Bridge Safety Standards, 41282-41309 [2010-16929]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41282-41309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16929]



[[Page 41281]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 213 and 237



Bridge Safety Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 41282]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 237

[Docket No. FRA 2009-0014, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC04


Bridge Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is establishing Federal safety requirements for railroad 
bridges. This final rule requires track owners to implement bridge 
management programs, which include annual inspections of railroad 
bridges, and to audit the programs. This final rule also requires track 
owners to know the safe load capacity of bridges and to conduct special 
inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such 
inspections.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 13, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

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

Background

I. The Safety of Railroad Bridges

A. General

    There are nearly 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States. 
These bridges are owned by over 600 different entities. The bridges 
vary in length, load capacity, design, and construction material. 
Everything that is shipped or transported via rail likely travels 
across one or more railroad bridges. Thus, everything from intermodal 
goods, automobiles, grain, coal, hazardous materials, and passengers is 
transported on the nation's rail system and therefore across railroad 
bridges.
    The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is 
important to the safety of railroad employees and to the public. The 
responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges rests with the owner 
of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to 
whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner. The 
severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a bridge is 
involved, regardless of the cause of the accident.
    Beginning in 1991, FRA conducted a review of the safety of railroad 
bridges. The review was prompted by the agency's perception that the 
bridge population was aging, traffic density and loads were increasing 
on many routes, and the consequences of a bridge failure could be 
catastrophic. During the past five decades, not one fatality has been 
caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge. Train accidents 
caused by the structural failure of railroad bridges have been 
extremely rare.
    Although the average construction date of railroad bridges predates 
most highway bridges by several decades, the older railroad bridges 
were designed to carry heavy steam locomotives. Design factors were 
generally conservative, and the bridges' functional designs permit 
repairs and reinforcements when necessary to maintain their viability. 
Railroad bridges are most often privately, rather than publicly, owned. 
Their owners seem to recognize the economic consequences of neglecting 
important maintenance. Private ownership enables the railroads to 
control the loads that operate over their bridges. Cars and locomotives 
exceeding the nominal capacity of a bridge are allowed on a bridge only 
with permission from the responsible bridge engineers, and then only 
under restrictions and conditions that protect the integrity of the 
bridge.
    Many railroad bridges display superficial signs of deterioration 
but still retain the capacity to safely carry their loads. Corrosion on 
a bridge is not a safety issue unless a critical area sees significant 
loss of material. Routine inspections are prescribed to detect this 
condition, but determination of its effect requires a detailed 
inspection and analysis of the bridge. In general, timber bridges 
continue to function safely, and masonry structures built as early as 
the 1830s remain functional and safe for their traffic. Of the few 
train accidents that involved bridges, most have not been caused by 
structural failure. FRA accident records for the 27 years 1982 through 
2008 show 58 train accidents that were caused by the structural failure 
of railroad bridges. These accidents resulted in nine reportable 
injuries and a reported $26,555,878 in damages to railroad facilities, 
cars and locomotives.

B. Guidelines

    On April 27, 1995, FRA issued an Interim Statement of Policy on the 
Safety of Railroad Bridges. Published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 
20654, the interim statement included a request for comments to be 
submitted to FRA during a 60-day period following publication. On 
August 30, 2000, FRA published a Final Statement of Agency Policy on 
the Safety of Railroad Bridges (``policy statement''). See 65 FR 52667. 
With the policy, FRA established criteria for railroads to use to 
ensure the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks, 
which reflected minor changes following public comment on the interim 
statement. Unlike regulations under which FRA ordinarily issues 
violations and assesses civil penalties, the policy statement contained 
guidelines for the proper maintenance of bridge structures and is 
advisory in nature.
    On October 16, 2008, President Bush signed into law, the Railroad 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, Division A 
(``RSIA''). Section 417 of the RSIA directs FRA to issue regulations 
requiring railroad track owners to adopt and follow specific procedures 
to protect the safety of their bridges. Prior to the passage of the 
RSIA, FRA had already begun work on revising the policy statement. On 
January 13, 2009, FRA published an amendment to the policy statement by 
incorporating changes proposed by the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (``RSAC'') on September 10, 2008. RSAC developed a list of 
essential elements of railroad bridge management programs (``essential 
elements'') which make up the bulk of the amendment. See 74 FR 157. All 
aspects of the policy statement that are not incorporated into the 
regulatory text of part 237 are now found in its appendix A.

C. Regulatory History

    On August 17, 2009, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) as a first step in the agency's promulgation of bridge safety

[[Page 41283]]

regulations as mandated by the RSIA. See 74 FR 41558. FRA received 
comments from eight parties, including two professional engineers, the 
Alaska Railroad Corporation, Maryland Department of Transportation 
(``Maryland DOT''), Iowa Department of Transportation (``Iowa DOT''), 
RailAmerica, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). FRA will 
address the concerns raised by the comments in the text below.
    This final rule is the culmination of FRA's efforts to develop and 
promulgate bridge safety standards. In the Section-by-Section Analysis, 
below, FRA will discuss how the regulatory text addresses each portion 
of the RSIA.

II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview

    In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for 
developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on 
rulemakings and other safety program issues. The RSAC includes 
representation from all of the industry's major stakeholders, including 
railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other 
interested parties. A list of RSAC members follows:

American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO);
American Chemistry Council;
American Petrochemical Institute;
American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
Association of American Railroads (AAR);
Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Chlorine Institute;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
Fertilizer Institute;
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
Institute of Makers of Explosives;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*;
League of Railway Industry Women*;
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway Business Women*;
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association;
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*;
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America (STA);
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte*;
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
Transport Canada*;
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.

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

III. RSAC Railroad Bridge Working Group

    RSAC on February 20, 2008, agreed to accept the task of reviewing 
FRA's railroad bridge safety policies and activities, and to make 
appropriate recommendations to FRA to improve the bridge safety 
program. RSAC accordingly established a Railroad Bridge Working Group 
(Working Group), composed of representatives of the various 
organizations on the RSAC and including persons with particular 
expertise in railroad bridge safety and management. The Working Group 
met on April 24-25, 2008, June 12, 2008, and August 7, 2008. On 
September 10, 2008, the full RSAC voted on the Working Group's report, 
Essential Elements of Railroad Bridge Management Programs, and 
recommended that FRA incorporate it into FRA's Statement of Agency 
Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges. The Working Group met again 
on January 28-29, 2009, and February 23-24, 2009, to recommend rule 
text to address the RSIA's mandate to FRA in Section 417 to promulgate 
bridge safety regulations. The Working Group reached consensus on 
proposed regulatory text which made up most of the provisions of the 
NPRM.
    After the NPRM comment period closed, the Working Group reconvened 
on December 15, 2009, to review the comments and offer additional 
advice on how FRA should proceed with the final rule. Due to time 
constraints, FRA elected to seek advice from the Working Group 
regarding the public comments and possible revisions to the NPRM rather 
than asking the group and the full RSAC to formally provide 
recommendations regarding the final rule.

IV. Response to Public Comment

    As mentioned above, FRA received eight comments to the NPRM. 
Comments were submitted by a variety of affected parties, including 
individual professional engineers, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, 
RailAmerica, two state DOTs, the AAR and the ASLRRA. FRA reviewed the 
comments with the Working Group and FRA staff also extensively reviewed 
and evaluated the

[[Page 41284]]

comments. In this section, FRA will respond to comments regarding the 
application of the bridge rule, the responsibility for compliance, 
definitions, adoption of bridge management programs, the definition of 
a railroad bridge engineer, the determination of bridge load 
capacities, bridge inspection records, and other general comments. FRA 
is also responding to some of the smaller concerns within the section-
by-section analysis.

Application

    Mr. Wayne Duffet, P.E., commented that FRA proposed that this part 
apply to tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads 
are entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. He observed that, 
as written, the rule applies to every bridge with a gauge of two feet 
or more, that handles trains, regardless of whether part of the general 
railroad system. The comment requests clarification on two points: 
whether the rule applies to a tourist railroad that is not part of the 
general railroad system, and whether the rule applies to a two-foot 
gage bridge within an amusement park.
    FRA notes that a ``tourist railroad'' comes under the uniform FRA 
definition of the term ``railroad'' as found at 49 CFR 209.3 and within 
the meaning of the Federal railroad safety statutes as found at 49 
U.S.C. 20102(1)(A). Tourist railroads move passengers by the use of 
track and equipment that, taken together, would commonly be described 
as a ``railroad,'' and their operations pose a distinct risk to the 
safety of the public. ``An installation which is not part of the 
general railroad system of transportation and over which trains are not 
run by a railroad'' refers to tracks located within an industrial 
operation where rolling equipment is moved only by and for the account 
of that particular industry. If a railroad as defined in 49 CFR 209.3 
operates over a bridge inside such an installation, then this 
regulation applies to that bridge and to the owner of track on that 
bridge.
    Specifically as to tourist railroad operations, FRA exercises 
jurisdiction over tourist operations whether or not they are conducted 
on the ``general railroad system of transportation'' (``general 
system''), which is defined as ``the network of standard gage track 
over which goods may be transported throughout the nation.'' Appendix A 
to 49 CFR part 209. The only exceptions where FRA typically does not 
exercise jurisdiction are for tourist operations on track gage that is 
less than 24 inches and tourist operations that are off of the general 
system and are ``insular.'' A tourist operation is considered 
``insular'' if its operations are limited to a separate enclave in such 
a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of any 
member of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of the 
tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be 
affected by the operation. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. FRA does, 
however, exercise limited jurisdiction over tourist railroads that do 
not operate on the general system, but that are non-insular. 
Specifically, FRA will consider a railroad to be non-insular if one or 
more of the following exist on its line: A public highway-rail crossing 
that is in use; an at-grade rail crossing that is in use; a bridge over 
a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or a common 
corridor with another railroad. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. With 
respect to this rule, FRA is exercising jurisdiction over all tourist 
and excursion operations regardless of whether they are insular or not.
    Maryland DOT requested an explanation of the definition of the 
``general railroad system of transportation'' as it applies to urban 
rapid transit operations as set forth in the rule. FRA replies that 
Sec.  237.1(b) is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 20102(1)(B) and 49 CFR 
213.3(b)(2), which exempt ``track used exclusively for rapid transit 
operations in urban areas that are not connected with the general 
system of transportation'' from the application of that regulation. If 
an urban rapid transit system operates over the general system, FRA 
will exercise jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit operation to 
the extent that it is connected to the general system. In situations in 
which an urban rapid transit operation has a minor connection to the 
general system, i.e., at a highway-rail grade crossing, FRA will 
exercise limited jurisdiction over the urban rapid transit system and 
only to the extent necessary to ensure safety at the points of 
connection for that system, the general system, and the public.

Responsibility for compliance

    AAR noted that there are numerous tracks on railroad bridges that 
have been leased by their owners to other companies. The proposed 
bridge rule attempted to account for these historical leases by 
providing that where an owner of the track over the bridge has assigned 
responsibility for the track to another company and FRA has been 
notified pursuant to 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional notification under 
part 237 for the bridge is not needed. This is because part 237 places 
responsibility for the bridge with the person to whom responsibility 
for the track has been assigned and recognized pursuant to part 213. 
AAR is concerned that there will be situations where notification 
pursuant to Sec.  213.5(c) has not taken place, and argues that 
notification might not have taken place because the lease was entered 
into before Sec.  213.5 was adopted. AAR explains that there might be 
other reasons notification did not take place or a railroad might 
simply be unable to determine whether notification occurred. If it 
cannot be established that notification did occur, AAR argues that the 
rule, literally interpreted, might not permit FRA to hold the lessee 
responsible for compliance even though, as a practical matter, the 
lessee controls the track and bridge and is performing all functions 
related to track and bridge safety. AAR suggests FRA address the issue 
of historical leases by adding regulatory text which states that FRA 
may hold a lessee of track to which this part applies responsible for 
compliance with this part where the lessee exercises control over the 
track.
    This provision follows the use of the term ``owner of track'' in 
the Track Safety Standards at 49 CFR part 213. FRA believes that it 
would be confusing and inconsistent for FRA to define an ``owner of 
track'' differently in two different parts of the Rail Safety 
Standards. FRA advises an owner of track to resubmit a notification of 
assignment if the owner is uncertain whether an assignment has been 
made. However, assignment does not relieve a track owner of compliance 
with part 237, as Sec.  237.3(c) states that FRA can always hold the 
track owner responsible for compliance with the bridge safety 
standards.
    Maryland DOT noted that its state highway administration, and 
several counties in the state, own and inspect several railroad-
carrying bridges. Unstated, but implicit in the comment, is that while 
the state highway administration owns the bridge, the track is owned by 
a third party. Maryland DOT states that in accordance with this 
section, however, the state highway administration would not be 
responsible for compliance with this rule, since the ``track owner'' is 
responsible. In addition, several counties own railroad-carrying 
bridges as well.
    FRA replies that the rule does not alter the financial 
responsibility of a highway agency that owns, inspects and maintains 
railroad bridges. The rule does, however, hold the track owner 
responsible to assure that the inspections and maintenance are 
performed correctly by qualified and

[[Page 41285]]

designated persons. The track owner would be permitted to accept work 
performed by a highway agency provided that it conforms to the 
requirements of this part. FRA also notes that instances have arisen in 
which state agencies have performed inspections and evaluations in 
which a state-owned railroad bridge was found to be seriously 
deficient, and where the operating railroad was never notified or 
advised of the problem. FRA accident records include at least one such 
instance in which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a 
catastrophic train accident, an accident which occurred on the Southern 
Railroad of New Jersey on August 12, 1999. This provision is intended, 
partly, to prevent such a loss of vital communication among the 
concerned parties
    Maryland DOT also questions whether the track owner could assign 
responsibility to someone else. If one of these railroads requests the 
state agency to be the responsible party for the FRA inspection, they 
would consider refusing the request because they would have to be in 
compliance with the whole program, which would require a railroad 
bridge engineer, railroad bridge inspectors and a railroad bridge 
management program.
    FRA responds that, in any case of assignment of responsibility, the 
assignee must first accept the assignment before it can become 
effective. See Sec.  237.3(b)(6). The final rule states that the track 
owner must send a written notification of assignment to FRA at least 30 
days in advance of the assignment, and that the notification must 
include a statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the 
assignment. A notification that did not include an acknowledging 
statement would not comply with Sec.  237.3(b)(6), and FRA would 
disregard the assignment.

Definitions

    FRA received three comments regarding the definition of a railroad 
bridge. The comments suggested that the definition of a railroad bridge 
is either not broad enough or too broad and that there is an 
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge and the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) definition of a bridge. FRA 
intends the explanations in this response to clarify that the 
definition of a railroad bridge is consistent with long-held industry 
practice and is neither too broad nor too narrow.
    One commenter suggested that the definition of a bridge be changed 
to ``any structure with an open deck.'' FRA replies that the regulatory 
definition of a bridge includes open decks, ballast decks, and solid 
decks. Essentially, a bridge deck is the component of the bridge upon 
which the track is supported, and which is subject to bending stresses 
from trains moving over it.
    Another comment requests an explanation of an apparent 
inconsistency between the definition of a railroad bridge in this rule, 
and the definition of a bridge used by the FHWA, which defines a bridge 
as a structure with a span length of 20 feet or more. FRA responds that 
railroad bridges differ greatly from highway bridges in many respects, 
particularly in regard to the nature of the heavy live load which they 
support. This definition represents the consensus of all parties in the 
Working Group and is consistent with long-held railroad industry 
practice.
    A third commenter suggests that the railroad bridge definition is 
broad and potentially includes types of structures that are affected by 
track live loads that have not previously been managed as bridges. 
These structures may include waterfront structures such as piers and 
wharves, mechanical shop structures including drop tables and 
inspection pits, as well as scales, large culverts and potentially even 
various types of retaining walls that have under-grade structural 
layout features that could be interpreted to be span lengths of 10 feet 
or more.
    FRA replies that piers and wharves, scales, and other structures 
that carry railroad track and meet the span definition of a bridge are 
included under this regulation. Retaining walls and other roadbed 
structures are not included, because they do not carry track on a span 
over a gap. Additionally, culverts with a span of 10 feet or greater 
are also subject to this regulation and must be included in track 
owner's bridge management program.

Adoption of Bridge Management Programs

    Three comments addressed concerns with the adoption of bridge 
management programs. Maryland DOT asked if the regulations 
``distinguish between Transit Railroads or short-lines, or rail traffic 
volume,'' and requested that FRA define Class I and II carriers and the 
general railroad system. ASLRRA remarks that some design documents for 
each bridge might be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. ASLRRA 
proposes that all documentation required by the rule be completed no 
later than five years following the program's adoption. This would 
allow for the search and retrieval, or replication, of required 
documentation over more realistic time frames, as well as the 
allocation of necessary expense over a longer, and possibly less 
impacting, period of time. The Alaska Railroad Corporation requests 
that the bridge management program adoption time be extended to the 
effective date of the final rule plus one year. The additional time is 
necessary for inventory and database development of all structures 
covered by the regulation, as seasonal climatic conditions will 
potentially make some of these structures on the Alaska Railroad 
inaccessible until early summer 2010.
    With regard to the first concern, FRA replies that the Surface 
Transportation Board defines the class of railroad at 49 CFR part 1201, 
based on the carrier's annual operating revenue. This section specifies 
time periods for program adoption according to the type of railroad, 
not according to railroad traffic volume or load intensity. By 
``general railroad system of transportation,'' FRA refers to the 
network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported 
throughout the nation and passengers may travel between cities and 
within metropolitan and suburban areas. See appendix A to 49 CFR part 
209.
    Regarding the second comment, ASLRRA's proposal is consistent with 
the proposed rule. Pursuant to Sec.  237.33(c), the program, when 
adopted by a track owner, need only incorporate a provision to obtain 
and maintain the design documents of each bridge if available, and to 
document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge. 
There is no deadline for acquisition of these documents. FRA 
anticipates that the priorities for acquisition of archived bridge 
design documents would closely follow their usefulness in determining 
bridge capacities.
    To address the Alaska Railroad Corporation's concerns, FRA replies 
that the bridge inventory need not be complete in all of its details at 
the time of adoption of a railroad's bridge management program. It is 
reasonable to expect that an adopted program would specify the format 
for recording the inventory information, or ``bridge list,'' and that 
information readily available from existing records, such as valuation 
maps, could be used to initially populate the data base. After that, 
additions and refinements to that information would be generated by 
normal inspection work.

[[Page 41286]]

Railroad Bridge Engineer

    AAR noted in its comment that the NPRM reference to the 
``Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)'' is 
obsolete in that the organization has changed its name to ABET, Inc. 
AAR further notes that ABET Inc. only accredits engineering education 
programs in the United States, but mutually recognizes programs 
accredited by corresponding organizations in other nations. The same 
commenter notes an ambiguity in the term ``licensed scope of practice'' 
as it applies to the professional practice of engineering.
    FRA acknowledges the concern regarding ABET, Inc., and has changed 
the reference in the regulatory text to ABET, Inc., or its successor. 
FRA did not intend to exclude engineers who received their education in 
other nations from being recognized as railroad bridge engineers, and 
has amended the text to specify that, in order to fulfill the 
educational requirements of this section, a railroad bridge engineer 
can also have received a degree from a program accredited as a 
professional engineering curriculum by a foreign organization 
recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor. FRA has clarified the 
ambiguity commented on in the language of the NPRM by stating that a 
railroad bridge engineer can also be considered to have fulfilled the 
educational requirements of this section if he or she is currently 
registered as a professional engineer. FRA notes that state law 
governing the professional practice of engineering requires that 
professional engineers limit the subject of their practice to areas in 
which they are competent.
    RailAmerica commented that nothing in this section speaks to the 
competence of an engineer as a railroad bridge engineer. FRA replies 
that the determination of the competence of a railroad bridge engineer 
is left to the track owner. FRA does not intend to engage in qualifying 
individuals to perform those functions. That determination will have to 
be made by the track owner after review of the engineer's 
qualifications and experience in the light of the qualification 
requirements of this part. The employer or the client of an engineer 
has always had the prerogative and responsibility to determine the 
qualifications of that individual, and FRA does not propose to alter 
that relationship.

Determination of Bridge Load Capacities

    One commenter remarked on the difficulty of assigning a precise 
capacity rating to a timber bridge owing to the wide variations in the 
properties of timber material and the changes that occur to timber 
components over time. FRA recognizes that the evaluation of timber 
trestles is not an exact science. Although theoretical values of safe 
forces and stresses can be placed on individual timber components, the 
actual nature of wood varies widely, even within the same species. In 
addition, timber deteriorates over time and under repeated loads. Some 
timber bridge components are not easily inspected, especially where 
faces of the members are hidden by other adjacent or supported members. 
A load rating on a timber bridge must also account for time and for 
expected costs to maintain the bridge under its rated traffic. An 
engineer can raise the capacity of a timber trestle from 263,000- to 
286,000-pound cars, for instance, but the owner must be advised that 
increased maintenance costs will probably result, and that a more 
intensive inspection program must be instituted for that bridge, owing 
to the more rapid deterioration that will occur.
    The same commenter also suggested that a revised rating not be 
required where an existing, valid rating provides a large margin of 
capacity above the loads that are actually operated. The rule text has 
been slightly modified to address that issue with a realistic solution. 
FRA has revised Sec.  237.71(f) to state that a new bridge load 
capacity shall be determined, if, in the opinion of the railroad bridge 
engineer, a bridge inspection reveals that the condition of a bridge or 
a bridge component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to 
carry the traffic being operated. This issue is also addressed further 
in the section-by-section analysis, below.
    The same commenter also noted the difficulty of assigning a precise 
rating to many older concrete and masonry structures that are not well 
documented, and of which the internal configuration cannot be easily 
determined. FRA recognizes that many older concrete and masonry 
structures are not documented. Especially in the case of reinforced 
concrete, the configuration of reinforcing steel greatly affects the 
calculated capacity of the bridge. The analysis of brick and stone 
arches is possible, but the unknown variables can produce widely 
differing results. The practice to date in the railroad bridge 
engineering profession has been to observe these structures for any 
obvious signs of distress, and to rate them based on their condition at 
the time of inspection. FRA will accept the reasonable application of 
present methods for evaluating and managing these structures, because 
there is not a history of sudden catastrophic failure, absent sudden 
damage from severe weather conditions or heavy water flows.
    ASLRRA commented that ``an individual trained as a bridge 
supervisor and inspector with many years of experience inspecting a 
bridge that itself has been in place for many years, is fully qualified 
to determine whether that bridge has the capacity to carry the loads 
for which it is rated. Under normal bridge inspection procedures, if 
the bridge shows signs of problems, a bridge inspector usually `rates' 
a bridge each time he inspects it. If problems are encountered, 
additional steps will be taken to address the problem in accordance 
with these regulations. Rating an old masonry arch or bridge span may 
be difficult to do even for a railroad bridge engineer. While a number 
of bridges have been upgraded on many short lines and capacity rating 
calculations are available for those bridges, many more have not been 
upgraded and are performing well.'' FRA responds that there is a clear 
distinction between what some consider a ``condition rating'' ascribed 
to a bridge by an inspector, and a ``capacity rating'' which is 
determined by a qualified engineer. The term ``rating'' in the context 
of this rule refers only to a ``capacity rating.'' This rule does not 
address a ``condition rating'' to be applied to a bridge.
    A bridge inspector or supervisor who is not an engineer can 
certainly determine by observation and measurement whether the 
condition and configuration of a bridge corresponds with its state when 
it was rated by an engineer for capacity. However, if the bridge 
displays a condition or deterioration that materially affects its 
capacity, as by increasing the stress intensity in one or more 
components of the bridge, accurate determination of the revised 
capacity requires the experience, education and training of a competent 
railroad bridge engineer. In the same manner, the determination of the 
capacity of an existing bridge requires that the engineer should 
consider all available information related to the configuration and 
condition of the bridge, including all available design and 
modification documents and current reports of inspections. These 
determinations of bridge capacity ratings are usually performed in an 
office environment, and only seldom in the field.
    RailAmerica commented that the rule would require bridge ratings to 
be completed within 5 years of the adoption of a Bridge Management 
System. This provision would penalize

[[Page 41287]]

those railroads which have adopted a bridge management program before 
the final date required in the rule. FRA agrees with this comment. The 
rule has been modified so that the determinations of load capacity are 
required within five years of the required date for adoption of the 
bridge management program, rather than the actual date of adoption if 
earlier than required.

Bridge Inspection Records

    Several commenters suggested that the interim bridge inspection 
report be deleted from the rule, or that the time period for its 
submission be extended. Several also suggested that the time period for 
submission of the complete inspection report be extended. FRA 
understands that the regulated community is reluctant to see the 
imposition of record-keeping requirements that might not correspond 
with their current practices. However, bridge inspections performed by 
or for the track owner are a critical function which must be monitored 
in the enforcement process. Since FRA cannot be present on-site at each 
bridge inspection, the agency must see a record that shows that the 
inspection was performed, when and by whom it was performed, and the 
conditions found in the inspection. If there were no time requirements 
for recording inspections, it would be impossible for FRA to 
effectively monitor this vital function.
    FRA views the interim report as a management tool in the bridge 
program audit to show whether bridge inspections are being performed at 
or near their scheduled frequency, with ample time to permit 
adjustments as necessary in the inspection program. Most railroad 
bridge inspection programs at present do not incorporate an interim 
inspection report. The time between an inspection and the filing of the 
inspection report is found to vary. An effective bridge management 
program requires that the person in charge of the program have 
reasonably current information on the progress of the vital function of 
bridge inspection. The proposed time frame of 14 days has been extended 
to 30 days in the final rule because FRA now believes that the 30-day 
time period is sufficient for effective management by the railroad and 
effective compliance monitoring by FRA.
    Two commenters requested that the time period for submission of the 
complete inspection report be extended from 45 to 90 days, and one 
commenter requested 120 days. FRA understands the circumstances in 
which a consultant is engaged to conduct detailed bridge inspections 
and evaluations. Some of those evaluations include a considerable 
amount of engineering work that is performed in an office rather than 
in the field, and several months are often used in preparing the 
complete report. The extension of the time period for filing the report 
is intended to allow the most efficient use of inspection and 
engineering resources, while still providing effective input for 
management by the bridge owner and monitoring by FRA.
    In light of the reasons given, and discussion at the RSAC Railroad 
Bridge Working Group, FRA finds that a 120-day period for submission of 
the complete report would be reasonable and effective.
    Two commenters noted that the proposed requirement to retain 
inspection reports until the completion of the next two following 
inspections of the same type would be burdensome and ineffective in the 
case of certain special inspections. For instance, if a highway vehicle 
strike occasions a special inspection, it would have been necessary to 
retain the records of the special inspection until the bridge had twice 
again been struck by a highway vehicle and inspected. This is not 
realistic, so the final rule simply requires that records of 
inspections be retained for two years following completion of the 
inspection, and that records of underwater inspections be retained 
until the completion and review of the next underwater inspection of 
the same components of the bridge.
    Additionally, the final rule also accommodates instances in which a 
bridge inspection does not encompass the entire bridge. It also 
includes a clarification that when a complete report is filed before an 
interim report is due, the interim report is not required.

Other Comments

    FRA received a number of comments that did not pertain to specific 
sections of the rule text. FRA will address these concerns below.
    Maryland DOT suggested that FRA consider whether it would be 
beneficial to have the same inspection frequency criteria for all rail 
and transit lines or whether it is relevant to distinguish between 
Class I railroads, short lines, and transit lines, or to factor in rail 
traffic volume in general. Maryland DOT also states that it already has 
a detailed structural inspection program and database. It recommends 
that the new regulations not require replacement of existing agency 
programs, reporting forms, etc., to be in accordance with a national 
standard. Additionally, Maryland DOT asks whether FRA will compensate 
state agencies for the cost of overhauling their structural inspection 
program and database, and for the additional expense of conducting 
annual rather than biennial inspections. Finally, Maryland DOT asked if 
any regulations are proposed for tunnel, station or other miscellaneous 
structural inspections.
    With respect to the first question, FRA has not distinguished among 
railroads of different sizes because the size of the railroad is in no 
way related to the physical attributes of a bridge and the loads that 
it carries. As noted above, this rule does not affect transit lines. 
The only criterion related to inspection frequency in this rule is a 
minimum of one inspection per year. As this provision is found in the 
RSIA, FRA has no option in this regard. See Section 417(b)(5), Public 
Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). With regard to the 
second concern, the rule does not require replacement of existing 
programs as long as they comply with the requirements of the rule. In 
response to the third concern, FRA is not aware of any Congressional 
appropriation of funds to provide assistance in order for regulated 
entities to comply with bridge safety regulations and thus FRA will not 
be providing any funding for that purpose. Finally, tunnels, stations, 
and other structures were not addressed in the proposed rule and thus 
are not addressed in this final rule.
    Iowa DOT commented on the various types of ownership and 
maintenance agreements in place between highway agencies and railroads 
that cross those highways on bridges. Iowa DOT stated that ``it would 
be more logical and provide a more consistent bridge safety program if 
the responsibility for inspection, load capacity ratings, and other 
aspects of the bridge safety program were fully retained by the track 
owner and not by the party that is financially responsible for 
maintenance. Where no agreement exists there can be a conflict over the 
responsibilities, therefore having the track owner fully responsible 
for the bridge safety program aspects would prevent any bridge from 
`falling through the cracks' due to that conflict.'' Iowa DOT would 
like to see the final rule assign track owners the full responsibility 
for the bridge safety program, regardless of who is financially 
responsible for the structure's maintenance. Finally, the comment also 
states that, although the agency's bridge inspectors are fully 
qualified to inspect railroad bridges, determine load capacities, etc., 
they would not have the experience or

[[Page 41288]]

knowledge to translate the load capacities into railroad operational 
terms as required by the rule.
    FRA notes that the final rule holds the track owner responsible for 
compliance, which is consistent with the commenter's request. The 
regulation does not address the question of financial responsibility or 
apportionment of expenses for bridge management or maintenance. That 
issue would continue to be governed by the terms of any agreements 
between the track owner and bridge owner. The rule does not assign or 
apportion financial or functional responsibility for inspection or 
maintenance of railroad bridges. The rule simply holds the track owner 
responsible for the adequate and safe support of its track on bridges. 
FRA does not specify who will perform those functions, so long as they 
are performed correctly by qualified individuals designated by the 
track owner. That designated individual may accept work performed by 
others, such as a state agency, if it is acceptable to them and can be 
adequately verified.
    Regarding the last concern, bridge inspectors do not normally 
calculate the load capacities of a railroad bridge, unless they also 
happen to be competent railroad bridge engineers. Moreover, an engineer 
who cannot translate load capacities into railroad operational terms is 
not qualified to prescribe the loadings for a railroad bridge. The rule 
places the responsibility upon the track owner to have this done by a 
designated, competent railroad bridge engineer.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendment to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards

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

Addition of 49 CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards

Subpart A--General
    This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for the management 
of railroad bridges that support one or more tracks. Track owners may 
adopt more stringent standards as long as they are in accordance with 
this part. FRA notes that it expressed these statements in proposed 
Sec.  237.1, Scope of part, in the NPRM. See 74 FR 41560, 41573. FRA 
does not believe it necessary to include these explanatory statements 
directly in a section of the rule text, however, and is retaining them 
here instead.
    Separately, FRA has removed proposed Sec.  237.3, Preemptive 
effect. See 74 FR 41573. One commenter questioned whether the 
provisions in the proposed section were necessary, and whether they 
were inconsistent with other regulations. This section has been 
removed; discussion of the federalism implications of the rulemaking is 
found under Regulatory Impact and Notices, below. The sections in 
subpart A have been renumbered, accordingly.
Section 237.1 Application
    This rule applies to all owners of track carried on railroad 
bridges with certain exceptions as outlined or explained in following 
subsections. As delineated in FRA's Statement of Agency Policy 
Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws at appendix 
A of 49 CFR part 209, FRA exercises jurisdiction over tourist, scenic, 
and excursion railroad operations whether or not they are conducted on 
the general railroad system. This part applies to both insular and non-
insular tourist railroads because the passengers on those railroads are 
entitled to the protection afforded by this rule. As a matter of 
policy, FRA does not consider devices that run on rails in amusement 
parks to be railroads.
    Paragraph (b). This part does not apply to bridges on track used 
exclusively for rapid transit operations in urban areas that are not 
connected with the general system of transportation. This is in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20103 and appendix A of 49 CFR part 209.
    Paragraph (c). This part does not apply to bridges located in an 
installation which is not a part of the general railroad system of 
transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.
Section 237.3 Responsibility for Compliance
    The responsibility for the safety of trains on any track lies with 
the owner of that track. Therefore, the track owner is responsible for 
complying with the bridge safety standards promulgated in this part. If 
a bridge carries tracks owned by two or more owners, then the track 
owners can choose to make an assignment of responsibility for 
compliance with this part. The assignment process, delineated in 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, is similar to the 
assignment process detailed in 49 CFR 213.5. However, FRA will hold the 
track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance with 
this part and subject to penalties under Sec.  237.7. FRA intends that 
the responsibility for compliance with this part will follow, as 
closely as practicable, the responsibility for compliance with the 
Federal Track Safety Standards, and that where such responsibility is 
already established, it would not be necessary for the track owner to 
file an additional assignment of responsibility. As in part 213, FRA 
intends that ``person'' means an entity of any type covered under 1 
U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a 
manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a 
railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad 
equipment, track or facilities; any independent contractor providing 
goods or services to a railroad; any employee of such owner, 
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor; and anyone 
held by FRA to be responsible for compliance with this part.
    Paragraph (d). As described in 49 CFR part 213, a common carrier by 
railroad which is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to 
provide service over the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C. 
11123 is considered the owner of that track for the purposes of the 
application of this part during the period the directed service order 
remains in effect. On rare occasions, such as a cessation of service by 
a railroad, the Surface Transportation Board has directed a railroad 
other than the track owner to provide service. In such cases, the 
designated operator shall be considered the owner for purposes of 
compliance with the bridge safety regulations.
    Paragraph (e). This paragraph requires any person, including a 
state agency, who performs a function on a railroad bridge that is 
required by this part to perform that function in accordance with this 
part. Instances have occurred

[[Page 41289]]

in which state agencies have performed bridge inspections and 
evaluations in which the bridge was found to be seriously deficient, 
and where the operating railroad was never notified or advised of the 
problem. FRA accident records include at least one such instance in 
which the bridge failed under a train, resulting in a catastrophic 
train accident. Section 237.109 requires that the track owner keep the 
bridge inspection reports, and must therefore obtain them from a state 
agency or any other party that performs bridge inspections in 
conformance with the requirements of these regulations. This provision 
will prevent a loss of vital communication among concerned parties.
    Paragraph (f). Where an owner of track to which this part applies 
has previously assigned responsibility for a segment of track to 
another person as prescribed in 49 CFR 213.5(c), additional 
notification to FRA is not required.
    Paragraph (g). This paragraph provides that FRA reserves the right 
to reject an assignment of responsibility under Sec.  237.3(b) for 
cause shown. As stated in paragraph (c) of this section, FRA may hold 
the track owner or the assignee, or both, responsible for compliance 
with this part and subject to penalties under Sec.  237.7. 
Consequently, if FRA rejects an assignment of responsibility, FRA will 
not consider the rejected assignee responsible for compliance with part 
237 pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
Section 237.5 Definitions
    The definitions in this section are only intended to apply to this 
part, and not to alter the same terminology wherever used outside this 
part for other purposes.
    Bridge modification and bridge repair. ``Bridge modification'' 
means a change to the configuration of a railroad bridge that affects 
the load capacity of the bridge, while ``bridge repair'' means 
remediation of damage or deterioration which has affected the 
structural integrity of a railroad bridge. This part requires that 
modifications and repairs to bridges be designed by railroad bridge 
engineers, and the work supervised by designated railroad bridge 
supervisors. This definition clarifies that minor modifications and 
repairs, such as replacing a wire rope handrail with one made of pipe, 
or painting a bridge, do not need to be designed and supervised 
pursuant to this part. However, this does not exempt the track owner 
from properly supervising the personal safety of the individuals 
performing the work because that issue is addressed in other rules.
    Railroad bridge. A ``railroad bridge'' is any structure which spans 
an opening under the track except for a small culvert, pipe, or other 
such structure that is located so far below the track that it only 
carries dead load from soil pressure and is not subjected to measurable 
bending, tension or compression stresses from passing trains. Unloading 
pits, track scales, and waterfront structures such as piers and wharves 
that fall within the definition of a ``railroad bridge'' are considered 
bridges for purposes of this part.
    FRA does not intend to relieve a railroad from taking any action 
necessary to protect the safety of trains in the case of any structure, 
including small culverts, retaining walls, tunnels or overhead 
structures by providing for their inspection and maintenance, but it 
exempts them from the specific requirements of this regulation. A 
structure in a locomotive or car maintenance facility which is used to 
support cars or locomotives for maintenance is not included in the 
specific requirements of this regulation.
Section 237.7 Penalties
    This provision conforms to provisions of the enabling legislation 
and stated agency policy. Consistent with FRA's Statement of Agency 
Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws, a 
penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful 
violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of 
up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 
CFR part 209, appendix A.
Section 237.9 Waivers
    This section provides that each petition for a waiver under this 
part shall be filed in the manner and contain the information required 
by 49 CFR part 211, which prescribes rules of practice that apply to 
waiver proceedings. The processing of petitions for waiver of safety 
rules is found at subpart C to part 211.
Subpart B--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance
    This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for persons 
responsible for railroad bridges to implement programs to assure the 
structural integrity of those bridges and to protect the safe operation 
of trains over those bridges. The responsibility for the safety of a 
railroad bridge rests with the owner of the track supported by that 
bridge, who relies upon the work of the engineer who makes the critical 
decisions regarding the management and use of that bridge.
Section 237.31 Adoption of Bridge Management Programs
    Congress mandated that FRA ``promulgate a regulation requiring 
owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges to adopt a 
bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration of 
railroad bridges and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental 
damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system 
that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure.'' Section 417(a), 
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This 
section requires track owners to adopt a bridge safety management 
program that prevents the deterioration of railroad bridges by 
preserving their capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated 
over them. Class I carriers and owners of track segments which are part 
of the general railroad system of transportation and which carry more 
than ten scheduled passengers trains per week shall implement their 
bridge safety programs no later than March 14, 2011. Class II carriers 
which carry ten or fewer scheduled passenger trains per week shall 
implement their bridge safety programs no later than September 13, 
2011. All other track owners subject to this part shall implement their 
bridge safety programs no later than September 13, 2012.
    FRA considers this implementation schedule to be realistic and 
effective, with priorities given to railroads with the highest levels 
of freight or passenger traffic. The implementation dates apply to the 
track owner, not to specific track segments. However, it is reasonable 
to consider that the specific provisions of each program will be 
implemented in a manner that accords higher priority to individual 
track segments with high volumes of freight or passenger traffic.
Section 237.33 Content of Bridge Management Programs
    Certain elements of a bridge management program are essential to 
its effectiveness. Those elements are enumerated in this section. Track 
owners and individuals responsible for the safety of railroad bridges 
are encouraged to adapt these elements to the needs of their areas of 
responsibility, and to adopt additional elements not inconsistent with 
the requirements of this part.
    Paragraph (a). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
each track owner to ``develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its 
railroad bridges, which shall identify the

[[Page 41290]]

location of each bridge, its configuration, type of construction, 
number of spans, span lengths, and all other information necessary to 
provide for the safe management of the bridges.'' Section 417(b)(1), 
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note). This 
paragraph requires that such an inventory be maintained. An accurate 
inventory of any property to be managed is essential so that the 
responsible individuals may schedule and track inspection, maintenance, 
and repair of the property units.
    Paragraph (b). Congress mandated that the new regulations require 
that the track owner ``maintain, and update as appropriate, a record of 
the safe capacity of each bridge which carries its track and, if 
available, maintain the original design documents of each bridge and a 
documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of the 
bridge.'' Section 417(b)(3), Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 
U.S.C. 20103, note). This paragraph requires that a record of the safe 
load capacity of each bridge be established. The operation of 
excessively heavy loads over a bridge will seriously shorten a bridge's 
useful life and will reduce or even eliminate the margin of safety 
between structural integrity and catastrophic failure. It is essential 
that the track owner should know that the loads permitted to be 
operated on a bridge are within the safe limits of the bridge.
    Paragraph (c). The track owner must obtain and maintain the design 
documents of each bridge, if available, and document all repairs, 
modifications, and inspections of each bridge. The determination of 
safe load capacity requires knowledge of the configuration of the 
bridge and the materials of which it is constructed. Although the 
configuration may be determined by actual measurements of all of the 
components, that procedure can be tedious and expensive. Good 
documentation of the design and history of a bridge will facilitate 
more rapid and accurate determination of bridge capacity when such 
calculations are needed, as well as determination of the maintenance 
and service history of a bridge to detect and correct possible 
deterioration of its components. If the design documents for a bridge 
cannot be located, the track owner must measure and document the 
configuration of the bridge in sufficient detail to enable an accurate 
determination of the safe capacity of the bridge.
    Paragraph (d). Bridge inspection is absolutely essential to an 
effective bridge management program. In this paragraph, FRA requires 
that the track owner's bridge management program contain a bridge 
inspection program. Items (1) through (6) should be addressed in the 
program to a degree that promotes effective and efficient conduct of 
the inspection program. With regard to item (1), bridge inspection can 
present certain risks that are inherent in working at heights and 
around moving vehicles. A bridge inspection program should at least 
address the unique hazards associated with the process. With regard to 
item (2), a bridge inspection program should incorporate standards for 
the procedures and required details of any different types of 
inspection that are referenced in the program, such as annual 
inspections, post-event inspections, rating inspections, and 
intermediate periodic inspections. A large railroad might find it 
convenient to describe the standard procedures for various types of 
inspections in some detail, while a small railroad that normally 
conducts only annual inspections might describe only that procedure as 
well as post-event special inspections, and then issue instructions of 
particular applicability for other types of inspections that occur only 
infrequently. With regard to items (3) through (6), use of a standard 
method of describing the condition of components promotes effective and 
efficient communication between the inspector and those persons who 
review and evaluate a bridge using information from the inspection.
Subpart C--Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons
    In subpart C, FRA establishes minimum standards for incorporation 
in railroad bridge management programs for qualification and 
designations of persons who perform safety critical functions that 
affect the integrity and safety of railroad bridges. Many aspects of 
railroad bridge work differ from other fields of engineering, 
inspection and maintenance. It is essential that the individuals who 
are responsible for these safety-critical functions be qualified by 
education, training and experience to perform them correctly.
Section 237.51 Railroad Bridge Engineers
    This section sets forth the minimum standards that a railroad 
bridge engineer must meet. Congress directed FRA to ``ensure that an 
engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering'' 
is responsible for the development of all inspection procedures, 
reviews all inspection reports, and determines whether bridges are 
being inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequency, 
and reviews any items noted by an inspector as exceptions. See Section 
417(b)(7) of the RSIA. Railroad bridge engineering is based on the same 
principles of engineering as all other structural engineering work, but 
the application of many of those principles is unique to this 
particular field. The live loads carried on railroad bridges are 
generally much higher than the loads on highway bridges or other 
transportation structures. Overall configuration and details of 
construction of railroad bridges differ greatly from other classes of 
structures, to the extent that dealing with these features requires 
some experience with them as well as an understanding of the 
fundamentals of engineering.
    FRA understands that not all railroad bridge engineers will be 
faced with all aspects of railroad bridge engineering. For example, an 
engineer engaged to prescribe safe loads for short steel spans and 
timber trestles on a particular railroad might never have to perform a 
detailed analysis of a large truss br