27396 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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FHWA also is repealing two outdated 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 Federalaid 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 riskbased 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27398 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 peerreviewed 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 § 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27400 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the 

following URL: http://www.trb.org/Publications/ 

Blurbs/171448.aspx 

2The 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/unknown

foundations/090603.cfm. 

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 § 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 ReliabilityBased Bridge Inspection Practices 1 in 

the development of this definition. 

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

Section 650.307 Bridge Inspection 

Organization Responsibilities 

General Comments 

Two commenters were concerned that 

§ 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 

§ 650.307(a) and (b) creates 

inconsistency with § 650.303, where the 

NBIS applies to all highway bridges 

located on all public roads. 

FHWA Response: FHWA believes that 

both §§ 650.303 and 650.307 

complement each other; accordingly, 

FHWA does not believe removing the 

term public roads from § 650.307 creates 

any inconsistencies with § 650.303. 

Section 650.307(a) and (b) outline the 

responsibilities of States and Federal 

agencies respectively, whereas § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27402 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

burden of formal written agreements. As 

such, § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 650.309. 

FHWA additionally assesses compliance 

with the NBIS on the national level via 

the NBIS oversight process per 

§ 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27403 

3The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the 

following URL: http://www.trb.org/Publications/ 

Blurbs/171448.aspx. 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 650.305. 

These provisions provide flexibility to 

bridge inspection organizations for 

determining the personnel to be used. 

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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27404 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

4The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the 

following URL: http://www.trb.org/Publications/ 

Blurbs/171448.aspx. 

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 FHWAapproved 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-ofcourse 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 

§§ 650.305 and 650.309. FHWA has 

revised § 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 

§ 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 riskbased 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. 

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 riskbased 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27405 

5The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the 

following URL: http://www.trb.org/Publications/ 

Blurbs/171448.aspx 

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 riskbased 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. 

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 

§ 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27406 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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, 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27407 

6Michael 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. 

7 Ibid. 

8The 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. 

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 posttensioning 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 offcycle 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 

§ 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 

§ 650.311(b)(1)(iii) in the final rule. 

However, State DOTs, Federal agencies, 

and Tribal governments that implement 

revised § 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

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. 

One commenter asked about how the 

new AASHTO Guide Specifications for 

Internal Redundancy of MechanicallyFastened Built-Up Steel Members 8 will 

be implemented with the new 

regulations. 

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 MechanicallyFastened Built-Up Steel Members 7 and 

AASHTO Guide Specifications for 

Analysis and Identification of Fracture 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27408 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

9 Ibid. 

10FHWA 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. 

11Clause 12 of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5, 

Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition. 

Critical Members and System 

Redundant Members 9 are considered 

acceptable nationally recognized 

methods for determining system or 

internal redundancy. 

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. 

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. 

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 

§ 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; 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 650.317. References to specific 

sections of the AASHTO Manual 

throughout § 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, nonvisual 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 birdseye 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 § 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 

§ 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 contractorowned bridges and monitoring during 

construction, many factors influence the 

in-service performance of contractorowned bridges and the thoroughness of 

monitoring that occurs during a 

construction project. To ensure a 

uniform level of safety and reliability 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27410 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 650.313 and added 

language in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27411 

12The 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. 

13AASHTO 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. 

14The NCHRP Report 782 may be found at the 

following URL: http://www.trb.org/Publications/ 

Blurbs/171448.aspx. 

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 § 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. 

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 

§ 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 

§§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

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 

§ 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27412 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 noncommercial 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27413 

15Additional 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. 

Section 650.313(n) 

Based on seven comments previously 

discussed in § 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 § 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. 

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 § 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27414 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Thirtyfive 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 onetime 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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-andtime-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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 riskbased 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Highwayrelated 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27424 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27425 

16Under 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 online at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/ 

techadvs.cfm. 

17The 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 × $64.19 = $257.76 in 2016 dollars). 

18Comments from NYSDOT. FHWA–2017–0047– 

0138. Accessible from: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FHWA-2017-0047-0138. 

The NPRM received 256 comments in 

relation to the NBIS and the SNBI, some 

of which pertained to the RIA. 

This RIA has been updated to reflect 

public comments provided in response 

to the NPRM RIA. The RIA comments 

came exclusively from State agencies 

and related to absence of cost estimation 

for the changes to the SNBI. In 

particular, States estimated that they 

will incur costs due to the SNBI 

changes, including the following issues: 

• The increased costs associated with 

updating software and software systems 

to accommodate additional data or 

recoding of existing variables. 

• The increased costs associated with 

inspections due to the additional 

inspection categories in the updated 

SNBI compared to the existing coding 

guide. 

• The increased cost associated with 

updating inspection manuals and 

inspector trainings to be consistent with 

the updated SNBI. 

In response to those concerns, this 

RIA has been updated to include 

estimates of the additional cost 

associated with the SNBI changes. The 

specific adjustments are detailed in 

Section 4.3 of the RIA found on the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Additionally, States were concerned 

that the NPRM RIA did not address the 

benefits of the proposed rule. The RIA 

has also been updated to include a 

qualitative discussion of those benefits. 

In addition to the changes made in 

response to the public comment, a 

number of input values to the economic 

analysis have been updated in this final 

rule RIA compared to the NPRM RIA. 

The updates include: 

• The effective date of the rule has 

been changed to 2022 rather than 2020. 

This changes the period of analysis from 

2020–2029 to 2022–2031. 

• The wage rates have been updated 

to the 2019 values from the 2016 values 

used in the NPRM RIA. 

• Rather than analyzing the cost 

savings from assuming 1 percent of 

eligible bridges use the expanded 

inspection interval as was used in the 

NPRM, this economic assessment uses 

uncertainty analysis in relation to the 

share of bridges that are expected to use 

the Method 1 extended interval of 48 

months which requires a simplified risk 

inspection and the Method 2 extended 

interval of up to 72 months under 

Method 2 which requires a detailed risk 

inspection (compared to the currently 

required 24-month interval). The FHWA 

anticipates that agencies will 

infrequently use the Method 2 for 

intervals greater than 48 months and 

that a plausible range for the share of 

bridges inspected under Method 1 is 30 

to 65 percent. That range is based on 

data on the number of States that 

currently use the 48-month exception 

for any bridges/culverts,16 public 

comment from the NPRM, and other 

information about State agencies 

practices (e.g., State law and 

Transportation Asset Management Plans 

(TAMPs)). The justification for this 

range is described more fully under 

Section 3 of the RIA under Section 

650.311: Inspection Interval. 

• The share of bridges that currently 

use a 24-month interval that are 

expected to use a 12-month interval is 

100 percent, reflective of the 

requirement of the rulemaking. This 

provision is new to the final rulemaking 

and was not included in the original 

NPRM RIA. 

• The cost of inspections has been 

updated. The NPRM RIA assumed that 

on average a regular inspection required 

4 hours of engineer time to complete at 

a total cost of $257.17 Based on public 

comment,18 available inspection cost 

data, interviews with Federal and State 

agencies, and FHWA program office 

input, the final rule RIA updates the 

average cost per bridge inspection to be 

$2,000. The justification of this average 

inspection costs is detailed in Section 

4.2 of the RIA. 

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 

(§ 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 

(§§ 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27426 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

19National 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. 

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 § 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

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27427 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3ER06MY22.023</GPH>
27428 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

20https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/bridges/ 

bip.htm. 

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. 

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: 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27429 

1The NHI training may be found at the following 

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

PART 650—BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, 

AND HYDRAULICS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 650 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 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) 

§ 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). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

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 cablerelated 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 § 650.315. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27430 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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 § 650.309(a). An employee of the BIA 

or FHWA having the qualification of a 

program manager as defined in 

§ 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. 

§ 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-ofcourse 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27432 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofcourse 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 § 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 § 650.305 and paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section and resubmit to 

FHWA for approval. 

§ 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 

§ 650.315) must be inspected at 

intervals not to exceed 12 months: 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27434 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 650.317), when the maximum 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
27436 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 650.317). Specifications 

for collecting and reporting this data are 

contained in the ‘‘Specifications for the 

National Bridge Inventory’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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: fr.inspection@nara.gov 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 650.305 and 650.313. 

(4) MBEI–2: Manual for Bridge 

Element Inspection, Second Edition, 

2019, IBR approved for § 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 § 650.315. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

Subpart D—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve subpart D. 

Subpart G—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve subpart G. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09512 Filed 5–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES3