional required experience. FHWA agrees that 
load rating experience is valuable and should be considered as 
acceptable in determining bridge inspection experience. FHWA suggests 
that a program manager evaluating an individual's experience for 
compliance with the requirements for a team leader could consider, 
among other things, the following factors:
    1. The relevance of the individual's actual experience, i.e., has 
the other experience enabled the individual to develop the skills 
needed to lead properly a bridge safety inspection.
    2. Exposure to the problems or deficiencies common in the types of 
bridges being inspected by the individual.
    3. Complexity of the structures being inspected in comparison to 
the knowledge and skills of the individual gained through their prior 
experience.
    4. The individual's understanding of the specific data collection 
needs and requirements.
    5. Demonstrated ability, through some type of a formal 
certification program, to lead bridge safety inspections.
    6. The level of oversight and supervision demonstrated by the 
individual in prior experience.
    Complex feature--Three commenters liked the definition change from 
complex bridge to complex feature since it placed the focus on portions 
of the bridge which are complex, while one commenter expressed concern 
the change will result in more complex inspections.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees the change will place the focus of these 
types of inspections on the parts of bridges that warrant additional 
attention due to their inherent complexity, rather than an entire 
bridge that may have many other noncomplex elements and are addressed 
during routine inspections. FHWA does not anticipate an increase in 
complex inspections as a result of the change. Owners will have the 
ability, as they do now, to identify any complex feature beyond those 
in the regulation. The regulation is only clarifying that the focus of 
this inspection type is on the complex features, not the entire bridge.
    Damage mode--Two commenters recommended clarifying the definition 
of damage mode by changing it to ``deterioration mode'' as 
deterioration is a more common defect than damage.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that use of deterioration mode would be 
a better description for use in determining risk-based inspection 
intervals. The definition has been changed in the final rule from 
damage mode to deterioration mode. Also, the definition was modified to 
include damage and deterioration.
    Initial inspection--One commenter questioned how the initial 
inspection is a separate inspection as identified in Sec.  650.313, but 
the proposed definition identifies the initial inspection as the first 
routine, underwater, or NSTM inspection.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that an initial inspection is a separate 
inspection type and the definition was modified to clarify this 
distinction in the final rule.
    Inspection date--One commenter stated the NPRM specifies that the

[[Page 27399]]

inspection date is the date the inspection begins for a bridge, but 
that expectations for the timeframe in which to complete the inspection 
are unclear and need to be defined. The commenter noted that the 
proposed change may be reasonable for most bridges but is not 
reasonable for large, complex bridges that take several months to 
inspect.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that for large, complex bridges it would 
be better to define the inspection date as the date on which the field 
portion of the bridge inspection is completed. The definition has been 
updated to capture the inspection date as the last day of field 
inspection.
    Inspection report--One commenter suggested that the inspection 
report identify the team leader. Two commenters suggested that the team 
leader signature should not be required.
    FHWA Response: FHWA understands the need to clarify this 
definition, and that owners have many different methods, including 
electronic signature, to identify the team leader responsible for the 
inspection and report. FHWA is modifying the regulation to align with 
section 2.2 of the AASHTO Manual, which is incorporated by reference. 
The definition now includes the following language: ``identify the team 
leader responsible for the inspection and report.''
    Legal load rating--In response to comments for inspection interval 
criteria in Sec.  650.311(a)(1), FHWA added a new definition to the 
final rule for legal load rating, which is a term used in the Load and 
Resistance Factor Rating method.
    Nonredundant member--Two commenters questioned why there was a 
definition in the NPRM for nonredundant member. Two commenters 
suggested adding a definition for NSTM. Two commenters suggested adding 
internal and system redundancy to the definition for nonredundant 
member in accordance with the AASHTO guide specification. Six 
commenters suggested the move away from the term fracture critical (FC) 
is unnecessary and will cause confusion. Two commenters stated 
replacing the FC terminology is beneficial because it avoids the 
mistaken assumption that a bridge under the FC or fracture critical 
member categories are dangerous and should not be used.
    FHWA Response: The NPRM utilized the term ``nonredundant member'' 
in critical findings criteria and to support the definition of 
``nonredundant steel tension member inspection.'' Based on comments 
received, the criteria for critical findings has been modified in the 
final rule and criteria related to the term ``nonredundant member'' has 
been removed, eliminating the need for this definition.
    FHWA agrees with adding a new definition for NSTM in the final rule 
to provide clarity in implementation of the regulation and moving away 
from the term ``fracture critical'' as it is commonly misunderstood to 
those not familiar with the NBIS. As explained in the NPRM, replacing 
the general term of ``fracture critical member'' with a more 
descriptive term of NSTM is necessary to enable the risk-based approach 
to determining the frequency of inspection required by 23 U.S.C. 
144(h)(7). Accordingly, a definition for NSTM has been added to the 
final rule that includes consideration of system and internal 
redundancy.
    FHWA agrees that primary members without load path redundancy but 
with system or internal redundancy as demonstrated through a nationally 
recognized process do not require NSTM inspections. Nationally 
recognized means published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal; or 
developed, endorsed and disseminated by a national organization with 
affiliates based in two or more States; or currently adopted for use by 
one or more State governments or by the Federal Government; and is the 
most current version. Also, definitions for load path, system, and 
internal redundancy have been added to the regulation for clarity. The 
requirement for demonstration of system and internal redundancy has 
been added to Sec.  650.313(f). Comments on this topic are addressed 
under that section.
    Operating rating--Three commenters suggested the definition for 
operating rating should more closely align with the AASHTO Manual.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees the definition should better align with 
the AASHTO Manual and has updated the definition accordingly.
    Plan of action (POA)--Two commenters recommended changing name of 
``plan of action'' to ``scour plan of action'' to make it clear that 
this term only applies to bridge scour.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with this recommendation and has changed 
the term to ``scour plan of action'' to clarify it is only related to 
scour.
    Private bridge--35 commenters requested the addition of a 
definition for private bridge.
    FHWA Response: A definition has been added to the final rule for 
private bridge.
    Professional engineer (PE)--Four commenters requested that licensed 
structural engineers (SE) be considered qualified for program manager, 
team leader, and be responsible for load ratings in lieu of a PE.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that SEs who practice in the fields in 
which they are qualified would have acceptable credentials. The 
definition has been updated to acknowledge SE licensure.
    Program manager--Two commenters supported the definition change to 
allow for multiple program managers. One commenter stated that their 
organization and other States are set up so that the program manager 
does not directly oversee load rating engineers. The commenter noted 
that since these two employees/positions are not interchangeable, and 
both have completely different skill sets and responsibilities, this 
would result in non-compliance. In addition, some commenters questioned 
whether a program manager would be required to be a PE if responsible 
for load ratings.
    FHWA Response: Because of the issues identified by the commenters 
that some States do not have load rating engineers and the program 
manager under the same office, the responsibility for load rating was 
removed from the definition of program manager. FHWA clarifies in the 
final rule that the program manager has the overall responsibility to 
ensure conformity with the NBIS.
    Rehabilitation--One commenter suggested adding a definition for 
rehabilitation, as it is used in multiple places in the regulation but 
is not defined, though the commenter did not suggest a particular 
definition.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that adding a definition to the final 
rule will provide clarity to what is considered rehabilitation for NBIS 
as use of the term varies by owners. This new definition is consistent 
with the SNBI. Rehabilitation typically includes deck or superstructure 
replacement, structure widening, or major modification to substantial 
portions of the bridge.
    Routine inspection--One commenter suggested that the definition of 
routine inspection should not include the identification of critical 
findings because they can be identified in any type of inspection.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that critical findings can be identified 
in other inspection types. It was not the intent to require a routine 
inspection to determine a critical finding. The definition has been 
modified by removing the term critical finding and adding language from 
the existing regulation about ensuring that the structure continues to 
satisfy present safety requirements.

[[Page 27400]]

    Routine permit load--One commenter questioned the need for this 
definition. Another commenter similarly asked about the intent of this 
definition and raised concern that it might interfere or restrict a 
State's ability to control permit movements.
    FHWA Response: The NPRM proposed to use the same definition used in 
the existing NBIS regulation. The definition makes clear what is 
considered a routine permit in support of Sec.  650.313(k). The 
requirement to load rate routine permit loads has not changed from the 
current NBIS to the final rule. This requirement ensures the safety of 
the travelling public by verifying that permit vehicles can safely 
cross the bridge, and is not intended to interfere or restrict States' 
use of routine permits.
    Safe load capacity--One commenter stated safe load capacities are 
typically not being redone after each inspection and expressed concern 
that the definition implies that the load rating is only safe until the 
next inspection.
    FHWA Response: The definition is the same definition used in the 
AASHTO Manual. Sections 2.2.7 and 4.2.5 of the AASHTO Manual indicate 
that load ratings are to be updated as needed to reflect changes in the 
condition, configuration, strength of members, or changes in loads. 
Owners should verify load ratings are still valid after each inspection 
to meet this requirement. It is not uncommon for bridge load rating to 
be valid for multiple inspection cycles.
    Scour appraisal--One commenter requested FHWA define ``evaluation 
process'' and clarify whether the intent is for the analysis to be 
performed in accordance with Hydraulic Engineering Circulars, (HEC).
    FHWA Response: FHWA has modified the definition of scour appraisal 
to clarify that a scour evaluation or scour assessment is to be used to 
complete the scour appraisal. Definitions for scour evaluation and 
scour assessment are added in the final rule to support the scour 
appraisal definition. The final rule clarifies that scour appraisals 
are to be consistent with the HEC documents.
    Scour assessment--A definition has been added for scour assessment, 
which is a risk-based process that considers stream stability and scour 
potential.
    Scour evaluation--A definition for scour evaluation has been added, 
which is the application of hydraulic analysis to estimate scour 
depths.
    Service inspection--Six commenters stated that the definition is 
ambiguous which can lead to interpretations which do not meet the 
intent. These commenters requested that the qualifications and intent 
of service inspections be clarified.
    FHWA Response: The definition has been updated to clarify the 
intent is to identify major deficiency and safety issues performed by 
bridge maintenance or inspection staff. This type of inspection does 
not require a team leader. The inspections are meant to be performed by 
bridge maintenance or inspection staff from the ground and are not 
intended to be as rigorous as routine inspections. Bridges that would 
require a service inspection are bridges with inspection intervals 
greater than 48 months, so the bridges would be classified as in good 
condition and classified in a lower risk category. FHWA utilized NCHRP 
Report 782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices \1\ in the development of this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL: 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Underwater Bridge Inspection Training--One commenter indicated that 
there is very little inspection material related to the underwater 
inspection of bridges.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has amended the definition of underwater bridge 
inspection training to include reference to the publication Underwater 
Bridge Inspection (FHWA-NHI-10-027). The purpose of this manual is to 
provide guidelines for underwater bridge inspection; acquaint those 
responsible for bridge safety with underwater inspection techniques and 
equipment; and present commonly found defects. It should be of interest 
to bridge and maintenance engineers, divers, and inspectors.
    Underwater bridge inspection diver--One commenter suggested a 
definition be added for underwater bridge inspector diver as it is not 
defined in the regulation.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with this comment and a definition has 
been added to clarify who is considered an underwater bridge inspection 
diver. This language also clarifies that a tender and safety diver are 
not considered underwater bridge inspection divers.
    Unknown Foundations--After addressing comments related to scour 
plans of action, FHWA realized providing a definition for unknown 
foundations further clarifies the regulation and will lead to 
consistent implementation. The definition was developed based upon 
previous FHWA guidance, Frequently Asked Questions--Bridges over 
waterways with unknown foundations and Geotechnical Engineering 
Notebook GT-16, Determination of Unknown Subsurface Bridge 
Foundations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Frequently Asked Questions--Bridges Over Waterways with 
Unknown Foundations may be found at the following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/090603.cfm, and Determination of 
Unknown Subsurface Bridge Foundations can be found at the following 
URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/090603.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection Organization Responsibilities

General Comments

    Two commenters were concerned that Sec.  650.307(a), (b), and (c) 
contradict each other and, as written, would require inspection and 
reporting of a single bridge by multiple agencies.
    FHWA Response: Section 650.307(a) states that a State DOT is only 
responsible for all highway bridges that are located within their 
State's boundaries, except for those that are owned by Federal agencies 
and Tribal governments. Section 650.307(b) and (c) identify the bridges 
that are under the responsibility or jurisdiction of Federal agencies 
or Tribal governments and aligns with the language in the current 
regulation. The bridge inspection and reporting responsibility of a 
bridge falls within one agency (State DOT, Federal, or Tribal).
    One commenter stated that removing the term ``public roads'' from 
Sec.  650.307(a) and (b) creates inconsistency with Sec.  650.303, 
where the NBIS applies to all highway bridges located on all public 
roads.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes that both Sec. Sec.  650.303 and 
650.307 complement each other; accordingly, FHWA does not believe 
removing the term public roads from Sec.  650.307 creates any 
inconsistencies with Sec.  650.303. Section 650.307(a) and (b) outline 
the responsibilities of States and Federal agencies respectively, 
whereas Sec.  650.303 outlines the applicability of the standards.

Section 650.307(d)

    Twenty-two commenters expressed their support for written 
agreements for border bridges, but stated that only one agency should 
be responsible for submitting border bridge data to FHWA.
    FHWA Response: The National Performance Management Measures, 23 CFR 
part 490, subpart D, requires all border bridges to be included with 
State NBI data submissions. Bordering States submit border bridge 
information because they are both responsible for that bridge in their 
performance measure statistics. In response to the comment, the SNBI 
has been modified to identify the Designated Lead State

[[Page 27401]]

that is responsible for submitting a full bridge record, and the 
Neighboring State will submit an abbreviated bridge record.
    One commenter stated that they have two sister bridges that are 
owned and maintained by a local agency and cross a river with a 
bordering State. The commenter asked for clarification and whether 
these bridges fall into this category.
    FHWA Response: In the scenario described, one written agreement 
between the three entities (the two State DOTs and the local owner) to 
delineate the responsibilities of each entity would be required. This 
agreement may also include the delegation requirements between the 
State DOT and local agencies in Sec.  650.307(f).
    One commenter asked whether the border bridge agreement should 
include both maintenance and inspection responsibilities rather than 
just ``inspection'' responsibilities.
    FHWA Response: FHWA encourages that a border bridge agreement 
include not just NBIS inspection responsibilities, but all aspects 
involved with the bridge such as maintenance and financing. However, 
Sec.  650.307(d) only pertains to determining NBIS inspection 
responsibilities.
    One commenter questioned the need for a joint written agreement.
    FHWA Response: FHWA's experience is that in some instances there 
has not been a clear delineation of the inspection responsibilities of 
border bridges. The lack of a clear delineation of inspection 
responsibilities can lead to undue delays in conducting and completing 
the required inspections, and in the overall management of the bridge. 
To align the NBIS process with that of the existing requirements in the 
NTIS, this language requires the affected agencies to have a written 
agreement in place to clarify the NBIS-related responsibilities of each 
entity for that particular bridge and help ensure that timely bridge 
inspections and follow-up actions are accomplished in accordance with 
these standards. Section 650.307(d) addresses the bridge inspection 
responsibilities of jointly owned bridges that involve bordering States 
or combinations of State DOTs, Federal agencies, or Tribal governments 
ownership, or different entities within a State, or Federal, or Tribal 
jurisdiction.

Section 650.307(e)

    Twenty commenters expressed concern about the requirement for State 
DOTs to maintain a registry of nationally certified bridge inspectors 
and most suggested that FHWA assume the responsibility of maintaining 
such registry.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes it is important for each State DOT, 
Federal agency, or Tribal government to maintain their own specific 
registry of certified inspectors who perform or have performed 
inspections on their bridges. This requirement is consistent with the 
NTIS regulation. There are many reasons that each State should maintain 
its own registry. Recognizing that Federal regulations represent the 
minimum standards and that, in many instances, State DOT requirements 
exceed that of Federal regulations, maintaining a registry of qualified 
inspectors by State DOTs would be more appropriate. The registry can be 
used to communicate with inspectors who work in that State to announce 
such things as anticipated work, training requirements, and training 
opportunities. State specific requirements for inspectors can be 
incorporated, and data quality is more easily maintained at the State 
level. For clarity and consistency with the NTIS, the word ``central'' 
was removed in the final rule.
    Several commenters asked if FHWA would assign a unique inspector 
identifier if each inspector would have their own number to be used in 
any State.
    FHWA Response: FHWA will not assign a unique inspector identifier. 
The minimum requirements for the registry include a method to identify 
positively each inspector. The method is left to the State to 
determine. For example, a State may use a unique numbering system or 
naming convention as an element of identification method of qualified 
inspectors within their respective State.
    Several commenters stated that they are currently maintaining or 
able to maintain a State based registry with State specific 
requirements. Some of these commenters indicated that they would not be 
aware of specific requirements in other States and would not be able to 
provide information on whether an inspector qualified in their State 
would also be qualified in an another. Other commenters indicated that 
individual States do not have governance for bridge inspectors in other 
States. Some of these commenters stated that there is a likelihood of 
significant redundant work in certifying consultant inspectors by 
multiple States.
    FHWA Response: The NBIS does not require State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, or Tribal governments to share their registry of nationally 
certified bridge inspectors with other entities, nor does it require 
reciprocity between entities for these registries. The requirement of 
the registry is for each State DOT, Federal agency, and Tribal 
government to identify those inspectors that meet the minimum national 
qualification and perform bridge inspections work in their 
jurisdiction, as defined in Sec.  650.307(a), (b), and (c). FHWA 
recognizes that in some instances, qualification for bridge inspectors 
may exceed the minimum standards, resulting in a qualified team leader 
in one entity not being qualified in another.
    Nine commenters expressed concerns about the requirement to 
maintain information about adverse actions that may affect the good 
standing of bridge inspectors. Some asked for clarification and others 
recommended the removal of this requirement.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes adverse actions indicate an inability 
of a bridge inspection team leader to perform quality inspections in 
accordance with the NBIS. As such, including detailed information in 
the registry about adverse actions is intended to ensure that the 
ability to perform assigned inspection activities is not in question. 
Only adverse actions that occur within the State DOT, Federal agency, 
or Tribal government's jurisdiction are intended to be included in 
their own registry. The level of detail to be included in the registry 
is left to the judgment of the program manager.
    One commenter requested clarification as to whether the 
documentation requirements for inspection intervals of less than 24 
months are for individual bridges or on a general inventory level for 
all bridges.
    FHWA Response: The requirement is to document the criteria for 
inspection intervals for the several inspection types identified in 
Sec.  650.311. Section 650.307(e)(3) is clarified by adding the term 
``criteria.''

Section 650.307(f)

    Fifteen commenters expressed disagreement with formal written 
agreements citing additional undue burden placed on agencies. Some of 
the commenters indicated that States already delegate these 
responsibilities to local governments by State law or through their 
bridge inspection policies and further stated that requiring a formal 
written agreement would be a substantial burden.
    FHWA Response: FHWA NBIS compliance reviews have shown that, in 
some situations, delegated agencies do not have a full understanding or 
commitment to performing the NBIS functions that are delegated to them. 
FHWA understands the concerns raised about the potential administrative

[[Page 27402]]

burden of formal written agreements. As such, Sec.  650.307(f) has been 
revised to replace ``formal written agreement'' with the requirement 
that delegated roles and functions must be documented in State DOT, 
Federal agency, or Tribal government bridge inspection policies. It is 
essential that all parties involved have a clear understanding of what 
bridge inspection functions are being delegated. Ultimate 
responsibility for the inspection of highway bridges rests with the 
delegating State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government.
    Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the concept of 
multiple agency program managers in Sec. Sec.  650.305 and 650.307.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has reconsidered its position on multiple 
program managers, reverting to requiring a single lead program manager 
as required in the current regulation. With this revision to the final 
rule, a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government may have more 
than one individual with program manager responsibilities. But to 
alleviate confusion with the intent of the regulation, there must be 
one individual who has the overall responsibility for the program. The 
intent is that the program manager provides overall leadership and 
guidance for the inspection organization, and is available to 
inspection teams and load rating personnel to provide guidance.

Section 650.307(f) and (g)

    The NPRM language made clear that a Tribal government may delegate 
its responsibilities under this subpart to Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA), if BIA agrees, resulting in BIA acting as the program manager 
for the Tribes. However, FHWA's Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Office also 
can be delegated responsibilities to act as program manager for Tribes 
under the Tribal Transportation Program Agreement. FHWA has been 
carrying out these responsibilities for FHWA Agreement Tribes since 
2019. Language has been added to clarify that these delegations to FHWA 
continue to be permissible under these regulations and to correct this 
oversight in the NPRM language. A Tribal government that does not 
delegate its responsibilities to BIA or FHWA continues to need to 
maintain a bridge inspection organization.

Section 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel

Section 650.309(a)

    Two commenters stated that program managers should be a licensed PE 
because they are responsible for load ratings. One commenter stated 
their organization and other States are set up so that the program 
manager does not directly oversee load rating engineers. The commenter 
noted that since these two employees/positions are not interchangeable, 
and both have completely different skill sets and responsibilities, 
this would result in the State being non-compliant.
    FHWA Response: FHWA maintains its position on the longstanding 
success the NBIS has had using program managers qualified by experience 
in lieu of a PE. Because of the issues identified by the commenter that 
some States do not have load rating and the program manager in the same 
office and the positions have different skill sets, the responsibility 
for load rating was removed from the definition of program manager.
    Five commenters suggested that the qualifications for a program 
manager with PE should also have a minimum of 6 months bridge 
inspection experience. Two commenters highlighted that a team leader 
with a PE requires more bridge inspection experience than a program 
manager.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has included the bridge inspection experience 
requirement for PE team leaders to ensure that all team leaders have 
some experience and are familiar with the collection and recording of 
bridge inspection information as well as the process and procedures 
associated with bridge inspection activities. FHWA encourages program 
managers to have bridge inspection experience, however the NBIS has had 
longstanding success with PE program managers. It is not the intent of 
FHWA to require a program manager also to be a certified bridge 
inspection team leader. The NBIS provides minimum national standards 
and organizations can make their standards more stringent than the 
NBIS.
    Four commenters suggested the option for a licensed SE to qualify 
in lieu of a PE where applicable in Sec.  650.309 for a program 
manager, team leader, and for load ratings.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that licensed SEs who practice in the 
fields in which they are qualified would have acceptable credentials. 
The definition of PE in Sec.  650.305 has been updated to acknowledge 
SE.
    Six commenters asked for clarification regarding grandfathering of 
the training under prior regulations. Twelve commenters raised concern 
regarding the 24-month timeframe for program managers and team leaders 
to satisfy qualification requirements for comprehensive bridge 
inspection and refresher training for individuals serving in those 
positions under prior regulations. Three commenters expressed that the 
60-month interval for obtaining 18 hours of refresher training was too 
stringent.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the minimum criteria established 
in Sec.  650.309 for program managers and team leaders with respect to 
comprehensive and refresher training are necessary to ensure that 
bridge inspectors are qualified to inspect bridges. The 60-month 
timeframe for refresher training is also consistent with the NTIS. FHWA 
believes the requirement to complete the training within 24 months of 
the effective date of the final rule is reasonable.
    Several commenters noted that the effective date of the final rule 
will increase demand for National Highway Institute (NHI) courses.
    FHWA Response: Training for bridge inspection is a critical part of 
the NBIS program and NHI is actively working to revise training to 
conform with the final rule. Required training will be available 
shortly after the final rule is published, which should provide 
sufficient time for all deadlines to be met.
    One commenter questioned how the 24-month timeframe to satisfy the 
training requirements would be enforced.
    FHWA Response: The program manager of each State DOT, Federal 
agency, or Tribal government has the duty and responsibility to ensure 
the inspection organization is serviced by qualified individuals per 
Sec.  650.309. FHWA additionally assesses compliance with the NBIS on 
the national level via the NBIS oversight process per Sec.  650.313(r).

Section 650.309(b)

    Eighteen commenters touched on the bridge inspection experience 
required for team leaders. Most of these comments were on the 
requirement for team leaders who qualify based on PE licensure also to 
have 6 months bridge inspection experience. Of the 18 commenters, 6 
supported the revision requiring team leaders who qualify based on a PE 
also to have 6 months bridge inspection experience, and 1 commenter 
proposed increasing the required experience. Five other commenters were 
opposed to the experience requirement for PE.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes experience is a very important factor 
in being a successful team leader. The revision to include the bridge 
inspection experience requirement will ensure that all team leaders 
have some experience and are familiar with the collection and recording 
of bridge inspection

[[Page 27403]]

information as well as the process and procedures associated with 
bridge inspection activities. FHWA believes that minimum experience 
requirements for all team leaders will bring increased national 
consistency to bridge inspections, evaluations, data collection, and 
data submission.

Section 650.309(c)

    Eight commenters supported the requirement for team leaders of NSTM 
inspections to successfully complete training on NSTM inspections. Four 
commenters felt the new requirement was not necessary for various 
reasons such as the additional cost to get personnel trained, the 
difficulty in getting in-State NHI training, or that the training might 
be valuable for more complex or larger NSTM bridges but was not needed 
for simpler NSTM bridges such as short span truss bridges. Three 
commenters pointed out that the proposed rule made no allowance for 
grandfathering NSTM (Fracture Critical Member) training which was 
completed under prior regulations.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes the variability and complexity of 
structures with NSTMs requires training that will bring national 
consistency to NSTM bridge inspections, evaluations, and data 
collection/submission. It is important to ensure that team leaders of 
NSTM inspections possess the higher level of training commensurate with 
the importance of these members. FHWA acknowledges that some 
organizations will have some additional burden related to training, but 
many team leaders have already completed the training even though it 
was not required. The final rule has been updated to clarify that 
completion of FHWA-approved NSTM training (ex. FHWA-NHI-130078) under 
prior regulations satisfies this new requirement, which will reduce the 
burden.

Section 650.309(e)

    Three commenters asked if divers who completed the underwater 
bridge inspection diver training under prior regulations would be 
deemed to have satisfied the requirement to complete the diver training 
proposed in the NPRM. Two commenters suggested a timeframe of 24 months 
to satisfy the qualification requirement if serving as an underwater 
bridge inspection diver under prior regulations.
    FHWA Response: The changes proposed in the NPRM were not intended 
to require underwater bridge inspection divers who qualified under 
prior regulations to requalify. FHWA has clarified in the final rule 
that completion of FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training or FHWA-approved underwater bridge inspection training under 
prior regulations satisfies the requirement in Sec.  650.309(e). Given 
this clarification, there is no need to set a timeframe to satisfy 
requirements for individuals who qualified as underwater bridge 
inspection divers under prior regulations.
    One commenter highlighted the need for a definition of an 
underwater bridge inspection diver.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that adding a new definition for 
underwater bridge inspection diver in the final rule will clarify who 
is required to have the training. The regulation clarifies the required 
training for an underwater bridge inspection diver applies to personnel 
performing the physical inspection of the underwater portion of the 
bridge. Non-inspection personnel supporting the underwater bridge 
inspection diver, such as the tender or safety diver, are not required 
to meet the requirement of Sec.  650.309(e).
    Two commenters pointed to the potential challenge to complete the 
underwater bridge inspection training because the course is not offered 
very often and generally there are not enough people to meet NHI's 20-
person minimum class size.
    FHWA Response: Because of the new requirement, FHWA anticipates 
more demand for this course. FHWA encourages States that do not have 
enough demand to partner with other agencies, States, or entities to 
meet the minimum class size.

Section 650.309(f)

    Three commenters indicated they use team leaders for all 
inspections and questioned the need to establish separate 
qualifications for the Damage, Special, and Service Inspection types. 
One commenter recommended FHWA clarify the minimum expectations for 
personnel performing these inspections.
    FHWA Response: FHWA is intentionally not establishing minimum 
qualifications for personnel performing Damage, Special, or Service 
Inspection types. Inspection protocols and qualifications for these 
inspection types can vary widely between States, Federal agencies, and 
Tribal governments. FHWA is providing flexibility to bridge inspection 
organizations for determining the personnel to be used. FHWA believes 
bridge inspection organizations are in a better position to determine 
qualifications based on the way they conduct work related to these 
inspection types. This section provides agencies and governments the 
flexibility to establish personnel qualifications with a focus on 
ensuring safety of the traveling public under their jurisdiction. An 
inspection organization should have an appropriate process in place to 
be able to verify and ensure that individuals performing these types of 
inspections are qualified per organizational requirements.

Section 650.309(g)

    Three commenters questioned the need for adding the new ``Service 
Inspection'' type.
    FHWA Response: Written personnel qualifications for the Service 
Inspection type are only required for agencies that establish 
inspection intervals exceeding 48 months for routine inspections per 
Sec. Sec.  650.311 and 650.309(g). FHWA utilized NCHRP Report 782 \3\--
Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection Practices in 
the development of this inspection type. The service inspection type is 
defined in Sec.  650.305. These provisions provide flexibility to 
bridge inspection organizations for determining the personnel to be 
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL: 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that there is no consideration for performance-
based qualifications for inspectors using unmanned aircraft systems 
(UAS). The commenter recommended performance requirements to ensure 
there is sufficient training and testing for accuracy, visual acutance, 
image quality, and documentation involving the use of UAS for 
inspections.
    FHWA Response: UAS are a tool to access visually hard to reach 
areas of a bridge. UAS operators in both the public and private sectors 
must adhere to statutory and regulatory requirements. Public aircraft 
operations (including UAS operations) are governed under the statutory 
requirements for public aircraft established in 49 U.S.C. 40102 and 
40125. A bridge inspection team leader is required to be on site for 
the duration of the bridge inspection and is subject to the 
requirements as outlined in this final rule. The requirements for a 
routine inspection that includes a UAS-assisted visual inspection are 
the same as a standard visual inspection. FHWA has been researching 
opportunities for the appropriate use of UAS in the bridge inspection 
program and monitoring the research of others. FHWA will continue to 
look for opportunities and integrate these tools when it is believed 
they will contribute to the continued success of the bridge inspection 
program.

[[Page 27404]]

Section 650.309(h)

    Five commenters raised concern for the proposed requirement that 
instructors of alternate training courses meet program manager or team 
leader qualifications, because valuable supplemental instruction may 
come from hydraulic engineers, structural engineers, load raters, 
software personnel, construction staff and others.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has reconsidered its position for instructors 
of alternate training and has removed this requirement from the final 
rule. The intent of the qualifications requirement was to ensure 
knowledgeable personnel teach the course. FHWA agrees valuable 
supplemental instruction may come from hydraulic engineers, 
geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, load raters, software 
personnel, construction staff, and others. Removing instructor 
qualification requirements from the final rule is also consistent with 
the NTIS.
    Fourteen commenters stated that further clarification is needed on 
the FHWA approval process of alternate training and how NHI materials 
will be made available. Several commenters requested clarification 
regarding grandfathering of NHI and FHWA-approved training per prior 
regulations.
    FHWA Response: The regulation provides two options for acceptable 
bridge inspection training. The purpose of the options is to provide 
flexibility and consistency in the delivery of training. The first 
option is the approved NHI training courses identified in the NBIS, and 
the second option allows for State, federally-, and tribally-developed 
training courses. For the second option, FHWA outlines that alternate 
training materials and end-of-course assessments must include all the 
topics from the NHI courses and be submitted to FHWA for approval. FHWA 
intends to make NHI bridge inspection course materials available to 
State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments through a formal 
written agreement in accordance with applicable requirements. The 
written agreement will establish controls on use of the material and 
the qualifications of those who deliver the training.
    For agencies that have existing FHWA-approved alternate training, 
the NBIS requires that agencies review and update the prior approved 
training materials and resubmit for FHWA approval to ensure the 
training satisfies the requirements as defined in Sec. Sec.  650.305 
and 650.309. FHWA has revised Sec.  650.309(h)(3) from the proposed 
regulation to clarify the requirements. Agencies may have the need to 
train personnel during the 24-month transition period and before they 
are able to revise fully prior approved materials and obtain FHWA 
approval. During the 24-month transition period, existing FHWA-approved 
training (i.e., approved by FHWA prior to the effective date of the 
final rule) can still be used to train inspection personnel. Bridge 
inspection organizations will also have available to them the 
opportunity to schedule NHI training to meet the training requirements.
    One commenter suggested that FHWA maintain a registry of all 
acceptable FHWA-approved (non-NHI) bridge inspection training that 
fulfill the requirements as outlined in the new regulation, to include 
various State, federally-, and tribally-developed training courses; the 
commenter noted this might streamline approval of inspector training 
qualifications when individuals seek employment in different States.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that maintaining a list of approved non-
NHI courses could be beneficial for owners and individuals who need 
training. FHWA will continue to consider this suggestion, but does not 
believe it to be appropriate to include in the final rule as training 
is just one component of the qualifications requirements. State DOTs, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments are responsible to ensure all 
qualifications are met.

Section 650.311 Inspection Interval

General Comment

    There were numerous comments on risked-based inspection intervals 
in Sec.  650.311 of the NPRM. As background and support of FHWA 
responses to NPRM comments, the following is an overview of the basis 
and approach FHWA used in the NPRM and this final rule.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(7), FHWA has outlined a risk-
based processes for determining the frequency of bridge inspections. 
There are two different options for State DOTs, Federal agencies, and 
Tribal governments to determine the inspection interval. Method 1 
offers a simplified assessment approach, while Method 2 offers a more 
rigorous assessment methodology to determine inspection intervals. The 
methods for establishing risk-based intervals are based on the NCHRP 
Report 782 Proposed Guideline for Reliability Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices \4\ and FHWA's current practice for establishing 48-month 
inspection intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL: 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bridges typically exhibit structural deterioration in a controlled 
and stable manner over time; therefore, risk is considered an effective 
measure upon which to base the interval of inspections. When risk 
grows, bridges should be inspected more often, and when risk is 
reduced, bridges may be inspected less often. The process for 
identifying risk-based intervals involves the identification and use of 
an interval that is commensurate with the risk of safety or service 
loss in a given bridge. It provides additional flexibility to bridge 
inspection organizations by applying their experience and engineering 
knowledge to determine the use of limited resources in a more optimal 
way across their inventory. The general framework and process for 
assessment of risk provides bridge inspection organizations the 
latitude to exercise their interpretations to determine probability, 
consequence, and risk for bridges in their inventory. The intent of the 
rule is not to mandate the application of the rigorous risk-based 
approach to an entire inventory, although it is an option. Rather, the 
final rule allows State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments 
to use Method 1 or Method 2 to determine the inspection interval for 
each type of inspection and for each bridge.

Section 650.311(a)

    Sixteen commenters stated that a complete routine inspection for 
serious but localized conditions is unnecessary and would result in 
excessive costs, a waste of public resources, and unnecessary impacts 
to traffic. They stated that special inspections are typically used to 
monitor areas of concern between routine inspections and suggested that 
the regulation be revised to allow the use of special inspections.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that special inspections are appropriate 
in certain situations. Sections 650.311(a)(1)(ii) and 650.311(b)(1)(ii) 
of the final rule are revised to allow a special inspection limited to 
monitoring localized deficiencies and, in accordance with Sec.  
650.313(h), in lieu of a full routine inspection or full underwater 
inspection when one or more condition ratings are coded three (3) or 
less due to those localized deficiencies.
    One commenter requested that FHWA explicitly state that either the 
simplified (Method 1) or the rigorous (Method 2) assessments of risk 
may be used, or that a mix of both methods may be used to determine 
inspection intervals. Another

[[Page 27405]]

commenter stated that the flexibility would be beneficial, particularly 
since it will take States time to determine the best approach to 
determining inspection intervals.
    FHWA Response: The final rule allows the State DOT, Federal agency, 
or Tribal government to use Method 1 or Method 2 to determine the 
inspection interval for each type of inspection and for each bridge. 
This flexibility allows for the better allocation of inspection 
resources in consideration of risk. The SNBI has an item for recording 
which method is being used for each type of inspection for each bridge.
    Fifteen commenters criticized the Method 2 approach of determining 
risk-based intervals for routine, underwater, and NSTM inspections as 
``complicated,'' ``cumbersome,'' ``difficult,'' ``confusing,'' 
``subjective,'' ``resource intensive,'' and ``unable to implement.'' 
One commenter expressed concerns that Method 2 would result in more 
frequent inspections and added cost burden. Five commenters expressed 
support and one commenter expressed strong support for Method 2.
    FHWA Response: State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments 
may utilize Method 1 or Method 2 to establish inspection intervals. 
FHWA utilized NCHRP Report 782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-
Based Bridge Inspection Practices \5\ as a nationally recognized 
approach in the development of the optional Method 2. The FHWA believes 
the level of consideration and rigor identified in the underlying 
research are appropriate to maintain adequate highway bridge safety for 
intervals of inspection determined using this method. Several State 
DOTs have explored how to incorporate this approach in the current 
regulation and FHWA disagrees that it cannot be implemented. The Method 
2 approach is intended to allow for better allocation of limited 
program resources; it is not intended as only a means for cost savings 
or reduced inspections. FHWA believes that the cost of development and 
management of the Method 2 approach will provide improvements in 
resource allocations and safety as described in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL: 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters stated that requiring a bridge with a deck condition 
of three (3) or less to be inspected every 12 months is excessive for 
little gain.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes bridge decks rated in serious 
condition, as with other major bridge components, necessitate more 
frequent monitoring to protect public safety until corrective actions 
are taken.
    Two commenters suggested that the 12-month interval criteria should 
be a condition rating of a four (4) or less for deck, superstructure, 
substructure, or culvert. One of the commenters, an inspector, stated 
that 24-months between routine inspections on bridges in poor condition 
is too long. The other commenter stated that a case can be made for a 
condition of four (4) or less on high traffic roads such as State 
highways.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that there may be other cases that could 
suggest shorter intervals between inspection. The rule defines the 
minimum cases for which FHWA requires 12-month interval; additional 
criteria to determine intervals, considering factors including 
condition ratings and known deficiencies, must also be developed and 
documented.
    One commenter stated that the 12-month interval criteria condition 
code of 3 is too conservative for all bridges and suggested that the 
determination of inspection intervals should be left to the judgement 
of the agency and program manager. Another commenter stated that they 
have an objective method to determine when inspection frequencies less 
than 12 months are required and do not need further constraints on 
their inspection cycles.
    FHWA Response: FHWA disagrees and has established minimum criteria 
to maintain a uniform level of safety.
    Eight commenters expressed confusion or requested clarification 
regarding the new SNBI Scour Condition Rating item and how it would be 
used in setting routine and underwater intervals. One of the commenters 
had concerns about bridges with unknown foundations requiring 12-month 
inspection intervals. Another of the commenters suggested a scour 
critical bridge POA alone should dictate the inspection interval. 
Another commenter was concerned about requiring a 12-month interval 
because a bridge is coded as scour critical.
    FHWA Response: Both Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) use the 
new SNBI Scour Condition Rating item as criteria for determining 
reduced routine and underwater inspection intervals. This is a new item 
that is only based on observed scour; it is not equivalent to the 
Coding Guide's Item 113. Therefore, whether a bridge has been appraised 
as scour critical or the foundation is unknown has no effect on the 
inspection intervals required. The criteria for reduced intervals in 
both sections is for a condition rating of three (3) or less. The SNBI 
defines a rating of three (3) as serious or worse condition, meaning 
that major scour exists and the strength and/or stability of the bridge 
is seriously affected, typically necessitating more frequent 
monitoring, load restrictions, and/or corrective actions.
    Seven commenters stated that the criteria in Sec.  
650.311(a)(1)(ii)(C), ``Details, loading, conditions, or inspection 
findings that are known to affect the performance of the bridge or its 
elements within the next 24 months,'' is vague and unknowable. Two 
commenters suggested adding the word ``safe'' before ``performance,'' 
and one suggested replacing the word ``known'' with ``expected.''
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague and it has been 
removed from the criteria.
    One commenter was concerned that the Method 1 routine criteria has 
too many constraints, making the method too conservative and not 
worthwhile.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes minimum constraints are necessary to 
maintain consistency in the levels of inspection. The Method 1 criteria 
has been revised to be simpler, to align better with current extended 
frequency policy, and to relate more directly to SNBI items.
    Twenty-nine commenters stated that the proposed Method 1 NBI 
routine inspection condition code of seven (7) or greater for extended 
intervals is too restrictive. Many of these commenters explained that 
this threshold is more restrictive than the current criteria approved 
by FHWA for extended frequencies, resulting in significantly fewer 
bridges being eligible for extended intervals than currently approved.
    FHWA Response: The extended inspection interval condition criteria 
has been revised to be based on NBI condition ratings greater than or 
equal to 6. This change, along with the change to base the load rating 
factor criteria on the NBI inventory rating with a rating factor value 
greater than or equal to 1.0 for HS-20 or HL-93, reverts to the 
criteria currently used for FHWA approval of extended intervals. We 
anticipate these changes will result in a similar number of bridges 
being eligible for extended intervals as under the existing regulation. 
However, the actual number of bridges with extended inspection 
intervals is expected to increase as FHWA approval is no longer 
required.
    Fifteen commenters suggested that the operating rating or legal 
load rating factor of 1.1 criteria for eligibility for extended 
inspection intervals be revised to be based on a rating factor greater 
than or equal to 1.0. Common reasoning

[[Page 27406]]

offered is that an operating rating factor of 1.0 indicates that a 
bridge is already able to carry those loads with a built-in safety 
factor, that the Load and Resistance Factor operating rating was 
calibrated to a rating factor of 1.0 at an inspection interval of 5 
years, and that requiring a more conservative operating rating provides 
no added benefit.
    FHWA Response: The extended inspection interval load rating factor 
criteria has been revised to be based on an NBI inventory rating factor 
of greater than or equal to 1.0. This change, along with the change to 
the NBI condition rating criteria of greater than or equal to 6, 
reverts to the criteria currently used for FHWA approval of extended 
intervals, which we expect to result in a similar number of bridges 
being eligible for extended intervals as under the existing regulation. 
However, the actual number of bridges on extended inspection intervals 
is expected to increase, as FHWA approval is no longer required.
    One commenter proposed that the routine 48-month interval load 
rating criteria in Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(C) be tied to the SNBI 
Routine Permit Loads item.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the comment, as the tie to the SNBI 
Routine Permit Loads item was intended. The Sec.  650.311(a)(1)(iii)(C) 
criteria has been revised to require that SNBI Routine Permit Loads, 
item B.LR.08, be coded either an A for load capacity is adequate for 
all routine permit loads, no routine permit loads are restricted, or N 
for bridge does not carry routine permit loads, agency does not issue 
routine permits.
    One commenter stated that there are steel bridges with AASHTO 
category E and E' fatigue details that have performed safely for more 
than 50 years and that restricting inspection intervals based on those 
details alone does not reflect a realistic consideration of risk. 
Another commenter suggested that the steel bridge detail criteria 
should eliminate bridges with non-redundant steel tension members.
    FHWA Response: The steel bridge fatigue detail criteria for Method 
1 extended inspection intervals is intended to be simple and 
conservative; additional criteria would greatly complicate the 
determination of the proper inspection interval. For bridges with 
NSTMs, criteria for determining inspection intervals for those specific 
NSTM members are provided in Sec.  650.311(c). FHWA realizes this could 
result in different routine and NTSM inspection intervals for the same 
bridge, with a 48-month routine interval and a 24-month NSTM interval 
being common.
    Twelve commenters were concerned with the vertical clearance 
criteria for extended inspection intervals. Some were concerned with 
not allowing extended intervals for bridges with a history of over 
height vehicular damage and recommended that this provision be removed, 
while others were concerned with excluding bridges with vertical 
clearances of less than 16'-0'' over interstates, freeways, and other 
arterials, stating that this is more restrictive than currently 
approved criteria.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees. The criteria for extended inspection 
intervals has been revised to remove the criterion that bridges have no 
history of over height vehicular impact damage and to change the 
minimum vertical clearance requirement to 14'-0'' over all roadways.
    Fourteen commenters recommended removal of the substructure 
material and environment extended inspection intervals criteria, 
stating that the substructure condition rating is sufficient in 
determining the inspection interval and that no data exist for the 
criteria and would be difficult to obtain.
    FHWA Response: The substructure material and environment extended 
inspection intervals criteria has been removed. However, Sec.  
650.311(a)(1)(iii)(B) is modified and requires State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, or Tribal governments that implement extended intervals to 
develop and document a policy for determining the inspection interval, 
considering factors including materials and environments.
    Four commenters stated that they thought the scour condition code 
criteria of 6 or greater for extended inspection intervals is too 
conservative and recommended changing to 5 or greater, with the 
reasoning that a code of 5 says the strength and stability of the 
bridge are not affected.
    FHWA Response: A scour condition code of 5 is fair, moderate scour. 
Though the strength and stability of the bridge are not yet affected, 
FHWA believes an extended interval should not be allowed in such a 
condition, which is one code away from being severe enough potentially 
to affect the strength or stability of the bridge, and declines to make 
the suggested change in the final rule.
    Seven commenters stated that the criteria in Sec.  
650.311(a)(1)(iii)(I) ``Details, loading, conditions, and inspection 
findings that are not expected to affect the performance of the bridge 
or its elements within the next 48 months'' is vague or ambiguous and 
suggested it be removed.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague and inclusion 
of this criteria did not add essential information contributing to the 
requirements of this section, so the language has been removed from the 
final rule.
    Two commenters noted that in the definition of risk assessment 
panel (RAP), the term ``expert'' is undefined, and the level of 
collective experience is unspecified. One commenter thought that some 
clarification would be useful, including education, licensing, and 
professional work experience in requisite fields in order to rely 
justifiably on the panels' judgments on risk assessments and inspection 
intervals. Another commenter suggested removing the word expert from 
the definition and replacing it with ``well experienced.''
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the 
language in the definition of risk assessment panel to use the term 
``well experienced'' in lieu of ``expert.'' The requirement previously 
contained in the NPRM definition to require two PEs be part of the 
panel, has been relocated to Sec.  650.311(a)(2) to better consolidate 
all requirements of the RAP to one location. Requiring PEs to be part 
of the panel establishes the professional expectation while providing 
flexibility for well experienced individuals who may not be PEs. Laws 
governing PE licensure within each State ensure that PEs only practice 
engineering in the fields in which they are qualified and experienced.
    One commenter stated that the Method 2 process needs to have a 
timeframe for approval or disapproval.
    FHWA Response: FHWA expects to review Method 2 submissions and 
provide approval in a timely manner. A specific timeframe is not 
provided, as the complexity of submissions will likely vary quite 
broadly.
    One commenter stated that the regulation language should include 
``deterioration'' modes.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and ``deterioration mode'' has been 
added to the final regulation.
    One commenter stated that the Method 2 approach is resource 
intensive, difficult to implement, more stringent, and may result in 
more bridge inspections as compared to current regulations. However, 
other commenters expressed support.
    FHWA Response: This regulation is intended to provide better 
allocation of limited bridge inspection resources. The Method 2 
approach for determining intervals is an option that provides the 
ability to decide if the cost of development of the risk-based approach 
is worthwhile in comparison to return

[[Page 27407]]

in improvements in resource allocations and safety.
    One commenter stated that the Method 2 approach does not explain if 
the interval is set by the highest risk element, and does not explain 
if different intervals are allowed for different elements.
    FHWA Response: It would not be practical or manageable to have 
different intervals for different members of the bridge, so FHWA will 
continue to require one interval for the bridge which is governed by 
the members with the highest risk, as proposed.
    One commenter questioned whether 72 months is too long an 
inspection interval under the risk-based approach outlined in Method 2 
of the proposed rule.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the regulation in total, 
including the requirement for FHWA review and approval of the process 
used to justify a 72 month interval, will provide adequate safeguards 
for the safety of the Nation's network of bridges.
    One commenter questioned whether timber structures could be 
included in the Method 2 approach.
    FHWA Response: The regulations do not preclude timber structures 
from Method 2. Common deterioration modes in timber structures should 
be considered.
    One commenter suggested that for deterioration modes in concrete 
elements, post-tensioning steel should also be included.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has added ``prestressing'' steel in 
the final regulation, which is the steel used in both pre-tensioning 
and post-tensioning methods of fabrication or construction.
    Sixteen commenters expressed concerns about the service inspection 
requirement. Comments were critical of the frequency of the inspection 
(24 months) and the undefined scope and data collection, and suggested 
that it defeats the purpose of the Method 2 risk-based approach when 
going beyond 48 months. One commenter expressed particular concern for 
service inspection of culverts because this inspection may take just as 
much effort as a routine inspection.
    FHWA Response: The service inspection is needed to identify 
critical safety issues and can be performed by personnel with general 
knowledge of bridge maintenance or bridge inspection. It is intended to 
be much less rigorous and costly as compared to routine inspection. The 
service inspection has been revised to clarify that only ``inspection 
date and any follow up actions'' are required to be documented in the 
bridge file. Also, the interval has been changed to half of the routine 
inspection interval when that interval is greater than 48 months.

Section 650.311(b)

    Six commenters expressed concern with automatically requiring 
underwater inspections at reduced intervals for a substructure 
condition rating of 3 or less, stating that the rating includes above 
water portions of the substructure. One of the commenters suggested 
that the requirement be modified to specify conditions that would be 
evaluated during an underwater inspection. Another commenter added that 
the number of bridges impacted would be minimal, but the requirement 
would cause the additional burden of having to have off-cycle 
contracts.
    FHWA Response: The proposed substructure condition criteria for 
underwater inspections has been replaced in the final rule with 
criteria based on the underwater condition. With this change, the 
reduced underwater inspection interval criteria will only apply to 
those portions of the bridge evaluated during an underwater inspection. 
An item has been added to the SNBI to record the underwater condition 
rating.
    Two commenters suggested that underwater components in poor or 
worse condition should have 12-month inspection intervals, since the 
likelihood of failure should be identical regardless of whether located 
above or below water.
    FHWA Response: The underwater inspection interval for bridges with 
underwater components in serious or worse condition has been revised 
from the proposed rule to not exceed 24-months. This interval is a 
maximum for those bridges meeting the criteria of Sec.  
650.311(b)(1)(ii)(B). State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments are additionally required to develop and document 
supplemental criteria for reduced underwater inspection intervals. FHWA 
anticipates that the supplemental criteria will often result in this 
subset of bridges having an interval of 12-months or less.
    Two commenters requested that benign environment needed to be 
defined with more objective language.
    FHWA Response: The proposed benign freshwater environment criteria 
has been removed from Sec.  650.311(b)(1)(iii) in the final rule. 
However, State DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments that 
implement revised Sec.  650.311(b)(1)(iii)(A) are required to develop 
and document an underwater extended interval policy, which should 
consider factors including the benign or aggressive nature of the 
environment.

Section 650.311(c)

    Two commenters stated that the proposed regulation is too 
conservative and restrictive for NSTM Inspections, and suggested that 
intervals of 72 and 96 months should be allowed. The commenters cited 
research findings by Purdue University.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Michael J. Parr; Robert J. Connor; and Mark Bowman, M.ASCE, 
Proposed Method for Determining the Interval for Hands-on Inspection 
of Steel Bridges with Fracture Critical Members, may be found at the 
following URL: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0000057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FHWA Response: FHWA is aware of the cited research, that suggests 
that greater intervals for NSTMs are possible in low risk cases. This 
rule provides a step from the currently required 24-month interval 
toward those greater intervals. This risk-based approach for NSTM 
intervals will allow for many bridges to move to a 48-month interval, 
which is substantial relief as compared to current requirements. FHWA 
will continue to evaluate research in this area and the performance of 
this step and may consider longer intervals in future regulation.
    Two commenters stated that bridges with NSTMs should not be 
eligible for intervals beyond 24 months.
    FHWA Response: FHWA is basing NSTM interval requirements on 
published research \7\ that suggests that greater intervals for NSTMs 
are acceptable for low risk cases. Risk is the combination of 
likelihood and consequence. While the consequence of failure of an NSTM 
is high, the risk can be mitigated in cases when the likelihood is very 
low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asked about how the new AASHTO Guide Specifications 
for Internal Redundancy of Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members 
\8\ will be implemented with the new regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of 
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members, 1st Edition may be 
found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=4149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FHWA Response: Section 650.313(f) allows for a State DOT, Federal 
agency, or Tribal government to demonstrate to FHWA that a member has 
system or internal redundancy through the use of nationally recognized 
methods. The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of 
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members \7\ and AASHTO Guide 
Specifications for Analysis and Identification of Fracture

[[Page 27408]]

Critical Members and System Redundant Members \9\ are considered 
acceptable nationally recognized methods for determining system or 
internal redundancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten commenters questioned the meaning of ``significant corrosion'' 
as it relates to the NSTM inspection interval requirements.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that this terminology was vague; the 
criteria is revised to be based on the NSTM Inspection Condition, a new 
SNBI item.
    One commenter suggested that ``fracture prone details'' should be 
considered for reduced NSTM intervals.
    FHWA Response: FHWA did not include fracture prone details in the 
criteria as many of the bridges identified with these details have 
been, and continue to be, evaluated and, if necessary, retrofitted in 
accordance with the FHWA July 10, 2001, memorandum \10\ on the subject 
of the Hoan Bridge Investigation. Therefore, FHWA does not believe it 
is necessary to include in the final rule. State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, or Tribal governments that are aware of bridges with these 
details should include such details as a risk factor in the documented 
reduced interval criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FHWA July 10, 2001, memorandum on the subject of the Hoan 
Bridge Investigation may be found at the following URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/010710.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that ``in accordance with the fracture 
control plan'' should be defined.
    FHWA Response: FHWA disagrees that fracture control plan needs to 
be defined in the regulation as it is a commonly recognized term, which 
was implemented by AASHTO in 1978, and is well defined.\11\ The term is 
used in bridge fabrication and construction to describe elevated 
material and fabrication requirements applied to NSTMs to reduce the 
likelihood of fracture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Clause 12 of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5, Bridge Welding 
Code, 6th Edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters suggested that ``details, loading, conditions, or 
inspection findings that are known to affect the expected performance'' 
is vague.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that the phrase is vague. The language 
is revised in the final rule with the intent that knowledge about 
unique aspects of the inventory known to affect performance is 
considered in the development of interval policies. The language has 
been incorporated in the Sec.  650.311(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) narratives.
    Two commenters stated that they prefer the NTIS tolerance--a window 
for performing inspections--and that the proposed tolerance will result 
in inspection date creep.
    FHWA Response: During the development of the NPRM, FHWA considered 
using the NTIS tolerance method, which requires a fixed target 
inspection date to be set and allows a plus or minus 2-month tolerance. 
However, the NTIS method, unlike the NBIS final rule, does not allow 
for inspections to be conducted early; this is undesirable for the 
significantly larger bridge inventory. Therefore, FHWA declines the 
commenters' suggestion to use the NTIS tolerance method for the NBIS.

Section 650.311(e)

    One commenter indicated the 3 month tolerance should not apply to 
bridges on an interval less than or equal to 12 months.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees; Sec.  650.311(e) has been revised to 
reduce the tolerance to 2 months for inspection intervals of less than 
24 months.
    Two commenters were concerned that it is not usually possible to 
know of rare and unusual circumstances in advance of the inspection due 
date and suggest allowing an extension request up to the tolerance 
date. Another commenter requested clarification as to when a request 
would need to be made.
    FHWA Response: The exceptions to the inspection interval tolerance 
due to rare and unusual circumstances, such as a hurricane, which 
impact the ability of the owner to perform bridge inspections, have 
been revised to require that a request must be approved in advance of 
the inspection due date plus the tolerance. For example, for an 
inspection due on June 17, 2021, an exception request must be provided 
to FHWA with adequate time for review and approval before the end of 
the 3-month tolerance on September 30, 2021; accordingly, exception 
requests should be made as soon as a delay is known to be a 
possibility.

Section 650.313 Inspection Procedures

Section 650.313(a)

    Seven commenters stated that the references in Sec.  650.313 
identify a version of the AASHTO Manual that is no longer current.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees. New editions of the AASHTO Manual have 
been released since the development of the NPRM. This final rule adopts 
specific sections of the current version of the AASHTO Manual as stated 
in Sec.  650.317. References to specific sections of the AASHTO Manual 
throughout Sec.  650.313 have been updated accordingly. The NBIS 
specifically references Section 1.4, Section 2.2, Section 4.2, Section 
6, and Section 8.
    Fifteen commenters had questions and concerns about inspection 
requirements for portions of a bridge that are not visible. Several 
commenters stated that in some situations, non-visual methods to 
inspect these portions are unnecessary, costly, or not proven to be 
reliable.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges that portions of bridges are not 
visible during inspections; for example, buried foundations and 
reinforcing bars in concrete elements. It was not FHWA's intent in the 
NPRM to require the inspection of such elements as part of a routine 
inspection. The statement requiring non-visible portions to be assessed 
via another method has been removed from the final rule. The intent of 
this requirement is to ensure all areas of the bridge to be inspected 
are properly accessed as identified in the AASHTO Manual. The Bridge 
Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM) and NHI training courses identify 
methods for accessing portions of the bridge to be inspected.
    Eleven commenters did not support documenting equipment needs in an 
inspection plan for all bridges. The commenters questioned if a written 
inspection plan was required for all inspection types, especially 
routine inspections of common bridge types, e.g. reinforced concrete 
culvert.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that documenting equipment, while a good 
practice, does not need to be written in a plan or a procedure for all 
inspection types and has removed that statement from this section of 
the final rule. Inspection plans are not required for all types; 
however Sec.  650.313(g), which addresses NSTM, underwater, in-depth, 
and complex feature inspection types does require documented inspection 
procedures for these inspection types.
    Seven commenters sought clarification on whether advanced 
technologies such as UAS or structural monitoring, could be used in 
bridge inspection. One commenter suggested FHWA continue to monitor 
technological advancements, evaluate their use in bridge inspection, 
and update policies which allow their use accordingly.
    FHWA Response: FHWA encourages bridge owners to evaluate use of 
advanced technologies in bridge inspection. FHWA, through research and 
other programs, also evaluates advanced technologies and encourages 
their use where proven to be effective tools and methods for assessing 
bridge

[[Page 27409]]

safety and condition. FHWA's position is that proven advanced 
technologies may be used to supplement but not supplant bridge 
inspection personnel and inspection methods. These technologies are not 
a replacement for personnel performing inspections nor are they 
intended to replace visual and physical methods. Advanced technologies 
may be useful when their use enables an inspection to be done more 
efficiently without compromising the thoroughness and effectiveness of 
the inspection or when visual and physical methods are not able to 
assess fully a bridge component.
    UAS may be used by qualified personnel to supplement portions of a 
bridge inspection, but it cannot address all aspects of an inspection 
(i.e. live load response, auditory cues, sounding of members). For 
example, UAS cannot currently perform physical (tactile) examination 
such as sounding or hammering on the surface of a bridge member. This 
type of examination is needed because it establishes the soundness of 
the material and if present, the dimensions of the defect for tracking 
deterioration over time and for determining strength or capacity when 
calculating a load rating. Use of UAS may also be subject to practical 
considerations such as lighting, the need for cleaning the portion 
inspected, and the potential for driver distraction.
    When used effectively to supplement a bridge inspection, the use of 
UAS has the potential to provide efficiencies for some inspections such 
as limiting the amount of time access equipment is used and reducing 
the time working adjacent to live traffic. UAS may be used to 
supplement a bridge inspection when its capabilities are able to meet 
the requirements of a specific task in the bridge inspection. For 
example, a UAS may be an efficient tool for taking birds-eye view 
photography of a bridge site so that qualified personnel can observe 
and document changes in the channel since the last inspection. But even 
where UAS are used, if the photography shows concerning changes, the 
inspector must utilize physical (tactile) techniques to investigate 
further.
    Technologies will continue to be developed that will change the way 
inspectors perform bridge inspection. FHWA will continue to evaluate 
these new tools in partnership with our stakeholders and update its 
bridge inspection guidance document, the BIRM, to allow these 
technological advancements to make their way into the National Bridge 
Inspection Program (NBIP).

Section 650.313(b)

    Two commenters asked for clarification on what type of construction 
work constitutes ``rehabilitation'' as this triggers the need to 
perform an initial inspection.
    FHWA Response: FHWA added the term ``rehabilitation'' and defines 
the term in Sec.  650.305 of the final rule. Performing maintenance, 
repairs, or preservation work would not trigger a need to perform an 
initial inspection.
    Two commenters questioned the need to perform an initial inspection 
on a rehabilitated bridge because the construction work was designed by 
a licensed engineer and overseen by qualified construction personnel.
    FHWA Response: While many bridge construction projects are designed 
in accordance with State standards by licensed engineers and overseen 
by qualified construction personnel, not all work on bridges is 
designed to standards or administered by personnel meeting these 
professional qualifications. Further, the focus of design and 
construction personnel is different from that of personnel performing 
an NBIS safety inspection. Design and construction personnel strive to 
build a quality and durable bridge. The focus of personnel performing 
an initial inspection is to assure safety, update inventory data, 
establish baseline conditions of the bridge, and to establish the 
timeline for all other types of inspections.
    Thirty-three commenters had concern with completing an initial 
inspection prior to opening a bridge to traffic. These commenters cited 
several reasons including difficulty coordinating with construction 
contractors, a pressing need to open a bridge to alleviate traffic 
congestion, rigorous oversight during construction, minimal benefit, 
and costs associated with delaying an opening. One commenter supported 
completing an initial inspection prior to opening a bridge to traffic.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges the concerns raised by many 
commenters that timing an inspection with the completion of a 
construction project can be challenging, could unnecessarily delay use 
of a new bridge by the public, and that many bridge construction 
projects are overseen by construction engineers and inspectors to 
ensure a quality bridge is properly built. For these reasons, FHWA has 
revised the requirement so that owners have 3 months from the date the 
bridge is opened to traffic to complete the initial inspection. 
However, FHWA continues to encourage owners to complete the initial 
inspection before the structure is open to traffic when possible, which 
allows for an inspection under more convenient circumstances for both 
the inspector and the travelling public.
    Fourteen commenters had questions about the statement ``[s]ubmit 
NBI data after the initial inspection of the entire bridge being open 
to traffic,'' and whether this would require an additional submission 
above and beyond the annual data submission to the NBI that is required 
in other parts of the NBIS.
    FHWA Response: FHWA does not require an additional data submission 
to the NBI for an initial inspection of a bridge. This statement has 
been removed from the final rule. FHWA requires that the data from the 
initial inspection be recorded in the State DOT, Federal agency, or 
Tribal government's inventory as specified in Sec.  650.315, and to be 
submitted to the NBI in the next annual data submission.
    Twenty-eight commenters had concerns with performing initial and 
routine inspections on phased and temporary bridges. The commenters 
cited several reasons including difficulty coordinating with 
construction contractors, concerns with inspecting contractor owned 
temporary bridges, monitoring performed during construction by on-site 
personnel, and costs associated with performing these inspections, 
particularly if the project is accelerated and has many phases.
    FHWA Response: Inspection of temporary bridges and bridges in 
phased construction that are open to public traffic is not a new 
requirement. See FHWA's Q&A 303-7 listed in 2011, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/index.cfm for clarification of the 
existing regulation. FHWA continues to require inspection of these 
types of bridges. The statements in the NPRM were to clarify this 
requirement as FHWA has received many questions about these types of 
bridges over the years. Questions have been asked about how specific 
sections of the NBIS would apply to various situations. Given the 
seamless nature of the Nation's highway system and the public's 
expectation for a uniform level of safety and reliability, it is FHWA's 
position that when these bridges are open to public traffic, they are 
to follow the requirements of the NBIS to ensure public safety.
    Regarding inspection of contractor-owned bridges and monitoring 
during construction, many factors influence the in-service performance 
of contractor-owned bridges and the thoroughness of monitoring that 
occurs during a construction project. To ensure a uniform level of 
safety and reliability

[[Page 27410]]

when they are carrying public traffic, these bridges must be inspected 
to the requirements of the NBIS.
    In the final rule, FHWA removed the specific language for these 
types of bridges in the initial and routine inspection types in Sec.  
650.313 and added language in Sec.  650.303 `Applicability' to clarify 
that these types of bridges are subject to all requirements of the 
NBIS. The first requirement is to complete the initial inspection, 
which is due within 3 months of being opened to public traffic. The 
timeline for all other applicable inspection types are established from 
this inspection.
    If a temporary bridge is opened to traffic, then subsequently 
removed or permanently closed to public traffic less than 3 months 
later, it would not be subject to the NBIS. If a bridge is being built 
in phases, the initial inspection is required within 3 months of the 
first phase that opens all or a portion of the bridge to traffic. On 
projects with many phases or rapid progression through phases (e.g. 
nightly or weekend closures), it is possible for up to 3 months of 
construction work to occur and multiple phases to have elapsed before 
the initial inspection is due. FHWA understands the possible challenges 
with performing initial and routine inspections on phased and temporary 
bridges; however, inspection of these bridges that are open to public 
traffic is not a new requirement and FHWA retains this requirement in 
the final rule.
    Six commenters had questions about what constitutes a phase of 
construction.
    FHWA Response: Phased construction is intended to address bridges 
which are partially built in stages with portions opened to traffic 
until the final full cross section is completed and all lanes are 
opened to traffic.

Section 650.313(c)

    Eighteen commenters had questions about the scope of a routine 
inspection. These commenters also had questions about two statements in 
this section, specifically ``any portion[s] of the bridge not visible 
using standard access methods . . .'' and ``an area of the structure 
requires a closer, more detailed inspection . . .''. Commenters 
demonstrated wide interpretation of inspection requirements that could 
result from these statements.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has removed these statements from the final 
rule. A routine inspection is defined in Sec.  650.305, and a specific 
reference to AASHTO Manual Section 4.2 has replaced the removed 
statements to point the reader to specific material that explains what 
is required to perform a routine inspection. Additional information is 
available in the BIRM and NHI training courses to explain access 
techniques and inspection methods utilized on a routine inspection that 
when utilized, satisfy the requirements of this regulation.
    Three commenters had questions about submitting NBI data for 
temporary bridges and whether this would require an additional 
submission above and beyond the annual data submission to the NBI that 
is required in other parts of the NBIS. The commenters also raised 
concerns with creating and removing records in the inventory for 
bridges that are only in service for a short period of time.
    FHWA Response: FHWA does not require additional data submissions to 
the NBI for a temporary bridge. This statement has been removed from 
the final rule. In response to concerns with adding and removing data 
for temporary bridges in a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government's inventory, FHWA has added in Sec.  650.315 a provision 
which gives these entities the option not to submit inspection data for 
a temporary bridge as part of the annual data submission to the NBI 
until it has been open to traffic for 24 months. This is to provide 
some relief to owners in adding and removing bridges from their 
inventory, and preparing and submitting data to the NBI for those 
bridges which are truly temporary and only in service for a short 
period of time.

Section 650.313(e)

    Twenty-five commenters had concern with completing an underwater 
inspection within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic. Commenters 
cited several reasons including climatic factors such as winter 
weather, timing of seasonal high-water, rigorous oversight during 
construction, and availability of specialized inspectors, e.g. divers. 
Two commenters expressed support for completing an inspection within 6 
months of opening a bridge to traffic.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges owners need some discretion in 
scheduling this type of inspection due to the timing of when a bridge 
opens to traffic, use of specialized personnel and equipment, and 
climactic or environmental restrictions. However, it is the position of 
FHWA that an underwater inspection occur soon after the bridge is open 
to traffic to ensure the safety of the travelling public and establish 
a baseline for future inspections. FHWA has modified the proposed 
requirement in the NPRM for completing the first underwater inspection 
within 6 months, to completing it within 12 months after a bridge is 
opened to traffic. This allows a bridge owner a full seasonal cycle to 
perform the first underwater inspection because of the issues 
identified.
    Eight commenters questioned the need to perform an underwater 
inspection on a rehabilitated bridge when the scope of rehabilitation 
work did not affect the underwater portions of the bridge.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the 
NBIS to clarify that a rehabilitated bridge only needs an underwater 
inspection within 12 months if work was performed on portions of the 
bridge that are underwater. Any underwater portions that were not 
rehabilitated do not need an underwater inspection within 12 months and 
can remain on their current underwater inspection interval. For bridges 
being rehabilitated in phases, those portions must receive an 
underwater inspection within 12 months of the phase opening to traffic 
or the phase being completed if the bridge was never closed to traffic 
during the rehabilitation work.
    Two commenters requested FHWA approval to use underwater imaging 
technology such as sonar on underwater inspections.
    FHWA Response: The use of underwater imaging technology for 
performing an underwater inspection is not excluded in the current NBIS 
or this final rule. Also, the AASHTO Manual Section 4.2, which is 
incorporated by reference, requires diving or `other appropriate 
techniques' to complete an underwater inspection. FHWA recognizes there 
may be instances in which an underwater inspection cannot be safely 
performed using traditional diving methods. The program manager must 
identify and document all requirements for performing underwater 
imaging for underwater inspection.

Section 650.313(f)

    Nine commenters had concern with completing an NSTM inspection 
within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic. Commenters cited 
several reasons including climatic factors such as winter weather, 
rigorous oversight during construction, and availability of specialized 
NSTM inspectors. Two commenters expressed support for completing an 
inspection within 6 months of opening a bridge to traffic.
    FHWA Response: Similar to requirements for an underwater 
inspection, FHWA acknowledges owners need some discretion in scheduling 
this type of inspection due to the timing of when a bridge opens to 
traffic, use of specialized personnel and

[[Page 27411]]

equipment, seasonal constraints, and other restrictions. However, FHWA 
believes it is important for the safety of the travelling public that 
an NSTM inspection occur relatively soon after it is opened to traffic 
to understand the overall condition of the bridge and to develop a 
baseline for the future inspections. Therefore, FHWA has modified the 
proposed requirement in the NPRM for completing the first NSTM 
inspection within 6 months, to completing it within 12 months after a 
bridge is opened to traffic. This allows a bridge owner a full seasonal 
cycle to optimize the timing of the first NSTM inspection.
    Four commenters questioned the need to perform an NSTM inspection 
on a rehabilitated bridge when the scope of rehabilitation work did not 
affect NSTM members on the bridge.
    FHWA Response: Similar to the requirements for an underwater 
inspection, FHWA agrees with the commenters and has modified the NBIS 
to clarify that a rehabilitated bridge only needs an NSTM inspection 
within 12 months if the work was performed on a NSTM. Any NSTMs that 
were not rehabilitated do not need an NSTM inspection within 12 months 
and can remain on their current NSTM inspection interval. For bridges 
with NSTMs being rehabilitated in phases, the rehabilitated NSTMs must 
receive an NSTM inspection within 12 months of the phase opening to 
traffic or the phase being completed if the bridge was never closed to 
traffic during the rehabilitation work.
    Eight commenters listed several types of redundancy and questioned 
which ones required demonstration of redundancy through an FHWA 
approved process. Three commenters asked for information explaining 
what is required for an FHWA approved process.
    FHWA Response: A provision has been added in Sec.  650.313(f) of 
the final rule which allows for a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government to demonstrate to FHWA that a member has system or internal 
redundancy through the use of nationally recognized methods. The AASHTO 
Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of Mechanically-Fastened 
Built-Up Steel Members \12\ and AASHTO Guide Specifications for 
Analysis and Identification of Fracture Critical Members and System 
Redundant Members \13\ are examples of nationally recognized methods. 
FHWA has added criteria to the regulation on what should be submitted 
by a State DOT, Federal agency, or Tribal government, such as design 
and construction details, and we will review the policies and 
procedures for approval based upon conformance with the nationally 
recognized methods. If the owner demonstrates either system or internal 
redundancy, a hands-on, NSTM inspection of the member is not required. 
The bridge would still be subject to all other inspection types as 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The AASHTO Guide Specifications for Internal Redundancy of 
Mechanically-Fastened Built-Up Steel Members, 1st Edition may be 
found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=4149.
    \13\ AASHTO Guide Specifications for Analysis and Identification 
of Fracture Critical Members and System Redundant Members, 1st 
Edition may be found at the following URL: https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=41491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 650.313(g)

    Four commenters requested clarification for what traditional 
inspection methods are, and how FHWA would grant approval of 
exceptions.
    FHWA Response: Inspection methods are explained in the AASHTO 
Manual, the BIRM, and training courses. FHWA does not intend to approve 
exceptions to traditional inspection methods and has removed this 
statement in the final rule. If an owner proposes to use methods that 
are not described in these sources, such as an emerging technology, the 
owner should perform the inspection with proven methods and may also 
utilize the emerging technology to supplement the inspection or to 
compare results.

Section 650.313(h)

    Twelve commenters requested that a special inspection of a bridge 
be allowed which focuses on the areas of deterioration or damage in 
lieu of routine and underwater inspections when the routine and 
underwater inspection intervals as described in Sec.  650.311 are 
reduced below 24 months and 60 months, respectively.
    FHWA Response: The intent of reducing an inspection interval is to 
increase monitoring and scrutiny in areas that are deteriorating, 
damaged, or otherwise of concern. When the routine and underwater 
inspection intervals are reduced below 24 and 60 months respectively, 
FHWA agrees a special inspection may be performed in lieu of a routine 
or underwater inspection of the full bridge. Provisions were added to 
Sec. Sec.  650.311 and 650.313 allowing this option for bridge owners. 
When this option is invoked, routine and underwater inspections of the 
full bridge are still required at least every 24 and 60 months, 
respectively. For this type of inspection, the NBIS requires a 
qualified team leader and documented inspection procedures which 
identify the area(s) to be inspected, methods to be used, and other 
pertinent information necessary to ensure an adequate special 
inspection is performed. Special inspections are to be focused in the 
area(s) of concern on the bridge that are causing the inspection 
interval(s) to be reduced.

Section 650.313(i)

    Six commenters stated the requirements of a service inspection are 
unclear and requested that service inspection requirements be 
clarified.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has clarified the purpose of a service 
inspection and personnel that would perform these inspections in the 
discussion for Sec.  650.305, Definitions. FHWA utilized NCHRP Report 
782--Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices \14\ in the development of this inspection type. FHWA has 
added a paragraph to Sec.  650.313 to explain that all bridges with a 
routine inspection interval greater than 48 months require a service 
inspection and that inspection results, including the date of 
inspection and any required follow-up actions, are to be documented in 
the bridge file when this inspection type is performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the following URL: 
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171448.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 650.313(j)

    One commenter suggested a team leader be required to perform 
special inspections.
    FHWA Response: The purpose of a special inspection is to monitor a 
known or suspected deficiency, or to monitor special details or unusual 
characteristics of bridges that do not necessarily have defects. As a 
result, the scope of special inspections can vary widely between owners 
and bridges. Many of the parameters for performing a special inspection 
are to be defined by the owner and documented in special inspection 
procedures. The NBIS only requires a qualified team leader for a 
special inspection as described in Sec.  650.313(h) and (j). Since 
there are a number of reasons why special inspections are performed, 
FHWA is not requiring that a Team Leader perform all special 
inspections. There may be situations where it is not necessary for a 
Team Leader to lead the inspection, but this must be documented in the 
special inspection procedures.

[[Page 27412]]

Section 650.313(k)

    Twenty-one commenters stated 3 months is not enough time to load 
rate some bridges or address changes which affect large portions of a 
bridge inventory. Two commenters expressed support for a 3-month 
timeframe to load rate bridges.
    FHWA Response: Timely completion of load ratings is important to 
understand the live load carrying limits of a bridge and maintain the 
safety of the traveling public. Therefore, FHWA maintains the 
requirement to complete load ratings within 3 months from the time the 
need for a load rating is identified. This requirement is aligned with 
the NTIS. In the rare and unusual circumstance that certain bridges, 
such as those with especially complex features, may require more than 3 
months to complete a load rating, bridge owners should contact FHWA 
staff promptly.
    When a large portion of the inventory requires load rating because 
of changes in Federal law or regulation, FHWA will continue to work 
with the States to address these situations through appropriate 
methods. We note that FHWA and States faced a similar challenge with 
respect to accommodating load ratings for emergency vehicles after 
those vehicles were made legal loads in the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act.
    When a large portion of a State's inventory requires load rating 
because of changes in State law or regulation, FHWA will work with the 
State to develop a plan to address this issue.
    Six commenters had questions about when a bridge needs to be re-
rated for loads. Commenters also requested that owners have discretion 
to set criteria for when a bridge needs to be re-rated and the priority 
for completing the load rating.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has clarified in the final rule when 
a bridge should be re-rated. Change in condition of a structural 
element, change in dead load, change in live load, or completion of 
construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation are the most common 
reasons a bridge needs to be re-rated. These are typically found during 
an inspection, and as a result, the need to re-rate a bridge is often 
in response to an inspection finding. However, there are other reasons 
a bridge may need to be re-rated, such as new legal vehicles introduced 
or damage resulting from an unexpected event. The AASHTO Manual and the 
BIRM provide additional information. Bridge owners have discretion to 
set criteria and priorities for re-rating bridges which are more 
stringent than the NBIS.
    Ten commenters questioned why a bridge needs to be load rated for a 
permit load. Commenters also stated they have tools and processes 
developed that enable them to efficiently process permit requests they 
routinely receive.
    FHWA Response: Because permit loads utilize public roads, 
verification that bridges can carry the load is required to ensure the 
safety of the travelling public and hauler; as such, FHWA has retained 
the requirement to analyze permit loads in the final rule. FHWA 
recognizes some owners have developed screening tools and other 
processes for analyzing permit loads for which they routinely receive 
permit requests. These tools and processes are acceptable methods of 
analyzing permit loads, provided they are founded upon actual modeling 
and analysis of bridge responses under permit vehicles and loads that 
envelope the hauling vehicle and load that is requesting a load permit.

Section 650.313(l)

    Fifteen commenters expressed concerns about posting for routine 
permit loads. Commenters cited driver confusion, costs, and 
infeasibility of installing posting signs at bridges for a potentially 
infinite number of permit vehicles. Commenters stated their permitting 
processes address whether a permit load can cross a bridge.
    FHWA Response: For unrestricted legal loads, load posting is a 
public safety issue. Bridges must be posted informing the travelling 
public of the maximum load that bridges can safely carry. However, for 
routine permitted vehicles that do not fall within the general posted 
weight limit, and where load posting for these vehicles is not 
feasible, the FHWA has historically said that the permit process is an 
acceptable means for bridge owners to verify that bridges on designated 
routes can safely carry the permitted vehicles. Permit vehicles are 
restricted from travelling off of designated routes. Because of this, 
FHWA agrees that load posting of bridges for routine permit vehicles is 
not required. The final rule has been revised to clarify that 
restriction is acceptable in lieu of posting bridges for permit 
vehicles. This is consistent with previous NBIS regulations.
    Thirty-six commenters expressed concerns about the feasibility of 
load posting bridges in 30 days or less. Commenters cited several 
reasons including the time needed to fabricate signs, lengthy processes 
required in some State or local laws, postings of varying urgency, and 
weather and site restrictions.
    FHWA Response: Load posting informs the travelling public of the 
maximum load that bridges can safely carry. As discussed above, for 
unrestricted legal loads, lack of load posting signs is a public safety 
issue, which some bridge owners consider to be a critical finding 
requiring immediate follow-up action. Due to the safety issue and other 
factors, owners must establish procedures that prioritize installation 
of load posting signs based upon the associated risks and need. In some 
situations, the urgency to implement a load posting is much less than 
30 days. FHWA acknowledges that posting within 30 days or less in very 
urgent situations may require some bridge owners to change their 
business practices. The NBIS establishes requirements for timely 
installation of load posting signs that align with the load posting 
requirements in the NTIS.

Section 650.313(m)

    Six commenters expressed concerns with developing criteria for 
closing a bridge. Commenters stated that closing a bridge is often 
dependent upon parameters that are specific and unique to a specific 
bridge and therefore it is difficult to develop standard criteria.
    FHWA Response: Similar to the general procedures described in Sec.  
650.313(g), FHWA is requiring general procedures for closing bridges be 
documented. General procedures are applicable to many bridges and 
describe criteria for when a bridge must be closed and the process 
which describes the steps and timelines for closing a bridge. FHWA 
acknowledges that all factors requiring bridge closure cannot be 
anticipated; therefore, these procedures are expected to be general in 
nature and should be applicable to many bridges.
    Two commenters expressed concern that a 3-ton gross live load is 
too low for bridge closure. Commenters stated that many vehicles in the 
general non-commercial vehicle fleet are heavier than 3 tons and 
preferred a closure weight of 4-5 tons.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges there are some vehicles in the 
general passenger vehicle fleet, and many commercial trucks, that have 
an empty vehicle weight of more than 3 tons. FHWA has set 3 tons as the 
absolute minimum gross live load capacity as this is consistent with 
the AASHTO Manual. FHWA encourages owners to adopt more stringent 
closure criteria. This may include requiring closure at higher gross 
live load weights than 3 tons.

[[Page 27413]]

Section 650.313(n)

    Based on seven comments previously discussed in Sec.  650.313(a) 
which desired incorporation of a more current version of AASHTO Manual 
into the NBIS, FHWA has revised the section reference for bridge files 
to AASHTO Manual Section 2.2.
    FHWA has only adopted Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the AASHTO Manual 
to describe components of a bridge file. This more exact reference 
points the reader to the specific components listed in Chapter 2 of the 
AASHTO Manual that are required to be in a bridge file. Other portions 
of Chapter 2 describe other excellent components that may be useful to 
an owner and could be contained in a bridge file. FHWA encourages 
maintaining these in the bridge files as well; however, those outside 
of Section 2.2 are not required as part of the NBIS.

Section 650.313(o)

    Three commenters requested FHWA explain the ``scour appraisal'' 
process. One commenter requested FHWA explain the ``scour evaluation'' 
process. One commenter requested FHWA explain the ``scour assessment'' 
process. Five commenters asked if these processes are to be performed 
in accordance with HECs.
    FHWA Response: Based on the comments in this section and Sec.  
650.305, the definitions related to the identified scour processes and 
this section have been revised to provide clarity of the requirements 
of the NBIS. FHWA recognizes that HECs 18, 20, and 23 are the state of 
practice for the appraisal, design, and inspection of bridge scour, 
stream stability, and scour countermeasures. As stated in the final 
rule, the scour appraisal and scour evaluation processes should be 
consistent with HEC 18 and 20. The scour assessment process should be 
consistent with HEC 20. The development of a scour POA for a bridge 
should be consistent with HEC 18 and 23.
    Five commenters requested clarification for how scour appraisal, 
scour evaluation, and the scour assessment processes work together.
    FHWA Response: This section and the scour related definitions have 
been updated to clarify scour appraisal is the overarching process that 
includes three methods for determining the worst case scour at a 
bridge; observed scour, scour evaluations, or scour assessments. The 
bridge owner must perform a scour appraisal for each bridge over water 
to determine if the bridge is scour-critical and whether it requires a 
scour POA. The scour appraisal determination for a bridge is to be 
based upon the least stable of observed scour, evaluated scour, or 
assessed scour.
    Eight commenters requested clarification for when scour POAs are 
needed for bridges over water. Several commenters specifically 
questioned whether a bridge with an unknown foundation requires a scour 
POA.
    FHWA Response: All bridges that are scour critical or have unknown 
foundations require a scour POA. The existing NBIS regulations state 
that owners must develop a scour POA for each bridge that is scour 
critical. There are several guidance documents and reference manuals 
available on FHWA's Hydraulic Engineering web page that address these 
requirements and provides guidance for developing a scour POA.
    If a bridge has unknown foundations, no scour appraisal can fully 
determine vulnerability to scour; therefore, such a bridge requires a 
scour POA to manage scour risks associated with that bridge. The FHWA 
memo, ``Additional Guidance for Assessment of Bridges Over Waterways 
with Unknown Foundations,'' dated October 29, 2009,\15\ as well as 
other guidance documents and reference manuals, provide information for 
developing a scour POA specifically for a bridge with an unknown 
foundation type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Additional Guidance for Assessment of Bridges Over 
Waterways with Unknown Foundations may be found at the following 
URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/unknownfoundations/091029.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten commenters requested FHWA clarify that a scour POA can be based 
solely upon monitoring and does not need to describe installation of 
physical or hydraulic countermeasures.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that for certain bridges, a scour POA 
may be based on a monitoring program to manage the risks associated 
with scour. As HEC 18 and 23 and other guidance documents explain, 
bridges with the greatest risk from scour-induced failure should have a 
scour POA that describes installation of physical or hydraulic 
countermeasures, or even replacement, and also include a monitoring 
program that allows time to implement these physical or hydraulic 
countermeasures. Bridges that present a lesser risk may be considered 
candidates for a scour POA based solely on a monitoring program as an 
acceptable countermeasure.
    Two commenters asked if existing scour evaluations completed prior 
to this regulation need to be redone.
    FHWA Response: The final rule only requires existing scour 
evaluations or scour assessments to be updated when the assumptions, 
bridge conditions, channel conditions, or other pertinent factors used 
in the existing scour evaluation or scour assessment are no longer 
representative of current conditions or are determined to be invalid.

Section 650.313(p)

    Two commenters had questions about whether quality control (QC) and 
quality assurance (QA) must be performed by independent personnel. 
Commenters were concerned that additional qualified personnel would be 
required to observe inspection teams at a bridge site, effectively 
doubling personnel needs.
    FHWA Response: As described in AASHTO Manual Section 1.4, which is 
incorporated by reference in Sec.  650.317 of this final rule, QC and 
QA reviews are to be performed by a person other than the originating 
person(s). However, the specific parameters of a QC and QA program, 
including the extent and interval for observing inspection teams to 
ensure quality are defined by the program manager. The NBIS language 
has been updated to emphasize this. While this has been clarified, the 
basic requirements are in the existing regulation, so there should be 
no additional personnel needs.

Section 650.313(q)

General
    The critical findings section received over 125 comments and FHWA 
has incorporated many of the suggested changes made by commenters. 
Specific changes are described in greater detail below following an 
overview of the general changes to this section.
    The definition for ``critical finding'' does not substantially 
change from the existing regulation; however, State DOTs, Federal 
agencies, and Tribal governments are required to identify what they 
consider a critical finding based upon the minimum requirements in 
Sec.  650.313(q) of the final rule. Paragraph (q) contains only the 
minimum requirements; FHWA encourages bridge owners to adopt more 
stringent criteria as appropriate that align with the characteristics 
of their organization and the issues they experience in their bridge 
inventory.
    The reporting process for notifying FHWA of critical findings and 
corrective actions taken in response to critical findings is updated in 
the final rule. State DOTs are to report critical findings information 
to their respective FHWA Division office. Similarly, Federal agencies 
and Tribal governments are to report required

[[Page 27414]]

information to the FHWA FLH office. FHWA's goal is safety and national 
consistency. Federal agencies and Tribal governments are to follow the 
same procedures as those required for State DOTs.
    Section 650.313(q)(1)(i) lists several deficiencies that result in 
a critical finding. This section also identifies that any condition 
posing an imminent threat to public safety is a critical finding. 
Owners are required to develop procedures that identify critical 
findings based upon their inventory. Critical findings procedures have 
two main objectives: First, the procedures must clearly establish 
criteria for those deficiencies which are critical findings and require 
immediate action to preserve public safety; and second, the procedures 
must describe a process to resolve immediately the critical finding.
    Four commenters expressed concern with the duplication of ``full or 
partial closure of a bridge'' and a ``recommendation for a full or 
partial closure of a bridge by the program manager'' as critical 
findings.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has removed the duplicative criteria 
of a program manager recommending closure.
    Twenty-one commenters expressed concern with the minimum critical 
finding criteria for Superstructure Condition and Substructure 
Condition ratings of serious (3) as too conservative. The commenters 
also felt that over time, such conservative criteria could desensitize 
staff to the significance and urgency of critical findings. The 
commenters stated this would significantly increase the number of 
critical findings and would require significant additional resources to 
follow-up on issues that, while serious, may not be critical.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters. The threshold has 
been revised from serious (3) to critical (2) as defined in the 0-9 
scale for condition ratings in the SNBI. FHWA has added Channel 
Condition and Scour Condition ratings of critical (2) or worse as 
defined in the SNBI to the minimum criteria defining critical findings. 
This is consistent with other deficiencies described in the general 
description of critical findings. FHWA has also included the Deck 
Condition and Culvert Condition ratings, as it is our position that 
critical findings on these components pose a threat to public safety.
    Twenty-seven commenters expressed concern with the minimum criteria 
for a nonredundant member with any quantity in Condition State 4 (CS4). 
Commenters cited several reasons why implementing this criteria could 
be problematic, including that element level data is not required and 
therefore not available on all bridges (non-NHS bridges); element data 
is typically used for bridge management purposes, not safety 
inspection; the sometimes temporary nature of an element being in CS4; 
the inclusion of non-critical conditions included in the CS4 
definition; and questions concerning how a nonredundant member is 
defined.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has changed this criteria in the final rule by 
removing the nonredundant term and adding the NSTM to the critical 
findings section. This change requires owners to consider redundancy or 
lack of redundancy in steel tension members as part of the general 
criteria for a critical finding.
    Twenty-seven commenters expressed concern with missing load posting 
signage as critical findings criteria. The primary concern was with the 
amount of resources that would be needed to report on these issues as 
they work to resolve them.
    FHWA Response: Missing or illegible signs are a public safety 
issue, and must be replaced according to the owner's posting procedure. 
FHWA acknowledges that owners have a wide range of processes for 
addressing missing or damaged load posting signage. We have moved this 
criteria from the critical findings process to load posting in Sec.  
650.313(l)(3) of the final rule. Consistent with our 2019 policy 
memorandum and to align with the NTIS, a 30-day maximum timeframe, from 
when the need is identified, to replace missing or damaged load posting 
signs is in the final rule.
    Thirteen commenters asked whether a critical finding occurs if 
immediate restrictions, postings, repairs, or other follow-up actions 
are performed and the deficiency is immediately resolved.
    FHWA Response: Whenever there is an imminent threat to public 
safety that demands an immediate response, the deficiency is considered 
a critical finding regardless of whether it was resolved immediately 
upon discovery or not. These deficiencies are to be reported as 
required in the NBIS.
    Two commenters asked whether planned versus unplanned closures and 
restrictions result in a critical finding.
    FHWA Response: The final rule requires that when deficiencies are 
found that result in a full or partial closure, this is to be 
identified as a Critical Finding. It is not possible to address every 
possible situation; however, generally planned closures and 
restrictions are not critical findings and unplanned closures and 
restrictions are critical findings. For example, a planned bridge 
closing because of a construction project starting is usually not a 
critical finding. However, if that same bridge was open to traffic 
during a construction project and was unexpectedly closed or restricted 
because of a newly discovered deficiency, that would be a critical 
finding and should be reported as such.
    Eighteen commenters expressed concern with reporting critical 
findings to FHWA within 24 hours of discovery. They stressed that 
during the first 24 hours, an owner is urgently focused on resolving 
the critical finding and that reporting is not the highest priority.
    FHWA Response: A similar requirement for notifying FHWA within 24 
hours is in the NTIS. Consistent with the NTIS, the regulation does not 
require a formal report or a developed resolution, but only simple 
notification of the local FHWA Division Office. FHWA believes this can 
easily be accomplished through a telephone conversation or an email 
message. Due to the critical nature of these conditions, FHWA does not 
believe that these requirements are excessive. The intent of these 
requirements is to create a reporting mechanism to FHWA of the critical 
items that could be a threat to the traveling public's safety. Further, 
this specific portion of the final rule seeks to ensure that severe 
conditions are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner through 
oversight and partnership with FHWA, which was specifically required in 
MAP-21.
    Twenty-one commenters asked for clarification on what is meant by 
reporting until the critical finding is ``permanently resolved.''
    FHWA Response: FHWA revised the final rule to require reporting 
until ``resolved'' to align with the NTIS. Similar to the NTIS, FHWA 
expects bridge owners to report and provide updates on each critical 
finding until it is resolved. Resolved means an action has been taken 
and completed to mitigate the deficiencies and protect public safety. 
This could involve lane or load restriction, shoring, repair, closure, 
or replacement of the bridge. Increased inspection frequency alone does 
not fully resolve a critical finding if the underlying safety issue is 
not rectified. A critical finding is to be reported monthly until the 
threat to public safety is no longer present.
    Four commenters requested clarification on whether all critical 
findings are to be reported monthly, or if reporting is only intended 
for new critical findings that have occurred since the previous report.

[[Page 27415]]

    FHWA Response: FHWA requires all critical findings be reported 
monthly, or as requested, until each critical finding is resolved. It 
is expected that critical findings be resolved as soon as possible, 
typically in less than 30 days, which would mean most critical findings 
are reported on for only the initial month and possibly a second month, 
depending upon the dates when the critical finding occurs and is 
resolved within a monthly reporting interval.

Section 650.315 Inventory

    Ten commenters indicated the reduction from 180 days to 3 months 
for local bridge data submission of revised data is too constrictive 
and local agencies may not be able to meet the time constraint. One 
local agency commenter indicated they already submit data within 3 
months.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes that with current technological 
capabilities, the requirement of 3 months for reporting bridge 
inspection data to be recorded in the State, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government database is reasonable. FHWA only collects this data once a 
year and any delay in the data being properly inventoried would not 
provide FHWA the most current data available. Up-to-date information is 
vital to program oversight, management, and stewardship for the State 
and FHWA. It is also important that FHWA have current data because this 
data is used to: (1) Track bridge performance measures, (2) provide 
reports to Congress, and (3) make critical decisions regarding the 
bridge program. This necessitates adherence to a firm 3-month 
collection period and is also consistent with the NTIS.
    Three commenters indicated opposition to collecting element level 
data for non-NHS bridges. One commenter supported the collection of 
element level data to provide bridge owners improved planning and 
decisionmaking data. One commenter wanted clarification of when element 
level data is required to be collected.
    FHWA Response: As required by Congress in 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(2), each 
State and Federal agency shall report element level data for all 
highway bridges on the NHS. Section 650.315(a) of this final rule 
supports this requirement. The NBIS does not require States to submit 
element level data for bridges off the NHS. However, FHWA and its NBI 
will accept element level data for bridges off the NHS if a State DOT 
chooses to submit it. As identified in Sec.  650.315(c), element level 
data is to be updated for all inspection types if there is a change in 
condition.

Section 650.317 Incorporation by Reference

    The AASHTO recommended the contact information for AASHTO 
publications be updated.
    FHWA Response: The contact information has been updated.
    The AASHTO commented that they understand FHWA must reference a 
specific edition of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation and Manual for 
Bridge Element Inspection and that the regulation cannot simply say 
``most current edition.'' Since both publications are updated more 
frequently than the NBIS, it forces States to use outdated guidance. 
Since 23 CFR 625.4 contains a list of other standards, policies, and 
specifications and is subject to more frequent updates, AASHTO 
recommends adding these two publications to the next update of 23 CFR 
625.4, and including in this section language referencing these 
specific editions or the most current ones as shown in 23 CFR 625.4.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges the procedural challenges with 
updating material incorporated by reference. FHWA follows the 
regulations and procedures of the Office of the Federal Register for 
this process. The documents incorporated by reference represent the 
minimum standards required for compliance with the NBIS. As in the 
past, when a new edition of an incorporated by reference document is 
available, FHWA has recognized through policy memo where changes in the 
new edition exceed the minimum standards and can be used while 
maintaining compliance with NBIS.
    Four commenters commented that the 3rd edition of the AASHTO Manual 
be incorporated into the NBIS. Fourteen commenters suggested 
referencing the latest edition, and not stating a specific edition.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and has adopted specific sections of the 
current 3rd edition version of the AASHTO Manual available at the time 
the final rule is published. References to specific sections of the 
AASHTO Manual throughout NBIS have been updated accordingly. The NBIS 
specifically references Section 1.4, Section 2.2, Section 4.2, Section 
6, and Section 8, excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1. This 
paragraph was excluded because FHWA is not aware of any research that 
served as the basis for the practice described in this paragraph and as 
such does not align with the requirements of the NBIS. Office of the 
Federal Register regulations at 1 CFR 51.1(f) provide that 
incorporation by reference of a publication is limited to the edition 
of the publication that is approved and that future amendments or 
revisions of the publication are not included. A specific edition of 
the manual must be referenced in the regulation. This provides 
certainty to the users of the regulation which standards apply, in 
addition to insuring for notice and comment as required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Where differences exist, the NBIS takes 
precedence over the AASHTO Manual. The FHWA will continue to update, as 
necessary, the materials incorporated by reference in its regulations 
on a regular basis.

Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory

    With the publication of the final rule, the SNBI will supersede the 
FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (Coding Guide), 1995. The final SNBI 
document in portable document format (PDF) is available for download on 
the docket for this rulemaking and as noted in Sec.  650.317.
    Bridge inventory information collected by each State DOT, Federal 
agency and Tribal government is reported to FHWA, as requested, in 
accordance with the NBIS reporting requirements. The resulting 
information is maintained in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) 
database. The reporting of inventory data for all highway bridges 
subject to the NBIS, and their related features, are based on the 
definitions, explanations, and data items supplied in the SNBI. State 
DOTs, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments use the data items and 
instructions in the SNBI when reporting NBI data to FHWA.

General

    One commenter proposed that the SNBI document provide for scheduled 
revisions, similar to the AASHTO manuals.
    FHWA Response: The processes that FHWA must follow for updating a 
document incorporated by reference are discussed above and are 
different from AASHTO's. FHWA will continue to work through established 
processes when updates are needed. Updates are completed through the 
rulemaking process.
    Many commenters indicated concerns with the number of added items 
in the proposed SNBI, and questioned their purpose and value.
    FHWA Response: The items in the SNBI serve the following practical 
purposes and benefits: Ensuring highway bridge safety; enabling

[[Page 27416]]

oversight of the NBIP; reporting to Congress; emergency response; 
administering a risk-based, data driven, performance management program 
in accordance with MAP-21, the FAST Act, and 23 CFR part 490; and 
providing quality data through clarity and ease of use.
    Element level data for NHS bridges, as required by 23 U.S.C. 144, 
have been reported to FHWA since April 2015 and are not considered new 
data for this rule; the 2014 Specification for the National Bridge 
Inventory--Bridge Elements (SNBIBE) has been merged with the SNBI. 
Fifty-seven of the 154 data items in the SNBI are considered new with 
respect to the Coding Guide and SNBIBE; 4 of these are calculated by 
FHWA and States are not required to be collected or reported to FHWA. 
Thirty-five of the 57 items are collected at a frequency indicated as 
``I'' (Initial), where data is recorded initially and updated when 
necessary, but will not typically change from inspection to inspection. 
Only fifteen of the 57 new items are collected at a frequency indicated 
as ``EI'' (Each Inspection), where data is verified and/or updated by 
the inspector during each inspection. Items that are no longer used by 
FHWA have been removed.
    Sixteen commenters indicated concerns with the number of item code 
changes proposed for those data items that have been brought forward 
from the Coding Guide into the SNBI. Three State DOTs suggested that 
there might be confusion when comparing data items between the two 
specifications, and expressed concern over the resources that will be 
required to populate and submit the SNBI data. One commenter requested 
that when the final rule is published, FHWA at that time also publish 
the new data submission format and details, as well as the updated 
processing logic for agencies. Agencies will need this information to 
update their software to support the SNBI data. Six commenters 
indicated a need for a migration process.
    FHWA Response: FHWA recognizes that the transition from the Coding 
Guide to the SNBI will be a significant effort, and aims to reduce the 
burden on bridge owners. Many SNBI data items are identical to those in 
the Coding Guide, and coding options have been revised where practical 
to align more closely with codes in the Coding Guide, thereby 
facilitating the transition to the SNBI. FHWA will provide a crosswalk 
in the coming months that defines the relationship between the Coding 
Guide and the SNBI. The anticipated data submission format and data 
checking protocols will also be provided. In addition, FHWA will 
develop a computer-based tool to transition data from the Coding Guide 
format to the SNBI format, where the data can be accurately 
transitioned; this tool should be available at FHWA's website for use 
within 12 months of the effective date of the final rule.
    Twenty commenters were concerned about the timeframe for 
implementation of the SNBI due to the need for updating databases, 
migrating existing data, training personnel, and collecting and 
reporting the required data. These commenters recommended 
implementation timeframes between 24 to 48 months before the first data 
submission, with full implementation taking up to 10 years, given 
extended inspection frequencies.
    FHWA Response: An implementation timeline is under development with 
an expectation of collecting initial SNBI data in the March 2026 data 
submittal. Based on analysis, this will allow sufficient time for FHWA 
and State DOTs to develop, test, install, and set up new data 
collection and management systems. The initial dataset will largely 
consist of transitioned data (data that can be accurately converted 
from the Coding Guide format to the SNBI format), as well as those 
limited data items that do not transition accurately, but are required 
for administering FHWA programs. The remaining items that do not 
transition accurately may be populated, and the transitioned items may 
be verified, during the following inspection cycle, with the 
expectation that all data for all bridges be populated and verified by 
the March 2028 data submittal. FHWA considers this timeline to be fair 
and achievable based on FHWA developing and providing tools for data 
transition, training, and data reporting format, and the need to 
collect specific data required by the final rule for extended 
inspection intervals.
    One State DOT requested a data dictionary for the SNBI.
    FHWA Response: The SNBI document provides information for a data 
dictionary, specifically Figure 1 and the tables in Appendix B.
    Several commenters questioned whether event-related data items 
(i.e. Work Performed) will require reporting of events that occurred 
prior to implementation of the SNBI.
    FHWA Response: FHWA will not require the reporting of event-related 
data that occurred prior to implementation of the SNBI.
    Some commenters requested the inclusion of additional illustrations 
to communicate how item values are to be determined.
    FHWA Response: Multiple illustrations were added or revised where 
clarification was needed based on comments received and FHWA internal 
reviews. Language was also revised to address situations where the 
intent may not be conveyed sufficiently by the included language or 
illustrations.

Cost

    In response to the request by FHWA, eleven State DOTs provided data 
for costs associated with the proposed change from the Coding Guide to 
the SNBI. The reported costs ranged from approximately $200,000 to 
$18,000,000.
    FHWA Response: FHWA recognized that bridge owners would incur a 
one-time cost associated with changing from the Coding Guide to the 
SNBI. However, as many of the data items are the same or similar, and 
there is a wide variety of data management and reporting systems being 
used, FHWA was unable to estimate these costs. The cost information 
received from the commenters was used to update the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Discontinued Items

    One commenter indicated that the discontinued Parallel Structure 
Designation item (Item 101) in the Coding Guide was useful for 
designating twin bridges.
    FHWA Response: The Parallel Structure Designation item has been 
discontinued, as it is no longer needed by FHWA. Bridge owners can 
continue to collect the data for their use, but will not report the 
data to FHWA.

New Items Proposed

    One commenter proposed an Approach Roadway Surface item that 
distinguishes between roadway surface types that impact bridge 
management or bridge design. For example, preservation actions for a 
bridge can be completely different due to the deicing treatments that 
are used on paved roads, but not gravel. Concrete roads require 
consideration for roadway expansion effects on bridge approaches.
    FHWA Response: FHWA appreciates this suggestion but does not 
require these data to fulfill its stewardship and oversight roles and 
responsibilities.

SNBI Analysis

Table of Contents

    Four commenters suggested adding the Item ID to the Expanded Table 
of Contents (TOC) as a cross reference to the item name, to make the 
TOC more useful and easy to use.

[[Page 27417]]

    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that this change would assist in 
navigating the SNBI and has added Item IDs to the Expanded TOC. Item 
IDs have also been provided in the index tables of appendix B for 
useful cross references between the item names, IDs, format, and 
document sections. The condensed and expanded TOCs are hyperlinked 
throughout the document for ease of navigation; as are the item names 
in the index tables of appendix B.

Introduction

    One commenter referenced the data relationship diagram (Figure 1). 
This commenter indicated that the element level data should be tied to 
each inspection event, rather than to each submission, thereby allowing 
the tracking of element condition over time, similar to the current 
practice for component condition ratings.
    FHWA Response: Element level condition data and component condition 
rating data are considered inclusive of the results of all inspections 
performed since the last data submission to FHWA. All condition data 
can be tracked historically, as both element level and component 
condition data are collected during each data submission.

Definitions

    As a result of changes made to the definitions for these terms in 
the final rule definitions were modified in the SNBI for Bridge, 
Inspection Date, Operating Rating, Routine Inspection, and Safe Load 
Capacity, and a definition was added for Unknown Foundations. Due to 
the addition of the NSTM Inspection Required and Inspection Due Date 
items, definitions were added for Nonredundant Steel Tension Member 
Inspection and Inspection Due Date. Because of changes made to the 
handling of border bridges, definitions were added for Designated Lead 
State and Neighboring State. To provide clarity for several items in 
the Highways subsection, a definition was added for Divided Highway. To 
provide clarity for the Legal Load Rating Factor item, the definition 
for Legal Load was expanded, and a definition was added for Legal Load 
Rating. The definition of Initial Inspection was simplified for 
clarity.
    Two commenters expressed concern over the definition of 
Nonredundant Member causing confusion with Nonredundant Steel Tension 
Member.
    FHWA Response: As the term Nonredundant Member is not used in the 
SNBI, it has been deleted from the Definitions section.
    One commenter requested an additional definition for Nonredundant 
Steel Tension Member since only Nonredundant Steel Tension Member 
Inspection was originally included.
    FHWA Response: For completeness, a definition from the final rule 
was added for Nonredundant Steel Tension Member.
    One commenter requested clarification of the intent of the Plan of 
Action definition, asking that Scour be added to the term.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees and the entry was changed to Scour Plan 
of Action and is consistent with the final rule.
    One commenter requested clarification of the definition for 
Rehabilitation.
    FHWA Response: After further consideration, definitions were 
developed for Major Rehabilitation and Minor Rehabilitation in place of 
the original Rehabilitation definition to coincide better with the 
codes for major and minor rehabilitation in the Work Performed item.
    Two commenters requested clarification on the requirements for 
evaluated scour.
    FHWA Response: Definitions for Scour Appraisal, Scour Assessment, 
and Scour Evaluation were added to provide more clarity and are 
consistent with the final rule definitions.
    Three commenters requested clarification on the requirements of a 
service inspection.
    FHWA Response: The definition for Service Inspection was updated 
with the definition used in the NBIS.
    One commenter requested clarification on the requirements of a 
scour monitoring inspection.
    FHWA Response: The NBIS requires a scour plan of action (POA) for 
all bridges that are determined to be scour critical. An important part 
of a scour POA is the monitoring program as indicated in Hydraulic 
Engineering Circular No. 23 (HEC-23)--Bridge Scour and Stream 
Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design 
Guidance, Third Edition. The monitoring program portion of the scour 
POA addresses the type and frequency of monitoring (i.e., inspection) 
required by the bridge owner. To ensure that the monitoring program 
within the scour POA is implemented, a Scour Monitoring Inspection type 
was created. Therefore, a definition for Scour Monitoring Inspection 
was created by FHWA and added to provide clarity.
    One commenter suggested adding a definition for Culvert.
    FHWA Response: Since Culverts were reinstated into the SNBI, a 
definition for Culvert was added. The Culvert definition was created by 
FHWA using the culvert definition from the 1995 NBI Coding Guide and 
modifying that definition to improve culvert bridge type reporting 
consistency.

Specification Format

    Five commenters advocated for the use of a date format consistent 
with ISO 8601. ISO 8601 is the standard pertaining to date formats 
established by the International Organization for Standardization and 
can be located at https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html.
    FHWA Response: FHWA concurs with this recommendation and has 
adjusted the date format accordingly.
    Five commenters expressed concern over the items that should not be 
reported where they do not apply, fearing that items might be forgotten 
rather than deliberately omitted, thereby affecting data quality.
    FHWA Response: FHWA shares this concern, and allows omission of 
only those items where a null value can be verified by another means; a 
code of N is required for all inapplicable condition rating items and 
for all items where applicability cannot be verified via other data 
items. This approach will help to minimize file sizes and reduce data 
processing times. FHWA has standardized data reporting requirements 
throughout the SNBI to the extent possible, as follows: 0 represents 
``none,'' X represents ``other,'' and N or not reported represents 
``no'' (N only), or ``not applicable.'' FHWA specifies only how the 
data should be reported to FHWA, not how data items should be recorded 
or stored in a bridge owner's database.

Section 1: Bridge Identification

Subsection 1.1: Identification
    The specification for the Bridge Number item was revised to 
emphasize that a bridge spans from abutment to abutment per the NBIS, 
and therefore multiple spans between abutments are to be reported as 
one bridge. This change was made primarily to address an ongoing issue 
where a limited number of State DOTs have been reporting a subset of 
spans as bridges, causing issues with other data items and resulting in 
inconsistent national reporting of bridge numbers.
Subsection 1.2: Location
    Thirty-one commenters suggested that one State DOT should submit 
border bridge information for both States.
    FHWA Response: To reduce the burden on States without inspection

[[Page 27418]]

responsibility, a change was made to have the Designated Lead State 
submit a full bridge record and the Neighboring State submit an 
abbreviated bridge record. The Designated Lead State is determined 
through agreement between the two bordering States.
    Twenty-three commenters remarked on the location where the 
measurements are taken for the Latitude and Longitude items. Some 
preferred the center of the bridge, others requested that the State be 
allowed to select the location, and some preferred the proposed 
location of the beginning of the bridge on the edge of the right 
traveled way in the direction of the route mileage.
    FHWA Response: In an effort to minimize burden, the specification 
for these items has been changed to indicate that the measurement 
should be taken at a location in accordance with agency procedures.
    Five commenters were in favor of the decimals degrees format for 
the Latitude and Longitude items. Two requested the allowance of 
negative values.
    FHWA Response: The examples for the Longitude item were updated to 
clarify that negative values are permitted.
    Four commenters recommended eliminating the Bridge Location item.
    FHWA Response: This item was retained, as it is the same as an item 
in the Coding Guide, and is easily transferred.
    Five commenters recommended deleting the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization item. One commenter felt it was a positive addition.
    FHWA Response: This item was retained because it can be used to 
assist in calculating Metropolitan Planning Organization performance 
measures and targets required by 23 CFR part 490.
    One commenter asked whether the Metropolitan Planning Organization 
item included Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs).
    FHWA Response: A note was added to the commentary to clarify that 
this item need not include the names of RPOs or single county planning 
organizations.
Subsection 1.3: Classification
    One commenter requested an additional code for Bureau of 
Reclamation be added to the Federal or Tribal Land Access item.
    FHWA Response: The additional code was added.
    Five commenters asked that the Toll item codes be revised to line 
up with the Toll item (Item 20) in the Coding Guide.
    FHWA Response: The codes were reorganized to line up with the 
Coding Guide. A code for ``Bridge does not carry a toll road and is not 
a toll bridge'' was also added, making the codes more easily 
transferable.
    Thirteen commenters remarked on the Emergency Evacuation 
Designation item. Though most of the commenters indicated that there 
will be little value for this item from a State's perspective, some do 
see the value for some other States to use this coding. Others felt it 
was a planning code, or there does not appear to be a significant/clear 
benefit to the addition of the code.
    FHWA Response: The Emergency Evacuation Designation item is 
retained since this information will be beneficial in identifying 
potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes, and to regional and 
national freight and passenger mobility, if the serviceability of the 
bridge is restricted or diminished.

Section 2: Bridge Material and Type

    Seventeen commenters noted the additional data requirements in the 
Bridge Materials and Type section and questioned the value in 
collecting the additional information required by the SNBI.
    FHWA Response: NBI data are used by State DOTs, FHWA, and other 
Federal agencies to monitor and evaluate bridge performance, enhance 
bridge safety, and support risk management. Many of these users rely on 
identifying and classifying bridges by structural type. The Coding 
Guide only allows for the identification of superstructure type in the 
main and approach spans. The utility of inventory data for 
identification and classification purposes will be enhanced with more 
granular information on all superstructure and substructure materials 
and types present in a bridge.
    Fifteen State DOTs and AASHTO objected to the removal of the 
culvert structure type by incorporating culverts into superstructure 
and substructure types and condition ratings.
    FHWA Response: FHWA reconsidered the proposed approach and due to 
the comments, the SNBI is modified so bridge owners can uniquely 
identify a culvert bridge type using the Span Configuration Designation 
item, and a separate Culvert Condition Rating item is reinstated. 
However, FHWA emphasizes that the term ``culvert'' has a particular 
meaning for the SNBI and therefore Culvert is defined in the 
Definitions section of the SNBI. FHWA understands that bridge owner 
agencies may define this term differently as a program management tool, 
but for data submissions the FHWA definition must be used.
Subsection 2.1: Superstructure/Deck Material and Type (Now Span 
Material and Type)
    Ten commenters requested clarification on how to partition 
structural type data sets when complex groupings of main, approach, and 
widened superstructures and substructures may be present in a bridge.
    FHWA Response: The intent of the specification is to classify and 
identify the different configurations of material, type, and design 
present on the bridge, regardless of where those configurations are 
located. Configurations need not be in contiguous spans or used to 
widen the same type of main or approach span to be considered part of 
the same span or substructure data set. The specifications and 
commentary were updated, and numerous examples were created, to clarify 
this intent.
    Twelve commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use of 
the Number of Beam Lines item.
    FHWA response: This item will enhance FHWA's oversight of the NBIP 
by identifying bridges that lack load path redundancy which, combined 
with other data items, can identify bridges with NSTMs.
Subsection 2.2: Substructure Material and Type
    Three commenters requested clarification on the proper assignment 
of substructure type when a bridge has been widened and it may 
difficult to determine which substructure configuration is predominant.
    FHWA response: To clarify intent, a third configuration designation 
for widening has been added to the Substructure Configuration 
Designation item.
Subsection 2.3: Roadside Hardware
    Eighteen State DOTs and 1 Federal agency expressed concern with the 
addition of the Bridge Railing and Transitions items, and many of these 
commenters questioned the need for them. Most had concerns regarding 
the level of effort to collect detailed crash test data for a wide 
variety of existing bridge railings and transitions on a large number 
of bridges. Other concerns included the lack of data for railings on 
older bridges, the lack of familiarity that bridge inspectors have 
regarding standards for bridge railings and transitions, and the 
potential for error. Some suggested reverting to the Traffic Safety 
Features item (Item 36) in the Coding Guide, either in its current form 
or a modified version. Some recommended removing one or both of

[[Page 27419]]

these items entirely, simplifying them significantly, or making them 
optional. One State DOT indicated that they collect data on rail types 
installed on all bridges and intend to migrate the data to meet this 
requirement. In addition, their State finds value in categorizing crash 
test level for the bridge railings.
    FHWA Response: Bridge railings and transitions are very important 
traffic safety features that serve to redirect smoothly errant vehicles 
and reduce crash severity. These data items provide for more objective 
information to evaluate safety risks, whereas ``meet currently 
acceptable standards'' in the Coding Guide is neither clear nor well 
understood; FHWA believes that these data are very valuable for risk 
assessment. The information needed to determine the appropriate codes 
should be available in bridge records, as it is also needed to report 
appropriately the applicable code for the Bridge Railings and 
Transitions items (Items 36A and 36B) in the Coding Guide. In addition, 
the AASHTO Manual, which has been incorporated by reference in the NBIS 
since January 2010, serves as a standard and provides uniformity in the 
procedures and policies for determining the physical condition, 
maintenance needs, and load capacity of the Nation's highway bridges. 
Article 2.3.1, regarding railings and parapets, indicates that the type 
and material of the railing/parapet, along with its dimensions, should 
be recorded. Article 4.8.4.6.1, regarding railings, indicates that they 
should be evaluated as to condition and as to adequacy of geometry and 
structural capacity, and that the inspector should be familiar with the 
railing requirements of the bridge owner. Article 4.3.5.11.4 in the 
AASHTO MBE, Third Edition, 2018, regarding approach guide rails and 
their transition to the bridge railing or parapet, indicates that 
agencies should ensure that inspectors are familiar with current agency 
standards for approach guide rail types, installation heights, and any 
minimum clearances, and check each approach guide rail assembly as to 
its conformance to current standards. Therefore, the information should 
also be available for agencies that follow the AASHTO MBE. In addition, 
bridge inspection related courses available through NHI contain course 
material on bridge railings. Finally, the inspector is not intended to 
be the only individual involved in identifying the appropriate code, 
similar to the coding of load rating items. These items may best be 
coded by the agency's safety engineer or other individual with 
appropriate expertise, and the inspector would field verify the 
installed configuration.
    Five commenters recommended a code for ``unknown'' be added to the 
crash testing codes table to indicate that no information is known 
about the crash test level or an agency approved standard.
    FHWA Response: The commentary for the Bridge Railings and 
Transitions items address the code to be reported when no information 
is known about the crash test level or an agency approved standard.
    One State DOT recommended that code ``0'' (zero) in the crash 
testing codes table should be modified to read ``required and none 
provided,'' to help clarify the difference between codes ``N'' and 
``0.'' Another indicated that examples were needed to clarify the 
difference between these two codes.
    FHWA Response: The code 0 description was modified as suggested to 
make the code descriptions for ``N'' and ``0'' more self-explanatory 
without the need for further examples.
    Two commenters requested clarification for reporting more than one 
code when there is a mixture of bridge railings or transitions on a 
bridge.
    FHWA Response: The commentary for both items in this section was 
updated to clarify reporting of one applicable code when there is more 
than one type of bridge railing or transition.
    One State DOT suggested that the nature of the Bridge Railing and 
Transitions items is more indicative of an appraisal item and should be 
moved to the Appraisal subsection. The commenter also suggested that 
the Bridge Railings item be integrated with National Bridge Element 
(NBE) items in the Element Conditions subsection.
    FHWA Response: These items remain in the Bridge Material and Type 
section to be contained together with other related items that will 
likely be inventoried from plans. These items are considered a 
classification or categorization of the bridge railings and 
transitions, and not an appraisal. Bridge railing element data, in the 
element subsections, address condition and not crashworthiness. There 
is no NBE defined in AASHTO's ``Manual for Bridge Element Inspection'' 
(MBEI), Second Edition, 2019 or the SNBI for bridge railing 
transitions.

Section 3: Bridge Geometry

    Multiple commenters questioned the need for several items in this 
section. The more substantial comments pertained to the NBIS Bridge 
Length, Minimum Span Length, Curved Bridge, Curved Bridge Radius, 
Maximum Bridge Height, and Irregular Deck Area items.
    Five commenters questioned the need for the proposed NBIS Bridge 
Length item.
    FHWA Response: This item describes the dimension that is used to 
distinguish a bridge, as defined in the NBIS, from a structure that is 
shorter than a bridge. The referenced definition is used to identify 
bridges that are subject to the NBIS and must be reported to the NBI. 
The NBIS Bridge Length item (Item 112) in the Coding Guide had only a 
yes or no value, and has not sufficiently served its purpose of 
identifying NBIS bridges. To reduce the burden associated with this 
item, the value may be estimated when the Total Bridge Length item is 
30 feet or greater.
    Nine commenters questioned the need for the proposed Minimum Span 
Length item, and one acknowledged the need for the item.
    FHWA Response: To date, only the maximum span length has been 
reported. It has been found that both maximum and minimum span length 
are needed for preliminary screening of bridges to identify impacts 
from changes in national load rating vehicles, or changes to truck 
sizes and weights (either proposed or mandated). Article C6A.4.4.2.1b 
of the AASHTO MBE, Third Edition, 2018 (with 2019 and 2020 interim 
revisions), recognizes this point, as it communicates that bridges with 
a rating factor greater than 1.35 for the AASHTO legal trucks will have 
adequate load capacity for special hauling vehicles only when the span 
lengths exceed the values specified therein.
    Three commenters questioned the need for the proposed Curved Bridge 
item.
    FHWA Response: This item indicates whether a bridge is comprised of 
girders that are curved or aligned to approximate a horizontal 
curvature. Curved bridges can require different procedures and 
specifications for structural analysis and design, and for load rating 
analysis for legal and permit vehicles, including permit vehicle size 
restrictions. Curvature is also an attribute that can raise the 
importance of inspection, maintenance, and repair of certain members as 
compared to straight bridges. This in turn may impact risk-based 
inspection interval selection, inspection scope, and repair 
prioritization. Curvature can also affect the assessment of 
vulnerability to seismic events using system-level procedures. The 
Curved Bridge item has been retained, but has been revised to address 
comments asking for clarification about the difference between a curved 
bridge comprised of curved versus chorded girders.

[[Page 27420]]

    Nine commenters questioned the need for the proposed Curved Bridge 
Radius item.
    FHWA Response: FHWA acknowledges that the radius of curvature alone 
is often insufficient for decision-making, and procedures will 
frequently require obtaining this information from drawings or files in 
conjunction with other details. This item has been removed.
    Fourteen commenters questioned the need for the proposed Maximum 
Bridge Height item. Multiple commenters also questioned the need to 
update the reported value for this item when maximum height occurs over 
water that has a fluctuating bed elevation.
    FHWA Response: Bridge height is an attribute that can inform 
multiple procedures, including inspection planning to identify access 
equipment needs, seismic vulnerability assessments, and cost estimation 
associated with work types or needs. To reduce the burden associated 
with this item, and to facilitate identification of bridges with 
limited clearance over water, the specification for this item has been 
revised so that measurement is from the top of deck to the ground line 
or water surface, whichever yields a higher value.
    Two commenters questioned the need for the proposed Irregular Deck 
Area item.
    FHWA Response: This item allows an agency to report the deck area 
of a bridge when using the values reported for Total Bridge Length and 
Bridge Width Out-to-Out does not provide an accurate representation. 
Deck area is used to support multiple procedures including the 
calculation of performance measures and the implementation of 23 CFR 
part 490.

Section 4: Features

Subsection 4.1: Feature Identification
    The Feature Type item was revised to add a numeric sequential field 
for each feature, for ease of State and FHWA tracking of multiple 
features of the same type, and to address confusion expressed by 
several commenters.
    Several commenters asked how many features below a bridge are to be 
identified for the Feature Type item, and if at least one is required.
    FHWA response: The commentary for this item was updated to indicate 
that at least one feature is to be identified both on and below the 
bridge, and that many bridges will have more than one. However, a code 
of ``D'' (dry terrain) or ``B'' (urban feature) need be reported only 
once, if applicable.
    A few commenters stated that reporting multiple features for 
bridges would be excessive burden for questionable benefit.
    FHWA response: FHWA believes that for most bridges, the majority of 
features will already be known by inspection teams and will need to be 
input but not collected. For some bridges, it is acknowledged that some 
data will need to be collected, but only one time over the life of the 
bridge except in rare cases where another feature is built above, on, 
or under the bridge. Highway features under structures that are not 
bridges per the NBIS will no longer be reported to FHWA, providing a 
decrease in burden.
Subsection 4.2: Routes (Now Subsection 4.2 Routes and Subsection 4.3 
Highways)
    Several commenters expressed concern with the perceived increase in 
the amount of route data to be reported. A few noted that many of the 
items in the Routes section are actually associated with the highway, 
which can carry multiple routes, and therefore should be collected and 
reported only once for each highway.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees with the commenters, and this subsection 
has been divided accordingly. Highway-related items were removed from 
the Routes subsection and placed in a separate Highways subsection, 
where each item will be reported once for each highway feature 
associated with the bridge. For a highway feature crossing above a 
bridge, only the Crossing Bridge Number item need be reported, because 
the highway feature above will always be a bridge. Therefore, the 
remaining highway and route information can be accessed via the data 
associated with the crossing bridge record. This also applies when the 
highway feature directly below an inventory bridge is a crossing 
bridge. The Routes subsection now contains only five route-related 
items, which will be reported for each route associated with the 
highway feature.
Subsection 4.3: Railroads (Now Subsection 4.4)
    Six commenters questioned the need for the proposed Railroad 
Service Type item.
    FHWA Response: This item distinguishes between passenger and 
freight services and between electrified and non-electrified rail 
lines. It is useful for inspection planning to identify access and 
coordination needs.
    Two commenters suggested that the data for the items in this 
section should be obtained by FHWA from national databases maintained 
by the Federal Railroad Administration, for example.
    FHWA Response: Agencies can use available resources to assist in 
coding the Railroad Service Type item. However, national databases do 
not necessarily include sufficient data to report all bridge related 
railroad items, or include information for all categories of railroads.
Subsection 4.4: Navigable Waterways (Now Subsection 4.5)
    Four commenters questioned the need for the Navigation Channel 
Width and Navigation Channel Minimum Horizontal Clearance items, as 
these items are not currently reported to the NBI.
    FHWA Response: The data items in this section are used to identify 
bridges that cross navigable waterways and are at risk of vessel 
collision, which will assist FHWA in identifying risks to highway 
bridge safety. The Navigation Channel Width item and Navigation Channel 
Minimum Horizontal Clearance item clarify the requirements for data 
currently reported for the Navigation Horizontal Clearance item (Item 
40) in the Coding Guide. These data should be available from the 
navigation permit drawings required for all bridges over navigable 
waterways.

Section 5: Loads, Load Rating, and Posting

Subsection 5.1: Loads and Load Rating
    Four commenters requested clarification on how to assign codes for 
the Design Method item when no plans exist for a bridge.
    FHWA Response: The commentary for this item addresses this 
situation, allowing for bridge owners to infer which design method was 
in use at the time the bridge was built based on the characteristics of 
the bridge and design policy in effect at the time of construction.
    Six commenters disagreed with the requirement to truncate load 
rating factors to the nearest hundredth rather than allowing values to 
be rounded.
    FHWA Response: The load rating factor is calculated as a ratio of 
other values that have their own accuracy and precision. Truncating 
such a value to the hundredth will assign precision in a conservative 
fashion that will vary from the calculated rating factor by, at most, 1 
percent.
    Seven commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use for 
the Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item.
    FHWA Response: Many States and local agencies have their own legal 
load combinations that they must consider in addition to the nationally 
recognized

[[Page 27421]]

AASHTO Legal Loads when load rating bridges. There is wide variety in 
the axle weights and spacings of these legal loads, making it 
impractical to define every combination in the SNBI. However, the 
rating factor is a universal value representing a ratio of capacity to 
demand, with 1.0 being the minimum value indicating a bridge's ability 
to carry safely a given legal load configuration. By identifying the 
minimum calculated rating factor of all legal loads considered in the 
load rating, the Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item serves the 
purpose of improving NBIP oversight by identifying bridges that require 
posting, based on their ability to carry State legal loads that may 
vary from those established by AASHTO.
    Ten commenters requested clarification on FHWA's intended use of 
the Routine Permit Loads item.
    FHWA Response: The NBIS requires States to post or restrict bridges 
that cannot safely carry routine permit loads as demonstrated through a 
valid load rating. This item identifies bridges that carry routine 
permit loads, to differentiate between bridges that do and do not 
require that the posting analysis consider those loads.
Subsection 5.2: Load Posting Status
    Eight commenters recommended corrections and changes to the table 
of load posting status codes in the Load Posting Status item.
    FHWA Response: The table has been updated to incorporate many of 
the recommendations to remove similar codes, and to differentiate 
between bridges that are currently open with no restrictions and 
require posting, and those that are currently posted but require a 
posting reduction.
    One State DOT requested clarification on the definition of 
temporary and supported structures and when those conditions will 
result in a change in the Load Posting Status item that will be 
reported to FHWA.
    FHWA Response: The specification for this item was updated to 
include more detailed descriptions of temporary and supported 
conditions, and expectations for the length of time those conditions 
are expected to be in place to be considered in the reporting of this 
item.
Subsection 5.3: Load Evaluation and Posting
    Ten commenters requested clarification on whether State-specific 
legal loads need to be reported for the items in this subsection.
    FHWA Response: Given the large number of State-specific legal load 
configurations, it is not feasible to include non-AASHTO-defined legal 
loads for the items in this subsection. However, the load rating 
evaluation must consider all legal loads operating in the State and if 
a State-specific legal load configuration results in the lowest rating 
factor from the evaluation, that value will be reported in the 
Controlling Legal Load Rating Factor item.
    Five commenters requested clarification on whether AASHTO legal 
loads that are not evaluated because their force effects are enveloped 
by another AASHTO load (for instance, the Notional Rating Load (NRL)) 
need to be reported for the items in this subsection.
    FHWA Response: The introduction to the Load Evaluation and Posting 
subsection states that ``Data items in this subsection are reported for 
each AASHTO legal load configuration evaluated, only when the bridge 
has undergone a posting analysis.'' If the posting analysis uses the 
NRL to screen out the need to evaluate individually other loads, there 
is no need to rate and report data for those vehicles.

Section 6: Inspections

Subsection 6.1: Inspection Requirements
    Eight commenters were concerned with the level of effort to collect 
the information for the Fatigue Prone Details item.
    FHWA Response: This item has been renamed to Fatigue Details. 
Category D details were removed from the data collection requirement, 
thereby reducing the burden.
Subsection 6.2: Inspection Events
    Three commenters recommended deletion of Service (Code 8) for the 
Inspection Type item, as they did not consider that it was needed.
    FHWA Response: Service inspection type is needed for risk based 
extended intervals as part of the NBIS.
    Four State DOTs requested definitions clarifying the intent of the 
inspection types.
    FHWA Response: Definitions for each of the inspection types are 
included in the Definitions section.
    Fourteen commenters requested clarification on the Nationally 
Certified Bridge Inspector item, as to how the unique identifier 
certifications will be assigned and who is responsible for assigning 
them. Many questioned the need for this item or suggested that it 
should be the responsibility of FHWA to certify inspectors.
    FHWA Response: The commentary was updated to indicate that the 
unique identifier code is assigned by the State DOT, Federal agency, or 
Tribal government. FHWA does not certify bridge inspectors.
    Four commenters questioned the need for the Inspection Interval 
Type item, as it can easily be determined from the Inspection Interval 
item.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees, and the Inspection Interval Type item 
has been removed.
    Two commenters requested the addition of a calculated Inspection 
Due Date item.
    FHWA Response: This item has been added to identify the next 
inspection due date.
    Eleven commenters requested clarification as to the need for the 
Inspection Quality Control Date and Inspection Quality Assurance Date 
items. Several of these commenters also requested that the commentary 
language be adjusted to allow an independent QC or QA review from 
outside the agency.
    FHWA Response: These items will ensure that information on QC and 
QA procedures is available to FHWA for oversight of the NBIP. FHWA 
agrees that an independent review from outside the agency can also be 
part of a QC or QA program; the commentary language for both items has 
been adjusted as requested.
    The name of the Inventory Update Date item has been changed to 
Inspection Data Update Date, as that better aligns with the intent of 
the item and may help alleviate confusion expressed by some commenters.
    Ten State DOTs questioned the need for the Inspection Equipment 
item.
    FHWA Response: FHWA requires this information to verify that a 
quality inspection is performed.
    Three commenters questioned the need for the Inspection Note item.
    FHWA Response: This item is used to explain what portions of the 
bridge were inspected when a partial inspection is performed and not a 
full bridge inspection.

Section 7: Bridge Condition

Subsection 7.1: Component Condition Ratings
    Fifteen State DOTs and AASHTO objected to the incorporation of 
culverts into superstructure and substructure types and condition 
ratings.
    FHWA Response: These comments were addressed in the Section 2 
(Bridge Material and Type) comment responses.
    Ten State DOTs and AASHTO felt that the changes to the component 
condition rating code descriptions made them too complex or 
prescriptive and too similar to the AASHTO element level descriptions; 
most felt that the

[[Page 27422]]

meaning of the component condition rating codes had changed 
significantly from the Coding Guide. Another State DOT suggested 
eliminating component condition ratings entirely based on the 
similarity of the descriptions to the element data descriptions. Two 
commenters appreciated the detailed guidance, and three appreciated the 
clarity of the Specifications and Commentary.
    FHWA Response: FHWA agrees that these codes became overly complex 
in the draft document. The intent was to clarify the component 
condition language from the Coding Guide without significantly changing 
the meaning. To that end, the optional detailed guidance tables have 
been moved to the Appendix and the condition language has been 
simplified.
    Seven commenters suggested that the guidance provided in the 
guidance tables precluded improvement of a concrete bridge component 
from fair to good condition if effective repairs were completed; they 
did not feel that a sound patch should be considered a defect.
    FHWA Response: A patched area that is sound is in fair condition 
per the AASHTO MBEI; the guidance provided in the tables for evaluating 
the condition of concrete components is consistent with that 
determination.
    Ten commenters had some difficulty locating descriptions of terms 
and other specific guidance within the section, or requested 
clarification of certain requirements.
    FHWA Response: Key terms are defined in the introduction to the 
section and in the Definitions section, requirements have been 
clarified as needed, and the optional detailed guidance tables have 
been moved to the Appendix.
    Thirteen State DOTs and one association questioned the need for the 
Bridge Railing Condition Rating, Bridge Railing Transitions Condition 
Rating, Bridge Bearings Condition Rating, and Bridge Joints Condition 
Rating items, particularly since they are collected with the element 
data. Three commenters expressed support for these items.
    FHWA Response: Element level condition data, in accordance with 
MAP-21, are required to be reported only for bridges on the NHS. 
Therefore, these data do not exist for a large percentage of the NBI. 
These new items in the SNBI will serve to ensure the safety of all 
highway bridges.
    Four State DOTs objected to the addition of the Scour Condition 
Rating item, not appearing to understand its relationship with the 
Scour Vulnerability item. Three commenters expressed support for the 
change.
    FHWA Response: These comments are addressed below in the Subsection 
7.3 (Appraisal) comment responses.
    Two commenters objected to the separation of the Channel Condition 
Rating and Channel Protection Condition Rating into two items; one 
embraced the change.
    FHWA Response: FHWA believes that the separation will improve 
clarity regarding channel condition. No change has been made.
    Ten commenters objected to the inclusion of the Bridge Condition 
Classification and Lowest Condition Rating Code items.
    FHWA Response: These items are calculated by FHWA and are not 
required be collected or reported by the bridge owner. These items are 
related to national bridge performance measures and are provided in the 
SNBI for transparency.
    Six State DOTs expressed concern over the assumption that a 
structural or hydraulic review, or both, must have been completed for a 
condition rating of 4 of less, and what that review might entail.
    FHWA Response: FHWA has clarified the requirement and added 
definitions for ``structural review'' and ``hydraulic review'' in the 
Definitions section.
    Two commenters objected to the language for a condition rating of 4 
or less that states that the strength or performance of the component 
is affected.
    FHWA Response: A rating of 4 or below indicates Poor condition, 
which is defined as affecting the strength or performance of a bridge. 
No change was made to this language.
    One State DOT requested guidance on insignificant defects.
    FHWA Response: As insignificant defects do not affect the rating of 
a bridge component, no guidance is offered. An insignificant defect is 
one that is less than minor.
    Four State DOTs objected to the statement that the wearing surface 
should not be considered in determining the Deck Condition Rating code. 
One of these State DOTs also requested clarification of situations with 
integral wearing surfaces and decks where the underside cannot be seen.
    FHWA Response: The commentary has been updated to address these 
situations and add clarity regarding wearing surfaces.
Subsection 7.2: Element Conditions (Now Subsection 7.2 Element 
Identification and Subsection 7.3 Element Conditions)
    Three commenters indicated support for the inclusion of element 
level bridge data items, seven requested clarification regarding 
reporting of these data for bridges not on the NHS, two were not in 
favor if this resulted in duplicative reporting, and two were opposed.
    FHWA Response: As required by 23 U.S.C. 144, State and Federal 
agencies have been reporting element level data to FHWA for bridges on 
the NHS since April 2015 using guidance provided in the SNBIBE. The 
guidance in the SNBIBE is now included in the SNBI and will not cause 
duplicative reporting of element data, as the SNBIBE will be 
discontinued when the SNBI becomes effective. The introductions to the 
Element Identification and Element Condition subsections have been 
updated to clarify further that element level data are only required to 
be reported to FHWA for bridges that carry NHS routes, while reporting 
is optional for bridges that carry non-NHS routes.
    Two State DOTs recommended deletion of the culvert elements, since 
the Culvert Condition Rating item (Item 62) in the Coding Guide was 
proposed to be discontinued in the SNBI. One State DOT requested 
clarification on the intent of these elements, given the 
discontinuance.
    FHWA Response: The culvert elements have been retained in the SNBI, 
as FHWA has reinstated the Culvert Condition Rating item, and has made 
provisions in the Bridge Material and Type section to accommodate 
bridge-sized culverts.
    Two commenters proposed revisions to the bridge elements table.
    FHWA Response: The proposed changes were not accepted since FHWA 
agreed with AASHTO to adopt the AASHTO MBEI for element descriptions, 
quantity calculations, and condition state definitions. The bridge 
elements table title was revised to ``Bridge elements reported to the 
FHWA'' since there are some elements described in the AASHTO MBEI that 
are not reported to FHWA.
    One commenter requested clarification for reporting elements that 
are typically not exposed for inspection (e.g., piles, pile cap 
footings), but become exposed for an inspection, and are subsequently 
not exposed for the next inspection.
    FHWA Response: Text has been added to clarify reporting 
expectations for this situation, and provides for agency flexibility in 
reporting the element data.

[[Page 27423]]

    One commenter proposed that element level data be reported 
separately, as the file size may become an issue if all data in the 
SNBI is reported together in one file.
    FHWA Response: FHWA will consider and evaluate potential solutions 
to provide options for reporting large data files.
    One commenter proposed that changes be made to FHWA's proposed 
expectations, in the introduction to the Element Conditions subsection, 
that quantities reported to FHWA in condition state four indicate that 
a structural review has been completed.
    FHWA Response: FHWA did not intend to change the condition state 
description in the AASHTO MBEI for condition state four, that indicates 
the following: ``The condition warrants a structural review to 
determine the effect on strength or serviceability of the element or 
bridge; OR a structural review has been completed and the defects 
impact strength or serviceability of the element or bridge.'' Since it 
may not be practical in all cases for a structural review to be 
completed prior to reporting data to FHWA, based on the timing of the 
inspection and the completion of a structural review, the paragraph of 
concern to the commenter has been removed.
    One commenter proposed that the SNBI include the FHWA relationship 
checks between element numbers and element parent numbers.
    FHWA Response: The relationship checks by FHWA are not included in 
the SNBI, but can be found on the internet through FHWA's Policy and 
Guidance Center at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pgc.
    One commenter proposed that it would be easier to understand if the 
Item ID for Element Quantity Condition State items ended in 1, 2, 3, 
and 4 respectively.
    FHWA Response: The Element Conditions section has been separated 
into two subsections, Element Identification and Element Conditions. As 
a result, Item IDs for Element Quantity Condition State items have 
changed to B.CS.01, B.CS.02, B.CS.03, and B.CS.04.
Subsection 7.3: Appraisal (Now 7.4)
    One State DOT noted that the Coding Guide appraisal rating items 
are all rated on a scale of 0-9 and expressed concern that the proposed 
changes to the codes would affect the historic continuity of these 
items. It was further suggested that the proposed alphanumeric codes 
provide no obvious meaning without referring back to the guidance, and 
would incur substantial cost with questionable value. One State DOT 
appreciated the proposed changes to the Approach Roadway Alignment and 
Overtopping Occurrence (now Overtopping Likelihood) items; indicating 
that the items are much simpler. One commenter indicated that the 
addition of the Scour Plan of Action item will clear up confusion and 
help to alert inspectors and others that the bridge has a POA.
    FHWA Response: The SNBI includes two new data items in the 
Appraisal subsection, which provide additional information about 
potential bridge vulnerabilities: Scour Plan of Action and Seismic 
Vulnerability. The Approach Roadway Alignment, Overtopping Likelihood 
(formerly Waterway Adequacy), and Scour Vulnerability (formerly part of 
Scour Critical Bridges) items have been carried over from the Coding 
Guide, but with new codes that are simpler, clearer, and easier to 
understand. Since these items typically do not change from inspection 
to inspection, and the crosswalk of data is well aligned, the 
historical continuity can be maintained, and the cost will not be 
substantial. The following calculated appraisal items from the Coding 
Guide have been discontinued: Structural Evaluation (Item 67), Deck 
Geometry (Item 68), and Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal (Item 
69).
    Four commenters recommended removal of the Overtopping Occurrence 
item, largely due to concerns about potential inaccuracy of the data. 
One commenter proposed a two-character field indicating the number (01 
to 99) of overtopping occurrences, presumably since construction.
    FHWA Response: The name of this item has been changed to 
Overtopping Likelihood and the codes and descriptions changed 
accordingly. This information is valuable for evaluating risk-based 
inspection intervals, evaluating risks for traffic disruptions, 
identifying actions to mitigate risks, and as an indicator of changes 
to the waterway hydraulics that could impact the safety and performance 
of the bridge. The information for reporting the applicable code should 
be readily available, as similar information was needed to report the 
appropriate code for the Waterway Adequacy item (Item 71) in the Coding 
Guide.
    One commenter requested clarifying commentary for the Overtopping 
Occurrence item to address more clearly bridges where the 
superstructure has been washed off the abutments and repairs are made 
without betterments, thereby leaving the bridge at the same elevation 
and the same likelihood for overtopping. Three commenters proposed the 
addition of a code for ``unknown.''
    FHWA Response: Additional commentary has been provided to address 
considerations for determining the appropriate code for existing and 
newer bridges. Recognizing that an ``unknown'' code was not provided in 
the Coding Guide, and that the relevant information should be available 
in the agency's bridge file, a code for ``unknown'' has not been added.
    Four State DOTs objected to the addition of the Scour Condition 
Rating item, not appearing to understand its relationship with the 
Scour Vulnerability item. Three commenters expressed support for the 
separation of the Scour Critical Bridges item (Item 113) in the Coding 
Guide into these two distinct items. Several requested clarification 
regarding the relationship between the code descriptions in the Coding 
Guide and those in the Scour Vulnerability item. Some commenters 
requested additional codes or clarification regarding coding for 
specific situations; one requested clarification as to what will be 
considered ``scour critical.'' One State DOT expressed concern that the 
changes would require a large number of bridges to be reassessed, and 
one indicated concern regarding the resources that would be required to 
perform rigorous scour studies on locally owned bridges.
    FHWA Response: The Scour Vulnerability and Scour Condition Rating 
items are intended to separate potential for scour from field observed 
scour (severity and extent). The Scour Vulnerability item addresses the 
scour critical status and vulnerability determination from scour 
appraisals required by the NBIS, while the Scour Condition Rating item 
captures the actual scour condition as observed during the inspection. 
Though the items and codes have been changed, there is significant 
correlation with the code descriptions for the Scour Critical Bridges 
item (Item 113) in the Coding Guide (Errata 12/01/2003). The codes and 
descriptions have been revised for clarity and for consistency with the 
NBIS definition of a scour critical bridge, and additional commentary 
has been provided to improve further correlation between the SNBI codes 
and those in the Coding Guide. It is not expected that these changes 
will require any bridges to be reassessed or reevaluated for scour, 
unless there are conditions that trigger a need for adjustments to the 
original scour appraisal. Alignment of the codes will be addressed in 
the crosswalk, which will be made available in the coming months.

[[Page 27424]]

    Two commenters recommended a separate code indicating that a scour 
POA has been developed but not implemented.
    FHWA Response: The code descriptions for the Scour Plan of Action 
item have been revised to accommodate this situation.
    Three State DOTs questioned the need for the Seismic Vulnerability 
item. One of these commenters indicated that coding the item would 
require significant resources for low value, and another suggested 
simplifying the item.
    FHWA Response: This item provides available information resulting 
from seismic evaluation and retrofit programs that an agency may have 
performed of its own volition. This item, along with other supporting 
items, can aid in risk assessment and potential needs assessment for 
bridge preservation funding from a national perspective. The codes for 
the item allow for broad interpretation based on the reporting agency's 
methods and evaluation criteria. Seismic evaluation studies should 
already be part of an agency's bridge record/file per Article 2.2.13 of 
the AASHTO MBE, First Edition, 2008, incorporated by reference in the 
NBIS since January 2010. Bridges with seismic retrofit should not 
require a significant amount of time to identify from bridge files if 
the agency is following Article 4.3.5.7.1 of the AASHTO MBE, Third 
Edition, 2018, which outlines procedures for inspection of seismic 
restraint devices. The SNBI provides a code that can be used if an 
agency has bridges that do not require seismic evaluation due to low 
anticipated ground motion or agency prioritization.
Subsection 7.4: Work Events
    Twelve commenters questioned the need for the proposed Construction 
Cost item. Multiple commenters also said the data would be difficult to 
obtain or implied that the data would also need to be reported for 
replacement and rehabilitation projects that occurred prior to 
implementation of the SNBI.
    FHWA Response: The item has been removed based on these comments.

Subpart D--Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program

    One commenter requested that subpart D not be removed and that FHWA 
keep the sufficiency rating used in previous NBIS regulation as it 
provides a process for prioritizing bridge rehabilitation and 
replacement projects. By making the change the State will need to 
undertake significant effort to revise the Federal funding 
prioritization process for bridges.
    FHWA response: It is not the intent of FHWA to revise a 
prioritization process with the removal of subpart D. This subpart was 
removed as the Highway Bridge Program was not reauthorized by MAP-21. 
The MAP-21 restructured core highway formula programs. Activities that 
were carried out under the Highway Bridge Program were incorporated 
into the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface 
Transportation Program (now Surface Transportation Block Grant 
Program). Sufficiency rating is not used by FHWA for funding or 
prioritization of projects. States have the ability to establish their 
own process for prioritizing projects or to continue using the 
sufficiency rating method if so desired.

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51

    FHWA is incorporating by reference the more current versions of the 
manuals listed herein.
    AASHTO's 2008 ``Manual for Bridge Evaluations,'' would be replaced 
with a more current edition of the ``AASHTO Manual for Bridge 
Evaluation.'' Specifically, FHWA is incorporating by reference Sections 
1.4, 2.2, 4.2, 6, and 8, excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1 
of the 2018 Third Edition, together with the 2019 and 2020 Interim 
Revisions of these sections. This document was developed by AASHTO to 
assist bridge owners by establishing inspection procedures and 
evaluation practices that meet FHWA's National Bridge Inspection 
Standards regulatory requirements. The manual is been divided into 
eight sections, with each section representing a distinct phase of an 
overall bridge inspection and evaluation program.
    In addition, FHWA adds the AASHTO MBEI. This document is a 
reference for standardized element definitions, element quantity 
calculations, condition state definitions, element feasible actions, 
and inspection conventions. Its goal is to capture the condition of 
bridges in a simple, effective way that can be standardized nationwide, 
while providing enough flexibility to be adapted by both large and 
small agencies. AASHTO designed the document for use by State 
departments of transportation and other agencies that perform element-
level bridge inspections. This reference supports the Section 1111(a) 
of MAP-21 for element level data to be reported to FHWA for bridges on 
the NHS. The AASHTO MBEI is referenced in FHWA's ``Specification for 
the National Bridge Inventory Bridge Elements,'' and would establish a 
uniform understanding of the inventory data to be reported in order to 
satisfy the statutory requirement.
    Finally, FHWA incorporates by reference FHWA's ``Specifications for 
the National Bridge Inventory'', 2022. The SNBI details how to code and 
submit data gathered on highway bridges for the NBI, including items on 
location, structure type, condition ratings, and inspection dates. This 
document replaces the current Coding Guide and defines the required 
inventory data that is submitted to FHWA to fulfill the requirements of 
Sec.  650.315.
    The documents that FHWA is incorporating by reference are 
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs, local 
agencies, and Tribal governments carrying out Federal-aid highway 
projects. These documents represent the most recent refinements that 
professional organizations have formally accepted and are currently in 
use by the transportation industry. The documents incorporated by 
reference are available on the docket of this rulemaking and at the 
sources identified in the regulatory text below. The specific standards 
are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The final rule is a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Rulemaking and Guidance 
Procedures in DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021). This action complies 
with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve regulation. This action is 
considered significant because of widespread public interest in the 
safety of highway bridges, though not economically significant within 
the meaning of E.O. 12866. FHWA has filed into the docket a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in support of the final 
rule on NBIS. The RIA estimates the economic impact, in terms of costs 
and benefits, on Federal, State, and local governments, as well as 
private entities regulated under this action, as required by E.O. 12866 
and E.O. 13563.
    This section identifies the estimated costs and benefits resulting 
from the rule in order to inform policy makers and the public of the 
relative value of this action. The complete RIA may be accessed from 
the rulemaking's docket (FHWA-2017-0047).
    The docket for the rulemaking included an RIA analyzing the 
economic impacts of the proposed rule.

[[Page 27425]]

The NPRM received 256 comments in relation to the NBIS and the SNBI, 
some of which pertained to the RIA.
    This RIA has been updated to reflect public comments provided in 
response to the NPRM RIA. The RIA comments came exclusively from State 
agencies and related to absence of cost estimation for the changes to 
the SNBI. In particular, States estimated that they will incur costs 
due to the SNBI changes, including the following issues:
    <bullet> The increased costs associated with updating software and 
software systems to accommodate additional data or recoding of existing 
variables.
    <bullet> The increased costs associated with inspections due to the 
additional inspection categories in the updated SNBI compared to the 
existing coding guide.
    <bullet> The increased cost associated with updating inspection 
manuals and inspector trainings to be consistent with the updated SNBI.
    In response to those concerns, this RIA has been updated to include 
estimates of the additional cost associated with the SNBI changes. The 
specific adjustments are detailed in Section 4.3 of the RIA found on 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    Additionally, States were concerned that the NPRM RIA did not 
address the benefits of the proposed rule. The RIA has also been 
updated to include a qualitative discussion of those benefits.
    In addition to the changes made in response to the public comment, 
a number of input values to the economic analysis have been updated in 
this final rule RIA compared to the NPRM RIA. The updates include:
    <bullet> The effective date of the rule has been changed to 2022 
rather than 2020. This changes the period of analysis from 2020-2029 to 
2022-2031.
    <bullet> The wage rates have been updated to the 2019 values from 
the 2016 values used in the NPRM RIA.
    <bullet> Rather than analyzing the cost savings from assuming 1 
percent of eligible bridges use the expanded inspection interval as was 
used in the NPRM, this economic assessment uses uncertainty analysis in 
relation to the share of bridges that are expected to use the Method 1 
extended interval of 48 months which requires a simplified risk 
inspection and the Method 2 extended interval of up to 72 months under 
Method 2 which requires a detailed risk inspection (compared to the 
currently required 24-month interval). The FHWA anticipates that 
agencies will infrequently use the Method 2 for intervals greater than 
48 months and that a plausible range for the share of bridges inspected 
under Method 1 is 30 to 65 percent. That range is based on data on the 
number of States that currently use the 48-month exception for any 
bridges/culverts,\16\ public comment from the NPRM, and other 
information about State agencies practices (e.g., State law and 
Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs)). The justification for 
this range is described more fully under Section 3 of the RIA under 
Section 650.311: Inspection Interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under existing NBIS policies, an agency may request that a 
bridge may be inspected under a 48-month inspection interval based 
on relatively stringent requirements which excludes bridges: With 
any condition rating of 5 or less; (b) that have inventory ratings 
less than the State's legal load; (c) with spans greater than 100' 
in length; (d) without load path redundancy; (e) that are very 
susceptible to vehicular damage, e.g., structures with vertical over 
or underclearances less than 14'-0'', narrow thru or pony trusses. 
The requirements for a 48-month inspection frequency policy are 
described in the FHWA Technical Advisory T 5140.21 dated September 
16, 1988. This document is available on-line at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/techadvs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> The share of bridges that currently use a 24-month 
interval that are expected to use a 12-month interval is 100 percent, 
reflective of the requirement of the rulemaking. This provision is new 
to the final rulemaking and was not included in the original NPRM RIA.
    <bullet> The cost of inspections has been updated. The NPRM RIA 
assumed that on average a regular inspection required 4 hours of 
engineer time to complete at a total cost of $257.\17\ Based on public 
comment,\18\ available inspection cost data, interviews with Federal 
and State agencies, and FHWA program office input, the final rule RIA 
updates the average cost per bridge inspection to be $2,000. The 
justification of this average inspection costs is detailed in Section 
4.2 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The total cost of inspection used in the NPRM RIA was 
estimated using the average loaded wage rage for civil engineers in 
2016 from BLS ($64.19) and an assumption of 4 hours per inspection 
(4 hours x $64.19 = $257.76 in 2016 dollars).
    \18\ Comments from NYSDOT. FHWA-2017-0047-0138. Accessible from: 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FHWA-2017-0047-0138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Cost of the Final Rule

    To estimate costs for the final rule, FHWA assessed the level of 
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, and capital 
investments needed to comply with each component of the rule. Level of 
effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to 
estimate total costs.
    The rulemaking will impose some additional costs on agencies but 
will also create opportunities for cost savings. The cost savings are 
due to the risk-based inspection interval approach that allows for a 
potentially large number of bridges that currently use a 24-month 
inspection interval to use Method 1 48-month inspection interval 
instead. The actual number of bridges for which this expanded 
inspection interval will be adopted is unclear; therefore, this 
assessment uses an uncertainty analysis on this key parameter. FHWA 
judges a plausible range to be that 30 to 65 percent of eligible 
bridges will use the Method 1 48-month risk-based inspection interval 
rather than a 24-month inspection interval. The informational basis for 
this range is described in RIA Section 3 under Section 650.311: 
Inspection Interval.
    While the rulemaking provides cost saving on net, there are several 
components of the rule that increase costs. The largest cost increases 
come from the impacts of the updated SNBI (Sec.  650.315), which will 
require States to upgrade software systems, update inspection manuals, 
train inspectors, and will increase the hours required for inspection 
for all bridges for the first inspection after the compliance date of 
the provision. The other important source of cost increases come from 
the risk-based approach requirement that some bridges will be inspected 
at 12-month intervals rather than the current 24-month intervals, which 
will increase the frequency of inspections and therefore increase 
costs.
    Table 1 displays the total cost of the final rule (2019$) for the 
10-year analysis period (2022-2031) assuming that either 30 or 65 
percent of eligible bridges will use the Method 1 risk-based 48-month 
inspection interval rather than the 24-month inspection interval. The 
total cost savings of the rule for the 10-year study period (2022-2031) 
is between -$4.6 and -$195.4 million discounted at 7 percent.
    The provisions required by MAP-21 (Sec. Sec.  650.303, 650.309, and 
650.313) have total cost of $7.1 million over the 10-year analysis 
period when discounted at 7 percent. The other discretionary provisions 
that impose costs have a 10-year discounted value of -$11.7 to -$202.5 
million. The cost savings associated with the provision related to 
expanded inspection intervals has a plausible range for 10-year 
discounted costs of -$131.0 to -$321.7 million.

Estimated Benefits of the Rule

    The FHWA believes the rule will be net beneficial to society but is 
unable to monetize or quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. These 
benefits are centered around bridge safety, which was the original 
premise for developing this regulation when it was initiated in 1971.

[[Page 27426]]

This regulation will result in more consistent inspections and output 
from bridge inspections, better-qualified inspection personnel, and 
more robust reporting on structural and safety related deficiencies 
found during bridge inspections.
    The benefits are separated into two categories: The benefits due to 
the NBIS changes and the benefits due to the SNBI changes. The FHWA 
believes that the benefits of each provision outweigh its costs. The 
NBIS changes will reduce the risk of negative safety impacts from 
sudden bridge deterioration of bridges at lower condition ratings, 
produce more consistent outputs from bridge inspections, enable better 
qualified inspection personnel, and result in more consistent reporting 
on structural or safety-related deficiencies. At the same time, FHWA 
does not expect that the rule will result in any safety disbenefits due 
to increased inspection intervals for some bridges. The SNBI changes 
are necessary for FHWA's required reports to Congress and will provide 
FHWA with additional data by including additional data elements in 
their ongoing bridge safety analysis practices which support various 
bridge safety programs including oversight of the NBIS and supporting 
the development of emergency response plans.
    The safety benefits of the rule primarily come from the requirement 
for increased inspections for safety critical bridges, which are 
required to be inspected at a 12-month interval rather than the current 
24-month interval. These increased inspections are expected to result 
in agencies identifying deteriorating conditions on bridges sooner than 
under the current rule. By identifying those conditions sooner, 
agencies can take safety mitigation measure more quickly. Those 
mitigation activities could include: Repairs, reducing allowed load 
weights, reducing traffic volumes on the bridge through lane closures, 
or bridge closures. By taking those actions sooner, the agencies will 
better protect the asset and the traveling public. However, those 
benefits are difficult to quantify.
    The FHWA does not believe there will be safety disbenefits due to 
any provision of the rule. While the final rule allows agencies to 
increase the inspection interval from 24 months to 48 months for 
bridges that have condition ratings of 6 or above under method 1, it 
does not require them to do so. The expectation is that States would 
choose to use the Method 1 48-month interval in low-risk situations. 
Similarly, Method 2, which allows inspection intervals up to 72 months 
if the bridge passes a detailed risk analysis, is not required. The 
expectation is that agencies will rarely choose the Method 2 72-month 
interval, e.g., maybe on pre-stressed single-span concrete bridges with 
low vehicle volume over low-risk streams. Agencies would not use Method 
2 simply because a bridge has a high condition rating, e.g., new 
bridges. If a specific bridge experienced an event that might cause its 
condition to change suddenly such as an adverse weather event, a 
strike, or construction activity, the agency will still be required to 
conduct initial and special inspections under Sec.  650.311(d) of the 
regulations. The rulemaking follows the recommendations of the NCHRP 
Report 782, Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices which demonstrated and verified that inspection intervals of 
72 months (24 months longer than the proposed rulemaking) will be 
suitable for certain bridges based on their risk profiles.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
2014. Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection 
Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 27427]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MY22.023

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 27428]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

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

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, 
for further information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The first data 
collection in the SNBI format will be in March 2026, which will be 
discussed in the 2024 notice. Until then, annual data collection will 
continue under the current notice.
    This action contains a collection of information requirement under 
the PRA that is covered under existing OMB Control number 2125-0501.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, FHWA identified potential effects on 
federally recognized Indian Tribes that might result from this rule. 
Accordingly, during the development of the NPRM, FHWA conducted a 
webinar on August 7, 2014, in furtherance of its duty to consult with 
Tribal governments under E.O. 13175 ``Consultation and Coordination 
With Indian Tribal Governments.'' The webinar dealt with the NBIS and 
mentioned that FHWA was planning to publish an NPRM sometime in the 
future that would include requirements for bridges owned by Tribal 
governments. The date and time of the webinar had been announced to the 
Tribal governments through the seven Tribal Technical Assistance 
Program centers. A total of 35 connections were on the webinar with one 
or more persons on each connection. Two Tribal governments were 
identified on the connections and at least one consultant that works 
with the Tribes was on the webinar. A number of the personnel on the 
webinar were from BIA and FHWA.
    The webinar was conducted by three bridge engineers and one 
attorney all from FHWA. The PowerPoint presentation and narrative 
covered the history of the NBIS, the NBIS general requirements based on 
the current NBIS, and a final section considering the impacts on the 
Tribal governments caused by the 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2) amendments to the 
NBIS. There was a question and answer period after the presentation 
where general questions about the NBIS were discussed as well as 
impacts to bridges owned by Tribal governments. Issues discussed 
included why a NPRM was needed, if trail bridges and pedestrian bridges 
were subject to the NBIS, and what funding was available for the bridge 
inspections. The webinar lasted for nearly an hour and was terminated 
when no more questions were asked. The webinar was recorded and 
uploaded onto the Tribal Transportation Program Bridge website \20\ 
maintained by FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/bridges/bip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tribal governments did not submit any comments in response to the 
NPRM. FHWA continues to work closely with Tribal governments on the 
implementation of the NBIS program through BIA coordination.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. FHWA has 
determined that this final rule does not raise any environmental 
justice issues.

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.85(a)(1).
Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

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

[[Page 27429]]

PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS

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

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


0
2. Revise subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
Sec.
650.301 Purpose.
650.303 Applicability.
650.305 Definitions.
650.307 Bridge inspection organization responsibilities.
650.309 Qualification of personnel.
650.311 Inspection interval.
650.313 Inspection procedures.
650.315 Inventory.
650.317 Incorporation by reference.

Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)


Sec.  650.301  Purpose.

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


Sec.  650.303  Applicability.

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


Sec.  650.305  Definitions.

    The following terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
    AASHTO Manual. The term ``AASHTO Manual'' means the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 
``Manual for Bridge Evaluation'', including Interim Revisions, 
excluding the 3rd paragraph in Article 6B.7.1, incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  650.317.
    Attribute. Characteristic of the design, loading, conditions, and 
environment that affect the reliability of a bridge or bridge member.
    Bridge. A structure including supports erected over a depression or 
an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track 
or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an 
opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet 
between under copings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or 
extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it includes multiple 
pipes, where the clear distance between openings is less than half of 
the smaller contiguous opening.
    Bridge inspection experience. Active participation in bridge 
inspections in accordance with the this subpart, in either a field 
inspection, supervisory, or management role. Some of the experience may 
come from relevant bridge design, bridge load rating, bridge 
construction, and bridge maintenance experience provided it develops 
the skills necessary to properly perform a NBIS bridge inspection.
    Bridge inspection refresher training. The National Highway 
Institute \1\ (NHI) ``Bridge Inspection Refresher Training Course'' or 
other State, federally, or tribally developed instruction aimed to 
improve quality of inspections, introduce new techniques, and maintain 
consistency in the inspection program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual or the BIRM. A comprehensive 
FHWA manual on procedures and techniques for inspecting and evaluating 
a variety of in-service highway bridges. This manual is available at 
the following URL: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm. This manual may be 
purchased from the Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 
and from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
    Complex feature. Bridge component(s) or member(s) with advanced or 
unique structural members or operational characteristics, construction 
methods, and/or requiring specific inspection procedures. This includes 
mechanical and electrical elements of moveable spans and cable-related 
members of suspension and cable-stayed superstructures.
    Comprehensive bridge inspection training. Training that covers all 
aspects of bridge inspection and enables inspectors to relate 
conditions observed on a bridge to established criteria (see the BIRM 
for the recommended material to be covered in a comprehensive training 
course).
    Consequence. A measure of impacts to structural safety and 
serviceability in a hypothetical scenario where a deterioration mode 
progresses to the point of requiring immediate action. This may include 
costs to restore the bridge to safe operating condition or other costs.
    Critical finding. A structural or safety related deficiency that 
requires immediate action to ensure public safety.
    Damage inspection. An unscheduled inspection to assess structural 
damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions.
    Deterioration mode. Typical deterioration or damage affecting the 
condition of a bridge member that may affect the structural safety or 
serviceability of the bridge.
    Element level bridge inspection data. Quantitative condition 
assessment data, collected during bridge inspections, that indicates 
the severity and extent of defects in bridge elements.
    End-of-course assessment. A comprehensive examination given to 
students after the completion of the delivery of a training course.
    Hands-on inspection. Inspection within arm's length of the member. 
Inspection uses visual techniques that may be supplemented by 
nondestructive evaluation techniques.
    Highway. The term ``highway'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    In-depth inspection. A close-up, detailed inspection of one or more 
bridge members located above or below water, using visual or 
nondestructive evaluation techniques as required to identify any 
deficiencies not readily detectable using routine inspection 
procedures. Hands-on inspection may be necessary at some locations. In-
depth inspections may occur more or less frequently than routine 
inspections, as outlined in bridge specific inspection procedures.
    Initial inspection. The first inspection of a new, replaced, or 
rehabilitated bridge. This inspection serves to record required bridge 
inventory data, establish baseline conditions, and establish the 
intervals for other inspection types.
    Inspection date. The date on which the field portion of the bridge 
inspection is completed.
    Inspection due date. The last inspection date plus the current 
inspection interval.
    Inspection report. The document which summarizes the bridge 
inspection findings, recommendations, and identifies the team leader 
responsible for the inspection and report.
    Internal redundancy. A redundancy that exists within a primary 
member cross-section without load path redundancy, such that fracture 
of one component will not propagate through the entire member, is 
discoverable by the applicable inspection procedures, and will not 
cause a portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.
    Inventory data. All data reported to the National Bridge Inventory 
(NBI) in accordance with the Sec.  650.315.

[[Page 27430]]

    Legal load. The maximum load for each vehicle configuration, 
including the weight of the vehicle and its payload, permitted by law 
for the State in which the bridge is located.
    Legal load rating. The maximum permissible legal load to which the 
structure may be subjected with the unlimited numbers of passages over 
the duration of a specified bridge evaluation period. Legal load rating 
is a term used in Load and Resistance Factor Rating method.
    Load path redundancy. A redundancy that exists based on the number 
of primary load-carrying members between points of support, such that 
fracture of the cross section at one location of a member will not 
cause a portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.
    Load posting. Regulatory signs installed in accordance with 23 CFR 
655.601 and State or local law which represent the maximum vehicular 
live load which the bridge may safely carry.
    Load rating. The analysis to determine the safe vehicular live load 
carrying capacity of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by 
measurements and other information gathered from an inspection.
    Nationally certified bridge inspector. An individual meeting the 
team leader requirements of Sec.  650.309(b).
    Nonredundant Steel Tension Member (NSTM). A primary steel member 
fully or partially in tension, and without load path redundancy, system 
redundancy or internal redundancy, whose failure may cause a portion of 
or the entire bridge to collapse.
    NSTM inspection. A hands-on inspection of a nonredundant steel 
tension member.
    NSTM inspection training. Training that covers all aspects of NSTM 
inspections to relate conditions observed on a bridge to established 
criteria.
    Operating rating. The maximum permissible live load to which the 
structure may be subjected for the load configuration used in the load 
rating. Allowing unlimited numbers of vehicles to use the bridge at 
operating level may shorten the life of the bridge. Operating rating is 
a term used in either the Allowable Stress or Load Factor Rating 
method.
    Private bridge. A bridge open to public travel and not owned by a 
public authority as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    Procedures. Written documentation of policies, methods, 
considerations, criteria, and other conditions that direct the actions 
of personnel so that a desired end result is achieved consistently.
    Probability. Extent to which an event is likely to occur during a 
given interval. This may be based on the frequency of events, such as 
in the quantitative probability of failure, or on degree of belief or 
expectation. Degrees of belief about probability can be chosen using 
qualitative scales, ranks, or categories such as, remote, low, 
moderate, or high.
    Professional engineer (PE). An individual, who has fulfilled 
education and experience requirements and passed examinations for 
professional engineering and/or structural engineering license that, 
under State licensure laws, permits the individual to offer engineering 
services within areas of expertise directly to the public.
    Program manager. The individual in charge of the program, that has 
been assigned the duties and responsibilities for bridge inspection, 
reporting, and inventory, and has the overall responsibility to ensure 
the program conforms with the requirements of this subpart. The program 
manager provides overall leadership and is available to inspection team 
leaders to provide guidance.
    Public road. The term ``public road'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    Quality assurance (QA). The use of sampling and other measures to 
assure the adequacy of QC procedures in order to verify or measure the 
quality level of the entire bridge inspection and load rating program.
    Quality control (QC). Procedures that are intended to maintain the 
quality of a bridge inspection and load rating at or above a specified 
level.
    Rehabilitation. The major work required to restore the structural 
integrity of a bridge as well as work necessary to correct major safety 
defects.
    Risk. The exposure to the possibility of structural safety or 
serviceability loss during the interval between inspections. It is the 
combination of the probability of an event and its consequence.
    Risk assessment panel (RAP). A group of well experienced panel 
members that performs a rigorous assessment of risk to establish policy 
for bridge inspection intervals.
    Routine inspection. Regularly scheduled comprehensive inspection 
consisting of observations and measurements needed to determine the 
physical and functional condition of the bridge and identify changes 
from previously recorded conditions.
    Routine permit load. A live load, which has a gross weight, axle 
weight, or distance between axles not conforming with State statutes 
for legally configured vehicles, authorized for unlimited trips over an 
extended period of time to move alongside other heavy vehicles on a 
regular basis.
    Safe load capacity. A live load that can safely utilize a bridge 
repeatedly over the duration of a specified inspection interval.
    Scour. Erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water; 
often considered as being localized around piers and abutments of 
bridges.
    Scour appraisal. A risk-based and data-driven determination of a 
bridge's vulnerability to scour, resulting from the least stable result 
of scour that is either observed, or estimated through a scour 
evaluation or a scour assessment.
    Scour assessment. The determination of an existing bridge's 
vulnerability to scour which considers stream stability and scour 
potential.
    Scour critical bridge. A bridge with a foundation member that is 
unstable, or may become unstable, as determined by the scour appraisal.
    Scour evaluation. The application of hydraulic analysis to estimate 
scour depths and determine bridge and substructure stability 
considering potential scour.
    Scour plan of action (POA). Procedures for bridge inspectors and 
engineers in managing each bridge determined to be scour critical or 
that has unknown foundations.
    Service inspection. An inspection to identify major deficiencies 
and safety issues, performed by personnel with general knowledge of 
bridge maintenance or bridge inspection.
    Special inspection. An inspection scheduled at the discretion of 
the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected 
deficiency, or to monitor special details or unusual characteristics of 
a bridge that does not necessarily have defects.
    Special permit load. A live load, which has a gross weight, axle 
weight, or distance between axles not conforming with State statutes 
for legally configured vehicles and routine permit loads, typically 
authorized for single or limited trips.
    State transportation department. The term ``State transportation 
department'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
    System redundancy. A redundancy that exists in a bridge system 
without load path redundancy, such that fracture of the cross section 
at one location of a primary member will not cause a portion of or the 
entire bridge to collapse.
    Team leader. The on-site, nationally certified bridge inspector in 
charge of an inspection team and responsible for planning, preparing, 
performing, and reporting on bridge field inspections.

[[Page 27431]]

    Temporary bridge. A bridge which is constructed to carry highway 
traffic until the permanent facility is built, repaired, rehabilitated, 
or replaced.
    Underwater bridge inspection diver. The individual performing the 
inspection of the underwater portion of the bridge.
    Underwater Bridge Inspection Manual. A comprehensive FHWA manual on 
the procedures and techniques for underwater bridge inspection. This 
manual is available at the following URL: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm. This manual may be purchased from the Government Publishing 
Office, Washington, DC 20402 and from National Technical Information 
Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
    Underwater bridge inspection training. Training that covers all 
aspects of underwater bridge inspection to relate the conditions of 
underwater bridge members to established criteria (see Underwater 
Bridge Inspection Manual and the BIRM section on underwater inspection 
for the recommended material to be covered in an underwater bridge 
inspection training course).
    Underwater inspection. Inspection of the underwater portion of a 
bridge substructure and the surrounding channel, which cannot be 
inspected visually at low water or by wading or probing, and generally 
requiring diving or other appropriate techniques.
    Unknown Foundations. Foundations of bridges over waterways where 
complete details are unknown because either the foundation type and 
depth are unknown, or the foundation type is known, but its depth is 
unknown, and therefore cannot be appraised for scour vulnerability.


Sec.  650.307  Bridge inspection organization responsibilities.

    (a) Each State transportation department must perform, or cause to 
be performed, the proper inspection and evaluation of all highway 
bridges that are fully or partially located within the State's 
boundaries, except for bridges that are owned by Federal agencies or 
Tribal governments.
    (b) Each Federal agency must perform, or cause to be performed, the 
proper inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges that are fully 
or partially located within the respective Federal agency's 
responsibility or jurisdiction.
    (c) Each Tribal government, in consultation with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA) or FHWA, must perform, or cause to be performed, 
the proper inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges that are 
fully or partially located within the respective Tribal government's 
responsibility or jurisdiction.
    (d) Where a bridge crosses a border between a State transportation 
department, Federal agency, or Tribal government jurisdiction, all 
entities must determine through a joint written agreement the 
responsibilities of each entity for that bridge under this subpart, 
including the designated lead State for reporting NBI data.
    (e) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, and 
Tribal government must include a bridge inspection organization that is 
responsible for the following:
    (1) Developing and implementing written Statewide, Federal 
agencywide, or Tribal governmentwide bridge inspection policies and 
procedures;
    (2) Maintaining a registry of nationally certified bridge 
inspectors that are performing the duties of a team leader in their 
State or Federal agency or Tribal government that includes, at a 
minimum, a method to positively identify each inspector, inspector's 
qualification records, inspector's current contact information, and 
detailed information about any adverse action that may affect the good 
standing of the inspector;
    (3) Documenting the criteria for inspection intervals for the 
inspection types identified in these standards;
    (4) Documenting the roles and responsibilities of personnel 
involved in the bridge inspection program;
    (5) Managing bridge inspection reports and files;
    (6) Performing quality control and quality assurance activities;
    (7) Preparing, maintaining, and reporting bridge inventory data;
    (8) Producing valid load ratings and when required, implementing 
load posting or other restrictions;
    (9) Managing the activities and corrective actions taken in 
response to a critical finding;
    (10) Managing scour appraisals and scour plans of action; and
    (11) Managing other requirements of these standards.
    (f) Functions identified in paragraphs (e)(3) through (11) of this 
section may be delegated to other individuals, agencies, or entities. 
The delegated roles and functions of all individuals, agencies, and 
entities involved must be documented by the responsible State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government. Except 
as provided below, such delegation does not relieve the State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government of any 
of its responsibilities under this subpart. A Tribal government may, 
with BIA's or FHWA's concurrence via a formal written agreement, 
delegate its functions and responsibilities under this subpart to the 
BIA or FHWA.
    (g) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government bridge inspection organization must have a program manager 
with the qualifications defined in Sec.  650.309(a). An employee of the 
BIA or FHWA having the qualification of a program manager as defined in 
Sec.  650.309(a) may serve as the program manager for a Tribal 
government if the Tribal government delegates this responsibility to 
the BIA or FHWA in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.


Sec.  650.309  Qualifications of personnel.

    (a) A program manager must, at a minimum:
    (1) Be a registered Professional Engineer, or have 10 years of 
bridge inspection experience;
    (2) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training course as described in paragraph (h) of this section and score 
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of 
FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection training under FHWA 
regulations in this subpart in effect before June 6, 2022, satisfies 
the intent of the requirement in this paragraph (a));
    (3) Complete a cumulative total of 18 hours of FHWA-approved bridge 
inspection refresher training over each 60 month period;
    (4) Maintain documentation supporting the satisfaction of 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section; and
    (5) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (a) within 24 months 
from June 6, 2022, if serving as a program manager who was qualified 
under prior FHWA regulations in this subpart.
    (b) A team leader must, at a minimum:
    (1) Meet one of the four qualifications listed in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:
    (i) Be a registered Professional Engineer and have 6 months of 
bridge inspection experience;
    (ii) Have 5 years of bridge inspection experience;
    (iii) Have all of the following:
    (A) A bachelor's degree in engineering or engineering technology 
from a college or university accredited by or determined as 
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 
Technology; and
    (B) Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for 
Engineering

[[Page 27432]]

and Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination; and
    (C) Two (2) years of bridge inspection experience; or
    (iv) Have all of the following:
    (A) An associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology 
from a college or university accredited by or determined as 
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 
Technology; and
    (B) Four (4) years of bridge inspection experience;
    (2) Complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection 
training course as described in paragraph (h) of this section and score 
70 percent or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of 
FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection training under FHWA 
regulations in this subpart in effect before June 6, 2022, satisfies 
the intent of the requirement in this paragraph (b));
    (3) Complete a cumulative total of 18 hours of FHWA-approved bridge 
inspection refresher training over each 60 month period;
    (4) Provide documentation supporting the satisfaction of paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section to the program manager of each State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government for 
which they are performing bridge inspections; and
    (5) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (b) within 24 months 
from June 6, 2022, if serving as a team leader who was qualified under 
prior FHWA regulations in this subpart.
    (c) Team leaders on NSTM inspections must, at a minimum:
    (1) Meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (2) Complete an FHWA-approved training course on the inspection of 
NSTMs as defined in paragraph (h) of this section and score 70 percent 
or greater on an end-of-course assessment (completion of FHWA-approved 
NSTM inspection training prior to June 6, 2022, satisfies the intent of 
the requirement in this paragraph (c)); and
    (3) Satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (c) within 24 months 
from June 6, 2022.
    (d) Load ratings must be performed by, or under the direct 
supervision of, a registered professional engineer.
    (e) An Underwater Bridge Inspection Diver must complete FHWA-
approved underwater bridge inspection training as described in 
paragraph (h) of this section and score 70 percent or greater on an 
end-of-course assessment (completion of FHWA-approved comprehensive 
bridge inspection training or FHWA-approved underwater bridge 
inspection training under FHWA regulations in this subpart in effect 
before June 6, 2022, satisfies the intent of the requirement in this 
paragraph (e)).
    (f) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments must establish documented personnel qualifications for 
Damage and Special Inspection types.
    (g) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments that establish risk-based routine inspection intervals that 
exceed 48 months under Sec.  650.311(a)(2) must establish documented 
personnel qualifications for the Service Inspection type.
    (h) The following are considered acceptable bridge inspection 
training:
    (1) National Highway Institute training. Acceptable NHI courses 
include:
    (i) Comprehensive bridge inspection training, which must include 
topics of importance to bridge inspection; bridge mechanics and 
terminology; personal and public safety issues associated with bridge 
inspections; properties and deficiencies of concrete, steel, timber, 
and masonry; inspection equipment needs for various types of bridges 
and site conditions; inspection procedures, evaluations, documentation, 
data collection, and critical findings for bridge decks, 
superstructures, substructures, culverts, waterways (including 
underwater members), joints, bearings, drainage systems, lighting, 
signs, and traffic safety features; nondestructive evaluation 
techniques; load path redundancy and fatigue concepts; and practical 
applications of the concepts listed in this paragraph (h)(1)(i);
    (ii) Bridge inspection refresher training, which must include 
topics on documentation of inspections, commonly miscoded items, 
recognition of critical inspection findings, recent events impacting 
bridge inspections, and quality assurance activities;
    (iii) Underwater bridge inspection training, which must include 
topics on the need for and benefits of underwater bridge inspections; 
typical defects and deterioration in underwater members; inspection 
equipment needs for various types of bridges and site conditions; 
inspection planning and hazard analysis; and underwater inspection 
procedures, evaluations, documentation, data collection, and critical 
findings; and
    (iv) NSTM inspection training, which must include topics on the 
identification of NSTMs and related problematic structural details; the 
recognition of areas most susceptible to fatigue and fracture; the 
evaluation and recording of defects on NSTMs; and the application of 
nondestructive evaluation techniques.
    (2) FHWA approval of alternate training. A State transportation 
department, Federal agency, or Tribal government may submit to FHWA a 
training course as an alternate to any of the NHI courses listed in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. An alternate must include all the 
topics described in paragraph (h)(1) and be consistent with the related 
content. FHWA must approve alternate course materials and end-of-course 
assessments for national consistency and certification purposes. 
Alternate training courses must be reviewed by the program manager 
every 5 years to ensure the material is current. Updates to approved 
course materials and end-of-course assessments must be resubmitted to 
FHWA for approval.
    (3) FHWA-approved alternate training under prior regulations. 
Agencies that have alternate training courses approved by FHWA prior to 
June 6, 2022, have 24 months to review and update training materials to 
satisfy requirements as defined in Sec.  650.305 and paragraph (h)(1) 
of this section and resubmit to FHWA for approval.


Sec.  650.311  Inspection interval.

    (a) Routine inspections. Each bridge must be inspected at regular 
intervals not to exceed the interval established using one of the risk-
based methods outlined in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified 
assessment of risk to classify each bridge into one of three categories 
with an inspection interval as described below.
    (i) Regular intervals. Each bridge must be inspected at regular 
intervals not to exceed 24 months, except as required in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section and allowed in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) of 
this section.
    (ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document 
criteria used to determine when intervals must be reduced below 24 
months. Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials, 
age, condition ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily 
traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle 
impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known 
deficiencies.
    (B) Certain bridges meeting any of the following criteria as 
recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) (see Sec.  650.315) 
must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 12 months:

[[Page 27433]]

    (1) One or more of the deck, superstructure, or substructure, or 
culvert components is rated in serious or worse condition, as recorded 
by the Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure Condition Rating items, or 
the Culvert Condition Rating item, coded three (3) or less; or
    (2) The observed scour condition is rated serious or worse, as 
recorded by the Scour Condition Rating item coded three (3) or less.
    (C) Where condition ratings are coded three (3) or less due to 
localized deficiencies, a special inspection limited to those 
deficiencies, as described in Sec.  650.313(h), can be used to meet 
this requirement in lieu of a routine inspection. In such cases, a 
complete routine inspection must be conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain bridges meeting all of the 
following criteria as recorded in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) may be 
inspected at intervals not to exceed 48 months:
    (1) The deck, superstructure, and substructure, or culvert, 
components are all rated in satisfactory or better condition, as 
recorded by the Deck, Superstructure, and Substructure Condition Rating 
items, or the Culvert Condition Rating item coded six (6) or greater;
    (2) The channel and channel protection are rated in satisfactory or 
better condition, as recorded by the Channel Condition and Channel 
Protection Condition items coded six (6) or greater;
    (3) The inventory rating is greater than or equal to the standard 
AASHTO HS-20 or HL-93 loading and routine permit loads are not 
restricted or not carried/issued, as recorded by the Inventory Load 
Rating Factor item coded greater than or equal to 1.0 and the Routine 
Permit Loads item coded A or N;
    (4) A steel bridge does not have Category E or E' fatigue details, 
as recorded by the Fatigue Details item coded N;
    (5) All roadway vertical clearances are greater than or equal to 
14'-0'', as recorded in the Highway Minimum Vertical Clearance item;
    (6) All superstructure materials limited to concrete and steel and 
all superstructure types limited to certain arches, box girders/beams, 
frames, girders/beams, slabs, and culverts, as recorded by the Span 
Material items coded C01-C05 or S01-S05, and the Span Type items coded 
A01, B02-B03, F01-F02, G01-G08, S01-S02, or P01-P02; and
    (7) Stable for potential scour and observed scour condition is 
rated satisfactory or better, as recorded by the Scour Vulnerability 
item coded A or B and the Scour Condition Rating item coded six (6) or 
greater.
    (B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal 
governments that implement paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section 
must develop and document an extended interval policy and must notify 
FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Factors to consider include 
structure type, design, materials, age, condition ratings, scour, 
environment, annual average daily traffic and annual average daily 
truck traffic, history of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe load 
capacity, and other known deficiencies.
    (2) Method 2. Inspection intervals are determined by a more 
rigorous assessment of risk to classify each bridge, or a group of 
bridges, into one of four categories, with inspection intervals not to 
exceed 12, 24, 48, or 72 months. The risk assessment process must be 
developed by a Risk Assessment Panel (RAP) and documented as a formal 
policy. The RAP must be comprised of not less than four people, at 
least two of which are professional engineers, with collective 
knowledge in bridge design, evaluation, inspection, maintenance, 
materials, and construction, and include the NBIS program manager. The 
policy and criteria which establishes intervals, including subsequent 
changes, must be submitted by the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or Tribal government for FHWA approval. The request 
must include the items in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 
section:
    (i) Endorsement from a RAP, which must be used to develop a formal 
policy.
    (ii) Definitions for risk factors, categories, and the probability 
and consequence levels that are used to define the risk for each bridge 
to be assessed.
    (iii) Deterioration modes and attributes that are used in 
classifying probability and consequence levels, depending on their 
relevance to the bridge being considered. A system of screening, 
scoring, and thresholds are defined by the RAP to assess the risks. 
Scoring is based on prioritizing attributes and their relative 
influence on deterioration modes.
    (A) A set of screening criteria must be used to determine how a 
bridge should be considered in the assessment and to establish maximum 
inspection intervals. The screening criteria must include:
    (1) Requirements for flexure and shear cracking in concrete primary 
load members;
    (2) Requirements for fatigue cracking and corrosion in steel 
primary load members;
    (3) Requirements for other details, loadings, conditions, and 
inspection findings that are likely to affect the safety or 
serviceability of the bridge or its members;
    (4) Bridges classified as in poor condition cannot have an 
inspection interval greater than 24 months; and
    (5) Bridges classified as in fair condition cannot have an 
inspection interval greater than 48 months.
    (B) The attributes in each assessment must include material 
properties, loads and safe load capacity, and condition.
    (C) The deterioration modes in each assessment must include:
    (1) For steel members: Section loss, fatigue, and fracture;
    (2) For concrete members: Flexural cracking, shear cracking, and 
reinforcing and prestressing steel corrosion;
    (3) For superstructure members: Settlement, rotation, overload, and 
vehicle/vessel impact; and
    (4) For substructure members: Settlement, rotation, and scour.
    (D) A set of criteria to assess risk for each bridge member in 
terms of probability and consequence of structural safety or 
serviceability loss in the time between inspections.
    (iv) A set of risk assessment criteria, written in standard logical 
format amenable for computer programming.
    (v) Supplemental inspection procedures and data collection that are 
aligned with the level of inspection required to obtain the data to 
apply the criteria.
    (vi) A list classifying each bridge into one of four risk 
categories with a routine inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, 48, 
or 72 months.
    (3) Service inspection. A service inspection must be performed 
during the month midway between routine inspections when a risk-based, 
routine inspection interval exceeds 48 months.
    (4) Additional routine inspection interval eligibility. Any new, 
rehabilitated, or structurally modified bridge must receive an initial 
inspection, be in service for 24 months, and receive its next routine 
inspection before being eligible for inspection intervals greater than 
24 months.
    (b) Underwater inspections. Each bridge must be inspected at 
regular intervals not to exceed the interval established using one of 
the risk-based methods outlined in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified 
assessment

[[Page 27434]]

of risk to classify each bridge into one of three categories for an 
underwater inspection interval as described in this section.
    (i) Regular intervals. Each bridge must be inspected at regular 
intervals not to exceed 60 months, except as required in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this section and allowed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this 
section.
    (ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document 
criteria used to determine when intervals must be reduced below 60 
months. Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials, 
age, condition ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily 
traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle/
vessel impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known 
deficiencies.
    (B) Certain bridges meeting at least any of the following criteria 
as recorded in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) must be inspected at 
intervals not to exceed 24 months:
    (1) The underwater portions of the bridge are in serious or worse 
condition, as recorded by the Underwater Inspection Condition item 
coded three (3) or less;
    (2) The channel or channel protection is in serious or worse 
condition, as recorded by the Channel Condition and Channel Protection 
Condition items coded three (3) or less; or
    (3) The observed scour condition is three (3) or less, as recorded 
by the Scour Condition Rating item.
    (C) Where condition ratings are coded three (3) or less due to 
localized deficiencies, a special inspection of the underwater portions 
of the bridge limited to those deficiencies, as described in Sec.  
650.313(h), can be used to meet this requirement in lieu of a complete 
underwater inspection. In such cases, a complete underwater inspection 
must be conducted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain bridges meeting all of the 
following criteria as recorded in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) may be 
inspected at intervals not to exceed 72 months:
    (1) The underwater portions of the bridge are in satisfactory or 
better condition, as recorded by the Underwater Inspection Condition 
item coded six (6) or greater;
    (2) The channel and channel protection are in satisfactory or 
better condition, as indicated by the Channel Condition and Channel 
Protection Condition items coded six (6) or greater;
    (3) Stable for potential scour, Scour Vulnerability item coded A or 
B, and Scour Condition Rating item is satisfactory or better, coded six 
(6) or greater.
    (B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal 
governments that implement paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section 
must develop and document an underwater extended interval policy and 
must notify FHWA in writing prior to implementation. Factors to 
consider include structure type, design, materials, age, condition 
ratings, scour, environment, annual average daily traffic and annual 
average daily truck traffic, history of vehicle/vessel impact damage, 
loads and safe load capacity, and other known deficiencies.
    (2) Method 2. Inspection intervals are determined by a more 
rigorous assessment of risk. The policy and criteria which establishes 
intervals, including subsequent changes, must be submitted by the State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government for 
FHWA approval. The process and criteria must be similar to that 
outlined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section except that each bridge 
must be classified into one of three risk categories with an underwater 
inspection interval not to exceed 24, 60, and 72 months.
    (c) NSTM inspections. NSTMs must be inspected at regular intervals 
not to exceed the interval established using one of the risk-based 
methods outlined in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Method 1. Inspection intervals are determined by a simplified 
assessment of risk to classify each bridge into one of three risk 
categories with an interval not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
    (i) Regular intervals. Each NSTM must be inspected at intervals not 
to exceed 24 months except as required in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 
section and allowed in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) Reduced intervals. (A) State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, or Tribal governments must develop and document 
criteria to determine when intervals must be reduced below 24 months. 
Factors to consider include structure type, design, materials, age, 
condition, environment, annual average daily traffic and annual average 
daily truck traffic, history of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe 
load capacity, and other known deficiencies.
    (B) Certain NSTMs meeting the following criteria as recorded in the 
NBI (see Sec.  650.315) must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 12 
months:
    (1) The NSTMs are rated in poor or worse condition, as recorded by 
the NSTM Inspection Condition item, coded 4 or less; or
    (2) [Reserved].
    (iii) Extended intervals. (A) Certain NSTMs meeting all of the 
following criteria may be inspected at intervals not to exceed 48 
months:
    (1) Bridge was constructed after 1978 as recorded in the NBI (see 
Sec.  650.315) Year Built item and fabricated in accordance with a 
fracture control plan;
    (2) All NSTMs have no fatigue details with finite life;
    (3) All NSTMs have no history of fatigue cracks;
    (4) All NSTMs are rated in satisfactory or better condition, as 
recorded in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) by the NSTM Inspection 
Condition item, coded 6 or greater; and
    (5) The bridge's inventory rating is greater than or equal to the 
standard AASHTO HS-20 or HL-93 loading and routine permit loads are not 
restricted or not carried/issued, as recorded in the NBI (see Sec.  
650.315) by the Inventory Load Rating Factor item coded greater than or 
equal to 1.0 and the Routine Permit Loads item coded A or N;
    (6) All NSTMs do not include pin and hanger assemblies.
    (B) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, or Tribal 
governments that implement paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section 
must develop and document an extended interval policy, and notify FHWA 
in writing prior to implementation. Factors to consider include 
structure type, design, materials, age, condition, environment, annual 
average daily traffic and annual average daily truck traffic, history 
of vehicle impact damage, loads and safe load capacity, and other known 
deficiencies.
    (2) Method 2. Inspection intervals are determined by a more 
rigorous assessment of risk. The policy and criteria which establishes 
intervals, including subsequent changes must be submitted by the State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government for 
FHWA approval. The process and criteria must be similar to that 
outlined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section except that each bridge 
must be classified into one of three risk categories with a NSTM 
inspection interval not to exceed 12, 24, or 48 months.
    (d) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. A State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government must 
document the criteria to determine the level and interval for these 
inspections in its bridge inspection policies and procedures.

[[Page 27435]]

    (e) Bridge inspection interval tolerance. (1) The acceptable 
tolerance for intervals of less than 24 months for the next inspection 
is up to two (2) months after the month in which the inspection was 
due.
    (2) The acceptable tolerance for intervals of 24 months or greater 
for the next inspection is up to three (3) months after the month in 
which the inspection was due.
    (3) Exceptions to the inspection interval tolerance due to rare and 
unusual circumstances must be approved by FHWA in advance of the 
inspection due date plus the tolerance in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (f) Next inspection. Establish the next inspection interval for 
each inspection type based on results of the inspection and 
requirements of this section.
    (g) Implementation. (1) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
(b)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(ii) of this section must be satisfied within 24 
months from June 6, 2022.
    (2) Prior FHWA approved extended inspection interval policies will 
be rescinded 24 months after June 6, 2022.


Sec.  650.313  Inspection procedures.

    (a) General. Inspect each bridge to determine condition, identify 
deficiencies, and document results in an inspection report in 
accordance with the inspection procedures in Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317). Special equipment or 
techniques, and/or traffic control are necessary for inspections in 
circumstances where their use provide the only practical means of 
accessing and/or determining the condition of the bridge. The equipment 
may include advanced technologies listed in the BIRM.
    (b) Initial inspection. Perform an initial inspection in accordance 
with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
650.317) for each new, replaced, rehabilitated, and temporary bridge as 
soon as practical, but within 3 months of the bridge opening to 
traffic.
    (c) Routine inspection. Perform a routine inspection in accordance 
with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
650.317).
    (d) In-depth inspection. Identify the location of bridge members 
that need an in-depth inspection and document in the bridge files. 
Perform in-depth inspections in accordance with the procedures 
developed in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (e) Underwater inspection. Identify the locations of underwater 
portions of the bridge in the bridge files that cannot be inspected 
using wading and probing during a routine inspection. Perform 
underwater inspections in accordance with the procedures developed in 
paragraph (g) of this section. Perform the first underwater inspection 
for each bridge and for each bridge with portions underwater that have 
been rehabilitated as soon as practical, but within 12 months of the 
bridge opening to traffic.
    (f) NSTM inspection. (1) Identify the locations of NSTMs in the 
bridge files.
    (i) A State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government may choose to demonstrate a member has system or internal 
redundancy such that it is not considered an NSTM. The entity may 
develop and submit a formal request for FHWA approval of procedures 
using a nationally recognized method to determine that a member has 
system or internal redundancy. FHWA will review the procedures for 
approval based upon conformance with the nationally recognized method. 
The request must include:
    (A) Written policy and procedures for determining system or 
internal redundancy.
    (B) Identification of the nationally recognized method used to 
determine system or internal redundancy. Nationally recognized means 
developed, endorsed and disseminated by a national organization with 
affiliates based in two or more States; or currently adopted for use by 
one or more State governments or by the Federal Government; and is the 
most current version.
    (C) Baseline condition of the bridge(s) to which the policy is 
being applied.
    (D) Description of design and construction details on the member(s) 
that may affect the system or internal redundancy.
    (E) Routine inspection requirements for bridges with system or 
internally redundant members.
    (F) Special inspection requirements for the members with system or 
internal redundancy.
    (G) Evaluation criteria for when members should be reviewed to 
ensure they still have system and internal redundancy.
    (ii) Inspect the bridge using the approved methods outlined in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(E) and (F) of this section.
    (2) Perform hands-on inspections of NSTMs in accordance with the 
procedures developed in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) Perform the first NSTM inspection for each bridge and for each 
bridge with rehabilitated NSTMs as soon as practical, but within 12 
months of the bridge opening to traffic.
    (g) NSTM, underwater, in-depth, and complex feature inspection 
procedures. Develop and document inspection procedures for bridges 
which require NSTM, underwater, in-depth, and complex feature 
inspections in accordance with Section 4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  650.317). State transportation departments, 
Federal agencies, and Tribal governments can include general procedures 
applicable to many bridges in their procedures manual. Specific 
procedures for unique and complex structural features must be developed 
for each bridge and contained in the bridge file.
    (h) Special inspection. For special inspections used to monitor 
conditions as described in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section, develop and document procedures in accordance with Section 
4.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317).
    (i) Service inspection. Perform a service inspection when the 
routine inspection interval is greater than 48 months. Document the 
inspection date and any required follow up actions in the bridge file.
    (j) Team leader. Provide at least one team leader at the bridge who 
meets the minimum qualifications stated in Sec.  650.309 and actively 
participates in the inspection at all times during each initial, 
routine, in-depth, NSTM, underwater inspection, and special inspection 
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (k) Load rating. (1) Rate each bridge as to its safe load capacity 
in accordance with the incorporated articles in Sections 6 and 8, 
AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317).
    (2) Develop and document procedures for completion of new and 
updated bridge load ratings. Load ratings must be completed as soon as 
practical, but no later than 3 months after the initial inspection and 
when a change is identified that warrants a re-rating such as, but not 
limited to, changes in condition, reconstruction, new construction, or 
changes in dead or live loads.
    (3) Analyze routine and special permit loads for each bridge that 
these loads cross to verify the bridge can safely carry the load.
    (l) Load posting. (1) Implement load posting or restriction for a 
bridge in accordance with the incorporated articles in Section 6, 
AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317), when the 
maximum

[[Page 27436]]

unrestricted legal loads or State routine permit loads exceed that 
allowed under the operating rating, legal load rating, or permit load 
analysis.
    (2) Develop and document procedures for timely load posting based 
upon the load capacity and characteristics such as annual average daily 
traffic, annual average daily truck traffic, and loading conditions. 
Posting shall be made as soon as possible but not later than 30 days 
after a load rating determines a need for such posting. Implement load 
posting in accordance with these procedures.
    (3) Missing or illegible posting signs shall be corrected as soon 
as possible but not later than 30 days after inspection or other 
notification determines a need.
    (m) Closed bridges. Develop and document criteria for closing a 
bridge which considers condition and load carrying capacity for each 
legal vehicle. Bridges that meet the criteria must be closed 
immediately. Bridges must be closed when the gross live load capacity 
is less than 3 tons.
    (n) Bridge files. Prepare and maintain bridge files in accordance 
with Section 2.2, AASHTO Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
650.317).
    (o) Scour. (1) Perform a scour appraisal for all bridges over 
water, and document the process and results in the bridge file. Re-
appraise when necessary to reflect changing scour conditions. Scour 
appraisal procedures should be consistent with Hydraulic Engineering 
Circulars (HEC) 18 and 20. Guidance for scour evaluations is located in 
HEC 18 and 20, and guidance for scour assessment is located in HEC 20.
    (2) For bridges which are determined to be scour critical or have 
unknown foundations, prepare and document a scour POA for deployment of 
scour countermeasures for known and potential deficiencies, and to 
address safety concerns. The plan must address a schedule for repairing 
or installing physical and/or hydraulic scour countermeasures, and/or 
the use of monitoring as a scour countermeasure. Scour plans of actions 
should be consistent with HEC 18 and 23.
    (3) Execute action in accordance with the plan.
    (p) Quality control and quality assurance. (1) Assure systematic QC 
and QA procedures identified in Section 1.4, AASHTO Manual 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317) are used to maintain a 
high degree of accuracy and consistency in the inspection program.
    (2) Document the extent, interval, and responsible party for the 
review of inspection teams in the field, inspection reports, NBI data, 
and computations, including scour appraisal and load ratings. QC and QA 
reviews are to be performed by personnel other than the individual who 
completed the original report or calculations.
    (3) Perform QC and QA reviews and document the results of the QC 
and QA process, including the tracking and completion of actions 
identified in the procedures.
    (4) Address the findings of the QC and QA reviews.
    (q) Critical findings. (1) Document procedures to address critical 
findings in a timely manner. Procedures must:
    (i) Define critical findings considering the location and the 
redundancy of the member affected and the extent and consequence of a 
deficiency. Deficiencies include, but are not limited to scour, damage, 
corrosion, section loss, settlement, cracking, deflection, distortion, 
delamination, loss of bearing, and any condition posing an imminent 
threat to public safety. At a minimum, include findings which warrant 
the following:
    (A) Full or partial closure of any bridge;
    (B) An NSTM to be rated in serious or worse condition, as defined 
in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) by the NSTM Inspection item, coded three 
(3) or less;
    (C) A deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert component to 
be rated in critical or worse condition, as defined in the NBI (see 
Sec.  650.315) by the Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure Condition 
Rating items, or the Culvert Condition Rating item, coded two (2) or 
less;
    (D) The channel condition or scour condition to be rated in 
critical or worse condition as defined in the NBI (see Sec.  650.315) 
by the Channel Condition Rating or Scour Condition Rating items, coded 
critical (2) or less; or
    (E) Immediate load restriction or posting, or immediate repair work 
to a bridge, including shoring, in order to remain open.
    (ii) Develop and document timeframes to address critical findings 
identified in paragraph (q)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal 
governments must inform FHWA of all critical findings and actions 
taken, underway, or planned to resolve critical findings as follows:
    (i) Notify FHWA within 24 hours of discovery of each critical 
finding on the National Highway System (NHS) as identified in 
paragraphs (q)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section;
    (ii) Provide monthly, or as requested, a written status report for 
each critical finding as identified in paragraph (q)(1)(i) of this 
section until resolved. The report must contain:
    (A) Owner;
    (B) NBI Structure Number;
    (C) Date of finding;
    (D) Description and photos (if available) of critical finding;
    (E) Description of completed, temporary and/or planned corrective 
actions to address critical finding;
    (F) Status of corrective actions: Active/Completed;
    (G) Estimated date of completion if corrective actions are active; 
and
    (H) Date of completion if corrective actions are completed.
    (r) Review of compliance. Provide information annually or as 
required in cooperation with any FHWA review of compliance with this 
subpart.


Sec.  650.315  Inventory.

    (a) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government must prepare and maintain an inventory of all bridges 
subject to this subpart. Inventory data, as defined in Sec.  650.305, 
must be collected, updated, and retained by the responsible State 
transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal government and 
submitted to FHWA on an annual basis or whenever requested. For 
temporary bridges open to traffic greater than 24 months, inventory 
data must be collected and submitted per this section. Inventory data 
must include element level bridge inspection data for bridges on the 
NHS collected in accordance with the ``Manual for Bridge Element 
Inspection'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  650.317). 
Specifications for collecting and reporting this data are contained in 
the ``Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  650.317).
    (b) For all inspection types, enter changes to the inventory data 
into the State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government inventory within 3 months after the month when the field 
portion of the inspection is completed.
    (c) For modifications to existing bridges that alter previously 
recorded inventory data and for newly constructed bridges, enter the 
inventory data into the State transportation department, Federal 
agency, or Tribal government inventory within 3 months after the month 
of opening to traffic.
    (d) For changes in load restriction or closure status, enter the 
revised inventory data into the State transportation department, 
Federal agency, or Tribal government inventory within 3 months after 
the month the change in load restriction or closure status of the 
bridge is implemented.

[[Page 27437]]

    (e) Each State transportation department, Federal agency, or Tribal 
government must establish and document a process that ensures the time 
constraint requirements of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
are fulfilled.


Sec.  650.317  Incorporation by reference .

    Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this 
subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available 
for inspection at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOT at: 
U.S. Department of Transportation Library, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590 in Room W12-300, (800) 853-1351, www.ntl.bts.gov/ntl. For information on the availability of this material at NARA 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d0b1f4304031e1d080e190402032d030c1f0c430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="385e4a1651564b485d5b4c5157567856594a59165f574e">[email protected]</span></a> or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material may be obtained from the 
following sources:
    (a) AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, 
DC 20004; 1-800-231-3475; https://store.transportation.org.
    (1) MBE-3. ``The Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Third Edition, 
2018; IBR approved for Sec.  650.305 and 650.313.:
    (2) MBE-3-I1-OL. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2019 Interim 
Revisions [to 2018 Third Edition], copyright 2018; IBR approved for 
Sec.  650.305 and 650.313.
    (3) MBE-3-I2. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2020 Interim 
Revisions [to 2018 Third Edition], copyright 2020; IBR approved for 
Sec.  650.305 and 650.313.
    (4) MBEI-2: Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, Second Edition, 
2019, IBR approved for Sec.  650.315.
    (b) FHWA. Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, Washington, DC 20590: 1-202-366-4000; www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm.
    (1) FHWA-HIF-22-017: Specifications for the National Bridge 
Inventory, March, 2022, IBR approved for Sec.  650.315.
    (2) [Reserved].

Subpart D--[Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve subpart D.

Subpart G--[Removed and Reserved]

0
4. Remove and reserve subpart G.

[FR Doc. 2022-09512 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


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