National Tunnel Inspection Standards, 42643-42659 [2010-17787]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42643-42659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17787]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 650

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2008-0038]
RIN 2125-AF24


National Tunnel Inspection Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA solicits comments concerning the establishment of 
National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS). The NTIS would set minimum 
tunnel inspection standards that apply to all tunnels constructed or 
renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public roads 
and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The agency proposes modeling the 
NTIS after the existing National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) as 
applicable. The NTIS would include requirements for inspection 
procedures for structural elements and functional systems, including 
mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and ventilation systems; 
qualifications for inspectors; inspection frequencies; and a National 
Tunnel Inventory (NTI).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2010. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments 
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. All comments received will be available for examination and 
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of 
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or 
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting 
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, 
Pages 19477-78), or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jesus M. Rohena, P.E., Office of 
Bridge Technology, HIBT-10, (202) 366-4593, or Mr. Robert Black, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1359, Federal Highway 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal 
Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov. It is available 
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and 
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of 
the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may also be 
downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page 
at https://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web 
page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.

Background

    The safety and security of our Nation's tunnels are of paramount 
importance to the FHWA. Recognizing that tunnel owners are not mandated 
to inspect tunnels routinely and that inspection methods vary among 
entities that inspect tunnels, the FHWA and the Federal Transit 
Administration developed guidelines for the inspection of tunnels in 
2003. The guidelines, known as the ``Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel 
Inspection Manual,'' (HRTTIM) were updated in 2005.\1\ In addition, the 
FHWA developed Tunnel Management Software to help tunnel owners manage 
their tunnel inventory. However, tunnel owners have not adopted the 
software uniformly, and the FHWA recognizes the limitations of the 
software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit 
Administration ``Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection 
Manual,'' 2005 edition, is available in electronic format at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/management/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After investigating the fatal July 2006 suspended ceiling collapse 
in the Central Artery Tunnel in Boston,

[[Page 42644]]

Massachusetts, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated 
in its report that, ``had the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, at 
regular intervals between November 2003 and July 2006, inspected the 
area above the suspended ceilings in the D Street portal tunnels, the 
anchor creep that led to this accident would likely have been detected, 
and action could have been taken that would have prevented this 
accident.'' Among its recommendations, the NTSB suggested that the FHWA 
seek legislative authority to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection 
program similar to the NBIS that would identify critical inspection 
elements and specify an appropriate inspection frequency. Additionally, 
the DOT Inspector General (IG), in testimony before Congress in October 
2007, highlighted the need for a tunnel inspection and reporting system 
to ensure the safety of the Nation's tunnels, stating that the FHWA 
``should develop and implement a system to ensure that States inspect 
and report on tunnel conditions.'' Additionally, the IG stated that 
``FHWA should move aggressively on this rulemaking and establish 
rigorous inspection standards as soon as possible.''
    The NTIS would implement these NTSB and IG recommendations. The 
FHWA proposes modeling the NTIS after the existing NBIS, located at 23 
CFR 650, Subpart C. The agency proposes adding the NTIS under Subpart E 
of 23 CFR Part 650--Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics.
    The NTIS would require the proper safety inspection and evaluation 
of tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that 
are located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The 
NTIS are needed to ensure that all structural, mechanical, electrical, 
hydraulic and ventilation systems, and other major elements of our 
Nation's tunnels are inspected and tested on a regular basis. The NTIS 
would also ensure safety for the surface transportation users of our 
Nation's highway tunnels, and would make tunnel inspection standards 
consistent across the Nation. Additionally, tunnel inspections would 
help protect Federal investment in such key infrastructure.
    Timely tunnel inspection is vital to uncovering safety problems and 
preventing failures. When corrosion or leakage occur, electrical or 
mechanical systems malfunction, or concrete cracking and spalling signs 
appear, they may be symptomatic of dire problems. The importance of 
tunnel inspection was demonstrated in the summer of 2007 in the I-70 
Hanging Lake tunnel in Colorado when a ceiling and roof inspection 
uncovered a crack in the roof that was compromising the structural 
integrity of the tunnel. This discovery prompted the closure of the 
tunnel for several months for needed repairs. The repairs included 
removal of more than 30 feet of soil fill material from the top of the 
tunnel roof, temporary support of the roof from the inside of the 
tunnel, removal of the suspended ceiling, and the design and 
construction of a new slab cast on top of the existing roof to 
reinforce and add extra structural capacity. To accomplish the repair, 
the eastbound tube under the cracked roof was closed to traffic, and 
the adjacent westbound tube was converted to a tube with bi-directional 
traffic. Even though the eastbound tunnel was closed for 7 months, and 
the repair cost approximately $6 million, the repairs helped prevent a 
potential safety incident.
    A preliminary tunnel survey conducted in 2003 suggests that there 
are approximately 350 highway tunnels in the Nation, although no 
comprehensive national inventory for tunnels currently exists. The FHWA 
additionally estimates that tunnels represent nearly 100 linear miles--
approximately 517,000 linear feet--of Interstates, State routes, and 
local routes. Most of these tunnels range in age from 51 to 100 years, 
and some tunnels were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s. The FHWA 
anticipates that the NTIS would help create a national inventory of 
tunnels that would lead to a more accurate assessment of the number and 
condition of tunnels in the Nation.
    Tunnels like the Central Artery tunnel in Massachusetts, the 
Lincoln Tunnel in New York, the Fort McHenry and the Baltimore Harbor 
tunnels in Maryland, just to mention a few, are a vital part of the 
national transportation infrastructure. These tunnels handle a huge 
volume of daily traffic. For example, according to the Port Authority 
of New York and New Jersey, the Lincoln Tunnel carries approximately 
120,000 vehicles per day, making it the busiest vehicular tunnel in the 
world. The Fort McHenry Tunnel handles a daily traffic volume of more 
than 115,000 vehicles. Any disruption of traffic in these or other 
highly traveled tunnels would result in lost productivity. Because 
tunnels are vital to the local, regional, and national economies, and 
to our national defense, it is imperative that these facilities are 
properly maintained and inspected to ensure the safe passage of the 
traveling public and goods.
    Currently, there is no uniformity with respect to how frequently 
tunnels are inspected. The frequency of tunnel inspections varies from 
daily to every 10 years. Some inspectors in colder climates walk 
through air ducts on a daily basis to identify potential icing problems 
due to water leakage. Some inspectors examine mechanical and electrical 
equipment on a daily basis, while others perform such inspections on a 
monthly basis. Under the proposed NTIS, State departments of 
transportation (State DOTs) and Federal agencies owning tunnels would 
be responsible for ensuring compliance with the NTIS for tunnels 
constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located 
on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The proposed NTIS 
would require that these tunnels are inspected routinely, that the 
findings of such inspections are reported to the FHWA, and that 
deficiencies are corrected in a timely manner.

Summary of Comments Received to the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM)

    The FHWA issued an ANPRM on November 18, 2008, at 73 FR 68365, to 
solicit public comments regarding 14 categories of information related 
to tunnel inspections to help FHWA develop the NTIS. The FHWA received 
comments on the docket from 20 commenters, including: 9 State DOTs 
(Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, Florida, and Washington); 1 metropolitan transit authority 
(Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority/Metropolitan Transit Authority 
Bridges and Tunnels (TBTA/MTA); 3 engineering consulting firms (United 
Technologies Corporation (UTC), Jacobs Associates, and PB Americas); 2 
private citizens; and 4 organizations (American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE), American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), 
and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)). Additionally, in a 
letter to Secretary LaHood, Congressman Joseph Capuano of Massachusetts 
expressed support for the development of NTIS. Commenters 
overwhelmingly supported the development of NTIS and agree that FHWA 
should model the NTIS after the NBIS.

Discussion of ANPRM Comments Concerning NTIS

Applicability

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA proposed that the NTIS apply to all Federal-
aid

[[Page 42645]]

funded highway tunnels on public roads in the 50 States, District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In his letter to Secretary LaHood, 
Congressman Capuano asserted that the NTIS should apply to all highway 
tunnels, but recognized that current law may limit FHWA's authority to 
only Federal-aid highway tunnels.

Definition of a Tunnel

    In the ANPRM, FHWA asked several questions related to the 
definition of a ``tunnel,'' including what requirements the FHWA should 
incorporate into the definition of a ``tunnel,'' whether there should 
be a minimum length or other criteria required before a tunnel is 
subject to the NTIS, and whether the FHWA should adopt the AASHTO or 
NFPA tunnel definition. In general, most commenters expressed support 
for adoption of the AASHTO tunnel definition with modifications. Ohio 
DOT, PB Americas, TBTA/MTA, Jacobs Associates, ACEC, and ASCE commented 
that the tunnel definition should include a minimum length. PB Americas 
commented that the NTIS should adopt the AASHTO definition and add a 
length requirement of 800 feet. Jacobs Associates indicated that the 
agency should consider a minimum structure length-to-height ratio of 
three to define a tunnel. The ASCE expressed support for a minimum 
length of 20 feet. Ohio DOT and ACEC commented the NTIS should have a 
length requirement; however, they did not suggest a length. The NFPA 
commented that the definition of tunnel need not contain a minimum 
length; however, tunnels should be categorized by tunnel length. The 
AASHTO, New Jersey DOT, TBTA/MTA, Washington State DOT, and 
Pennsylvania DOT commented the NTIS should adopt the AASHTO definition 
of a tunnel. The ACEC asserted that the tunnel definition should 
include tunnels that have been created by a group of bridges, airtight 
structures, parking, or other facilities built close to each other.

Inspection Procedures

    In the ANPRM, FHWA asked if the proposed NTIS should adopt the 
inspection techniques and standards described in the HRTTIM. Most 
commenters agreed that the NTIS should either adopt or utilize the 
HRTTIM with respect to inspections and ratings. The ACEC asserted that 
the HRTTIM should be adopted, but with modifications. California DOT 
(Caltrans) commented that the HRTTIM needed significant modifications 
and, in particular, noted that the HRTTIM lacked guidance relative to 
the inspection of electrical and mechanical components and other 
functional systems. Accordingly, Caltrans proposed that the NTIS should 
consider States' existing inspection guidelines. Ohio DOT objected to 
the use of the HRTTIM, but offered no alternative suggestions.
    The FHWA also asked whether additional sources of inspection 
standards should be considered. A number of commenters, including the 
ACEC, PB Americas, ASCE, AASHTO and others, recommended that the NTIS 
develop and require a more element-level-based rating system. 
Additionally, ASCE and Pennsylvania DOT recommended that the NTIS 
incorporate a tunnel sufficiency rating. The New Jersey DOT stated that 
for functional systems, owners should have the discretion to determine 
or establish the type of inspection and frequency. The AASHTO asserted 
that inspections should be routinely conducted at frequencies based on 
need, whereas in-depth inspections should be conducted as determined by 
the owner. Several commenters noted that risk-based inspection types 
and frequencies should be considered. The ASCE commented that a risk-
based approach would address the inspection needs of geotechnical 
aspects of a tunnel. The Massachusetts Highway Department 
(MassHighways) and the ACEC noted that special inspections should be 
triggered based on findings from the routine inspection. MassHighways 
further noted that the actual type of inspection should be left to the 
owner's discretion, while the ACEC recommended yearly visual 
inspections and in-depth inspections on a 2-year cycle.
    In the ANPRM, FHWA asked if tunnel inspections should include 
evaluation of emergency response and non-emergency operational 
procedures. Oregon DOT noted the importance of reviewing inspector 
safety issues such as confined space and traffic safety requirements. A 
number of commenters also indicated that some review or assessment of 
tunnel security and emergency response procedures or measures might be 
appropriate, although the New Jersey DOT asserted that actual tracking 
and evaluation of these security systems could be problematic.
    Regarding whether there are any special inspection procedures for 
new tunnels that should be included in inspector manuals, some 
commenters recommended that FHWA review and incorporate into the NTIS 
inspection procedures or guidelines developed by other agencies or in 
other countries. In particular, commenters pointed to the National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-07 Task 261 report and 
the AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation and Maintenance 
Manual.

Frequency and Type of Inspections

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what tunnel elements and systems 
should be inspected routinely. Oregon DOT indicated that drainage 
systems should be inspected twice per year, and liner; portal slopes; 
geotechnical elements; and lighting, ventilation, electrical, and fire 
control systems should be inspected at a frequency determined by the 
owner based on risk factors. New Jersey DOT commented that drainage 
systems, tunnel structural supports (rock bolts, etc.), liner, portals, 
portal slopes, lighting system and shut-off, ventilation, fire 
suppression system, traffic visibility provisions, and bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities should be inspected. Ohio DOT recommended that 
structural items, mechanical, electrical, and emergency systems should 
be included in inspections. The TBTA/MTA suggested that roadways, 
suspended ceiling, ventilation system, drainage, geometrical alignment, 
signal, emergency telephone lines, and call boxes should be inspected. 
The AASHTO asserted that all tunnel systems should be part of an 
inspection program, including emergency response elements and 
operational procedures. The AASHTO also indicated that inspections 
should include structural, mechanical, electrical, emergency response, 
and fire protection systems; geotechnical elements; wall tiles, water 
pumps; emergency gates; evacuation tunnels; communication devices; 
traffic signals; and lighting. The AASHTO further suggested that 
inspectors should look for evidence of excessive seepage, settlement, 
or instability impacting the tunnel walls, roof, floor, portals, 
ceiling, or air shafts.
    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what inspection frequency the NTIS 
should establish for tunnel elements and systems. In general, most 
commenters recommended that the NTIS should require inspections every 
24 months. The AASHTO and Oregon DOT suggested that the NTIS should 
require tunnel owners to establish a frequency for inspection based on 
a list of risk factors because some tunnels may require more frequent 
inspections than others. Ohio DOT and New Jersey DOT recommended that 
emergency systems should be inspected more frequently depending on the 
tunnel. The TBTA/MTA commented that elements directly affecting public 
safety and traffic

[[Page 42646]]

continuity must be inspected on a routine basis. The AASHTO commented 
that frequency should be determined based on need. MassHighways 
asserted that inspection frequencies should be established for each 
component based on risk and vulnerability to the tunnel operating 
environment and mean time to failure. The ACEC commented that 
inspection frequency could be based on the function of the inspected 
item or system, the age of the structure, and the overall condition, 
and that certain, more fragile safety-related systems might require an 
inspection in close intervals, possibly on a monthly variable schedule, 
even in new facilities. Jacobs Associates suggested that tunnel 
inspections should be reviewed by an outside qualified reviewer every 5 
years. The ASCE commented that the inspection frequencies may need to 
vary depending on the complexity of the systems, the age of the 
systems, and the operational characteristics of the tunnel facility. 
The ASCE further proposed that the FHWA should consider European 
practices identified in NCHRP 20-07 Task 261, the European Scan Tour, 
and other related sources. PB Americas advised that routine inspections 
should occur every 2 years, while inspections of critical elements must 
be performed after any emergency event. Caltrans stated that the NTIS 
should be flexible to allow States to establish their own inspection 
frequencies, with the exception of structural components, which could 
be inspected at intervals similar to inspection under the NBIS.
    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked whether a minimum frequency for tunnel 
inspection should be established. The majority of commenters stated 
that there should be a minimum frequency, and most commenters favoring 
a specific interval suggested a 2-year interval. Most commenters stated 
that more frequent inspections should be required in many cases to 
account for the wide variety of tunnel type and complexity, but that 
owners should determine inspection frequency. Jacobs Associates, ACEC, 
and PB Americas thought that the maximum interval of 12 months for 
visual inspections is appropriate for most tunnels, with a hands-on 
inspection completed at 2-year or longer intervals. The AASHTO, Oregon 
DOT, and ACEC stated that a longer interval of 4 to 6 years should be 
granted for new tunnels or tunnels with no advanced or unique 
structural elements and systems. The AASHTO indicated that intervals up 
to 6 years could be established for mechanical and electrical systems, 
but most commenters thought that these systems should be inspected or 
tested more frequently than tunnel structures.
    In the ANPRM, we asked whether the NTIS should identify various 
types of inspections, and if so, what types of inspections should be 
defined. The majority of commenters noted that routine or visual 
inspections should be conducted at a more frequent interval than in-
depth inspections, and that functional systems should receive 
inspections at different frequencies depending on risk and the 
complexity and condition of the systems.
    In the ANPRM, we asked whether the frequency of each type of 
inspection should vary according to the type of inspection. All 
commenters agreed that inspection frequency should vary by type of 
inspection and that owners should determine the frequencies of routine 
and special inspections based on tunnel condition, age, and risk 
factors. Commenters noted that systems that owners actively operate may 
not need to be inspected as frequently as mechanical and electrical 
systems that are operated only in an emergency mode. The majority of 
commenters further suggested that structural systems of a tunnel should 
be inspected with the same frequency as a bridge (at a minimum every 2 
years). The ASCE asserted that for non-seismic zones, inspections of 
geotechnical related items initially should be established on a minimum 
schedule, but may be adjusted to a longer frequency if historic 
inspection data indicate low risk of problems. For seismic zones, the 
ASCE recommended inspections should occur immediately following an 
earthquake.
    The FHWA asked in the ANPRM whether the NTIS should include a risk-
based frequency to account for the complexity of each tunnel. All 
commenters agreed that the NTIS should include a risk-based approach to 
establish the inspection frequency. Caltrans recommended that risk-
based inspection frequencies should only apply to structural 
components. PB Americas indicated that a risk-based frequency should be 
established based on tunnel age, condition, and maintenance. The ACEC 
recommended that a minimum visual inspection be conducted every year 
and more extensive, hands-on inspections be conducted every 2 years. 
The ACEC also suggested that the NTIS should include a default 
inspection frequency for use in the absence of a structured risk-based 
assessment.
    In the ANPRM, we asked what factors (e.g., age, traffic, length, 
ventilation, urban or rural location) should be included in a risk-
based frequency inspection system. Commenters generally included the 
following as key risk factors to consider during inspections: Average 
Daily Traffic, Average Daily Truck Traffic, length, age, condition, 
detour length, presence of mechanical or ventilation systems, design 
and construction type, submerged (or above water level), presence of 
security systems, geotechnical environments through which the tunnel is 
built (such as faults, aggressive or corrosive soils), tunnel location 
importance, strategic values, seismic risk or vulnerability, and 
traffic accident frequency. The ASCE commented that not all factors 
should carry the same weight, and the weighting of individual factors 
could vary from one structure to another.

Equipment and System Inspection

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA indicated the NTIS likely would include 
requirements for inspection procedures for structural, mechanical, 
electrical, hydraulic or ventilation systems, and other major tunnel 
elements. In general, all commenters agreed the NTIS should require 
inspection of all systems in a tunnel. Oregon DOT remarked that the 
NTIS should not contain arbitrary frequency or type of inspections, but 
general guidelines with a requirement that the owner establish an 
appropriate inspection process for each tunnel. The AASHTO recommended 
inspecting portals, drainage systems, roadway surfaces, and air shafts. 
The NFPA recommended that security systems should be installed, 
inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 731, Standard 
for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems.

Qualifications of Personnel

    The FHWA also asked in the ANPRM whether inspector qualification 
requirements should be the same as those established in the HRTTIM and 
what should be required in terms of tunnel inspector training, 
education, and experience. In general, the commenters observed that the 
HRTTIM provides for minimum inspector qualification requirements, but 
commented that the HRTTIM needs to be expanded to specifically include 
all pertinent disciplines, including electrical, mechanical, 
structural, geotechnical, geological, lighting, ventilation, and 
communications. Most commenters suggested that there should be a 
distinction between qualification requirements for Team Leaders and for 
other team members. Those commenters further proposed that Team Leaders 
should be professional engineers (PEs) licensed in the discipline 
specific to the tunnel inspection requirements and that

[[Page 42647]]

tunnel inspection team members qualifications should parallel NBIS 
qualification requirements. The ACEC advised that FHWA should also 
consider the AASHTO T-20 document in determining inspector 
requirements. The ASCE noted that tunnel inspectors should be familiar 
with tunnel design and construction. Ohio DOT asserted that the HRTTIM 
should not be adopted because a PE is not necessary for tunnel 
inspections. The AASHTO proposed that States should establish tunnel 
inspector qualifications based on the needs of the tunnels in each 
State's inventory. Washington State DOT contended that it is not 
necessary to require a tunnel inspection Team Leader to have tunnel 
design experience. Oregon DOT stated that tunnel inspection team 
members should be registered PEs.
    Most commenters recommended that the National Highway Institute 
(NHI) provide training in tunnel design and inspection, similar to what 
it provides for bridge inspectors (i.e., comprehensive initial training 
with periodic refresher training), and that other discipline-specific 
inspection training should be required for team members performing 
certain aspects of tunnel inspections. Florida DOT maintained that 
comprehensive training should be required for the Team Leader with 
discipline specific training required for other specialists on the 
team. Many commenters advocated for tunnel inspector training under the 
NTIS that parallels bridge inspector training under the NBIS. The 
AASHTO stated that training should be required that would allow States 
to certify tunnel inspectors, while MassHighways commented that a 
nationally established training program would help foster consistency 
of tunnel inspections across the States. The ASCE suggested inspectors 
should complete refresher training every 3 to 5 years. The ACEC 
commented that training should include an inspector safety component. 
The commenters that addressed education requirements recommended that 
an inspection Team Leader should be a licensed PE with a 4-year degree 
and that other team members should have at least a high school diploma 
unless their specialty requires a college degree. Pennsylvania DOT 
suggested that inspection teams should be structured with qualified 
individuals certified through education and experience.
    Most commenters recommended that the NTIS specify separate 
experience requirements for Team Leaders and team members, and 
discipline-specific experience requirements for inspectors. Many 
commenters asserted that tunnel inspector experience requirements 
should parallel requirements under the NBIS. New Jersey DOT stated its 
concern that if the NTIS make specific training in tunnel design 
mandatory, the pool of potential inspectors with this particular 
expertise would result in higher costs than necessary. The TBTA/MTA 
suggested that any ``rating'' given for a tunnel component or overall 
tunnel, would be much more experience-based than ratings generated in a 
bridge inspection. The ACEC recommended that the Team Leader have a 
minimum of 5 years of experience. Jacobs Associates recommended that 
the Team Leader have a minimum of 15 years of experience. The ASCE 
commented that inspector experience requirements should be tied to the 
complexity of the tunnel and the level of inspection (e.g., initial, 
in-depth, and periodic). Caltrans suggested that inspector experience 
requirements should be based on the feature(s) being inspected and the 
expertise required.

Record Keeping

    The ANPRM also requested comments about who should be required to 
keep records of highway tunnel inspections performed within the State, 
whether the record keeping requirements contained in the HRTTIM are 
sufficient, and how long tunnel inspection records should be 
maintained.
    In general, commenters stated that State DOTs should retain a 
centralized database for their tunnels and that other tunnel owners 
should retain these records themselves and also send the records to the 
State DOTs. Additionally, the commenters recommended that all records 
be reported to the FHWA similar to the requirements of the NBIS. 
Commenters further suggested that the record keeping requirements in 
the HRTTIM provide a good starting point, but consideration should be 
given to developing tunnel-specific core elements and condition codes 
(or ratings) for those elements that would lend themselves to an asset 
management system. Washington State DOT asserted that the HRTTIM should 
be modified to be less specific about repair priorities and more 
specific about inventory data retention. Many of the commenters 
recommended that the NTIS record keeping requirements mirror the NBIS. 
Oregon DOT commented that the tunnel condition assessment should be 
incorporated into the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) submittal. The 
AASHTO suggested that tunnel inspection records for local streets and 
roads should be separate and the responsibility of the owner. The ACEC 
indicated that site-specific or other special conditions might be 
required for new tunnels and should be specified by the tunnel 
designer. The ASCE pointed out that the HRTTIM does not currently 
provide condition codes (or ratings) for individual elements in a 
tunnel and that a new system should be considered that would encompass 
the full spectrum of structural, mechanical and electrical components 
to be inspected. Pennsylvania DOT asserted that commonly recognized 
element-level recording should be followed to provide the basis for 
maintenance needs.
    Most commenters recommended that tunnel inspection records be kept 
for the life of the structure similar to the NBIS. However, AASHTO 
suggested that inspection records should be kept for several years 
after the tunnel is replaced. The NFPA recommended records retention 
for four inspection cycles for at least 10 years. The ACEC asserted 
that tunnel inspection records should be retained for seven inspection 
cycles, and PB Americas suggested that tunnel inspection records should 
be retained for a period of at least 7 years.
    The ACEC commented that the FHWA should consider homeland security 
concerns in establishing the NTIS. For example, ACEC noted that 
detailed tunnel records should not be released without proper 
authorization and identification. The ACEC also suggested that the FHWA 
should consult with other relevant Federal agencies on the security 
risks for the disclosure of potentially sensitive information.

Rating

    In the ANPRM, the agency requested comments regarding whether a 
condition-based rating system should be used for rating tunnel 
elements. The Florida, Oregon and Ohio DOTs, along with the TBTA/MTA 
and Jacob Associates, agreed that a condition rating system similar to 
that in the NBIS should be used to rate tunnel elements. However, a 
number of commenters, including the ASCE, ACEC, Caltrans and others, 
commented that some sort of rating system should be used, but generally 
agreed that a system similar to that used in the NBIS is too subjective 
and that a more element-level rating system should be developed and 
incorporated in the NTIS. Some commenters also noted that a tunnel 
sufficiency rating similar to that used under the NBIS should be 
developed and incorporated into the NTIS.
    The FHWA also asked if the ratings should be used for funding 
decisions. The New Jersey DOT suggested that a prioritization system 
tied to element ratings would be appropriate. However,

[[Page 42648]]

Caltrans indicated that the rating and prioritization of electrical and 
mechanical components would not be appropriate because repairs to these 
systems are needs-based. The ACEC and the Oregon DOT disagreed. The 
ACEC commented that a prioritization system could create the potential 
for owners to neglect maintenance of their tunnels.
    MassHighways and AASHTO recommended that a rating matrix be 
developed wherein various elements would be rated and their condition 
tracked. The AASHTO recommended that such a matrix could include items 
such as costs, risk, consequence, and time to repair.

National Tunnel Inventory Database

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what tunnel data elements should be 
collected (name, age, length, width, height, number of lanes, etc.) and 
included in the tunnel inventory database. The ASCE suggested 
collecting data on geometric information, lane clearances, overburden 
characteristics and complete description of the mechanical systems, 
water and ground water, temporary ground support, type and number of 
geotechnical instrumentation, documentation of performance during an 
earthquake, and structural modifications. The ACEC commented that the 
data collected should be comprehensive and address as many main and 
subsystems as possible.
    The AASHTO, Caltrans, MassHighways, and the Washington State, 
Oregon, and Florida DOTs commented that the data collected should be 
similar to data collected under the NBIS. The AASHTO also commented 
that inventory data should include special elements such as 
ventilation, lighting, type of ceilings, type of design, structural 
elements, and conditions and appraisal ratings. The AASHTO recommended 
that core elements should be developed and applied. New Jersey DOT 
recommended that the NTIS should use the NBI as a starting point and 
add information specific to tunnels.
    The ANPRM included a question regarding how often data should be 
collected and reported. The ASCE suggested that there should be an 
initial inventory entered after the NTIS is implemented and then 
updated at each inspection. The ACEC recommended that the data be 
collected and reported at a minimum of 5 years and as changes occur to 
tunnel condition, repairs completed, system replaced or updated. The 
AASHTO, MassHighways, and the Washington State and Florida DOTs 
commented that the data should be collected in conjunction with 
inspection cycles and reported annually. Ohio DOT advocated for 
reporting inspection data every 2 years, but reporting inventory data 
(e.g., tunnel location, geometrics) only once unless information 
changes. PB Americas proposed that the data be reported to the FHWA 
every 2 years.
    In the ANPRM, the FHWA requested comments about whether data should 
be collected and reported to FHWA. In general, all responders expressed 
general support for data collection and reporting. Additionally, most 
commenters believed that the data should be reported to FHWA. Caltrans 
recommended that the data should be reported to FHWA if the intent is 
to determine funding needs. New Jersey State DOT also suggested that 
the data should not be reported to FHWA unless a Federal-aid program 
(similar to the Highway Bridge Program) is created to fund improvement 
projects for identified needs.
    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked whether tunnel identification numbers 
should be used. Most commenters responded that a system should be used 
to identify the tunnel.
    The FHWA also asked what criteria should be used to assign an 
identification number. The ACEC advocated for criteria similar to the 
NBIS criteria. Caltrans suggested that the identification number should 
be similar to the NBI to simplify creating a numbering system. 
Washington State DOT commented the system should not allow duplicated 
identifiers between bridge and tunnel identification numbers. AASHTO 
recommended a system similar to the bridge inventory numbering system 
would be adequate.

Organization of Inspection Teams

    The ANPRM included questions about how inspection teams should be 
organized, whether inspection teams should be established with 
differing levels of responsibility, and whether one person on the team 
should have overall responsibility for the program. In general, 
commenters recommended that the NTIS should provide guidance regarding 
inspection team organization, training, and certification. 
MassHighways, the Oregon and California DOTs, and AASHTO stated that 
while guidance within the NTIS on this matter is appropriate, tunnel 
owners should determine the composition and organization of the 
inspection teams to best address various tunnel types, complexities, 
construction, and related systems. Conversely, the ASCE commented that 
rather than a tunnel owner determining inspection team organization, 
the NTIS should provide guidelines on the organization and composition 
of inspection teams per category of tunnel.
    Most commenters advocated for the formation of multidisciplinary 
inspection teams to encompass the various systems encountered in 
complex tunnels, incorporating areas of expertise in structural, 
geotechnical, geological, mechanical, electrical, ventilation, and 
operational systems. The ASCE noted that teams should be developed by 
category of tunnel and should be comprised of a Team Leader and 
inspection members specializing in the aforementioned tunnel systems. 
Conversely, the NFPA noted that while inspection teams should include 
all needed specialized expertise for thorough tunnel inspection, team 
members would not need to have a specialization in any one area. PB 
Americas commented that the team should be, at a minimum, comprised of 
two inspectors and a data recorder to provide for expedited 
inspections, limited lane shutdowns, and team safety. The ACEC 
recommended that inspection teams include two inspectors--an engineer 
and a recorder, but added that additional team members may be required 
to expedite inspections of complex tunnels and to improve team safety. 
The ACEC also noted that for mechanical and electrical system 
inspections, inspectors typically should not be responsible for the 
maintenance of these functions within the tunnel. The Florida and New 
Jersey DOTs commented that separate teams should be organized for each 
tunnel system (e.g., electrical, mechanical, structural), and should 
operate independently instead of part of a larger multidisciplinary 
team, thereby providing for variable inspection cycles per system. For 
example, maintenance items may be inspected on a weekly basis, whereas 
the structure may be inspected on a less frequent annual basis. 
Caltrans, the New York and Washington State DOTs, and the TBTA/MTA 
commented that tunnel inspection teams should be organized similarly to 
the bridge inspection teams, as described by the NBIS. Jacobs 
Associates recommended organizing inspection teams per the guidelines 
in the HRTTIM.
    Most commenters favored training and certification requirements for 
tunnel inspectors. In general, commenters asserted that the NTIS should 
provide guidance on minimum training, certification and licensing of 
inspectors, but States should determine final certification. The 
Pennsylvania and Ohio DOTs and the NFPA commented that teams should be

[[Page 42649]]

comprised of qualified individuals certified through both training and 
demonstrated experience. Oregon DOT additionally noted that all team 
members should be professionally licensed engineers. The AASHTO 
commented that certification level guidelines similar to those in the 
NBIS be followed for Team Leaders and support staff, and that PE 
licensing requirements be limited to those individuals responsible for 
reviewing team reports. PB Americas and the ACEC noted that training 
and certification should also encompass Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration standards for confined space inspections. The NFPA 
commented that the more experienced personnel on the teams could serve 
as training officers for on-the-job training and team audits.
    In general, commenters recommended that the NTIS provide guidance 
on the levels of responsibility involved in conducting tunnel 
inspections, but States should determine the final distribution of 
responsibility among inspection teams and program administrators. The 
TBTA/MTA, Jacobs Associates, Caltrans, and the New Jersey DOT commented 
that teams should have differing levels of responsibility with regard 
to system inspection, Team Leadership, and reporting. Whether teams are 
organized as multidisciplinary units or by system specialty, as 
previously discussed, commenters generally agreed that Team Leadership 
should be responsible for initiating and reporting tunnel inspections. 
The New Jersey DOT added that a Program Manager should be tasked with 
overall inspection program responsibility. The ASCE indicated that a PE 
should lead multidisciplinary teams and be responsible for reporting 
from all disciplines. Conversely, the ACEC commented that each team 
member should be responsible for their respective disciplines, rather 
than a Program Manager.
    Although commenters overwhelmingly agreed that teams should include 
a person responsible for the inspection, comments varied as to what 
position this person should hold. The ASCE, Caltrans, and the 
Washington State DOT commented that a Chief Inspector or Program 
Manager, at a level higher than that of the inspection Team Leader, 
should have overall responsibility for the tunnel inspection. 
MassHighways and the Oregon and New Jersey DOTs noted that Program 
Manager responsibilities should be limited to program administration 
and oversight. The NFPA added that the person in charge of the program 
should be superior to and separate from the inspectors to ensure 
independent program oversight and accountability. Several commenters 
asserted that Team Leaders, whether overseeing a multidisciplinary team 
or discipline-specific team, ultimately should be responsible for 
inspections. Jacobs Associates, MassHighways, and the Ohio and New 
Jersey DOTs indicated that the leader of each discipline, component, or 
system inspected should have responsibility for that aspect of the 
overall inspection. Ohio DOT added that members should sign off on 
their area of inspection. The AASHTO, ACEC, and the Florida DOT stated 
that the Team Leader should be a licensed PE, and the ACEC added that 
the Team Leader should have a minimum of 5 years experience and be 
certified by the State to perform and lead tunnel inspections.

Technical References

    The FHWA also asked about what technical publications, if any, 
should be incorporated by reference into the NTIS. In response, 
commenters cited several publications for consideration as primary 
references for inclusion in the NTIS. Six State DOTs, and the ASCE and 
ACEC, recommended incorporating the HRTTIM. MassHighways, Oregon DOT, 
AASHTO, ASCE, and PB Americas recommended incorporating the ``FHWA Road 
Tunnel Design Manual.'' Caltrans, AASHTO, ASCE, and NFPA recommended 
incorporating ``NFPA 502--Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other 
Limited Access Highways.'' Ohio and Pennsylvania DOTs, AASHTO, and ASCE 
recommended incorporating the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of 
Bridges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FHWA notes this manual has been superseded by the AASHTO 
Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these publications, commenters representing several 
State DOTs, industry organizations, and commercial companies also cited 
the following references for possible incorporation within the NTIS:
     NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 261, Best Practices for 
Implementing Quality Control and Quality Assurance for Tunnel 
Inspection (currently under development);
     NHI Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual;
     23 CFR 650, Subpart C, National Highway Bridge Inspection 
Standards;
     American National Standards Institute/American Welding 
Society (ANSI/AWS) D1.1 Structural Welding Code--Steel;
     ANSI/AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code;
     American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 
Association (AREMA) Fatigue Standards;
     AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 9, Part 1, 
Subsections 1.2 and 1.5;
     29 CFR, OSHA Standards;
     FHWA Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members;
     FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
     AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation and 
Maintenance Manual;
     AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges; and
     NFPA 731 Standard for the Installation of Electronic 
Premises Systems.
    The UTC recommended two publications from the International 
Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Stockholm, Sweden, March 2008: 
(1) Full-Scale Fire Testing for Road Tunnel Applications--Evaluation of 
Acceptable Fire Protection Performance, Maarti Tuomisaari, Marioff 
Corporation Oy, Vantaa, Finland, and (2) Implementation of Water Mist 
Systems in Road Tunnels, Project Case Studies, Markku Vuorisalo, 
Marioff Corporation Oy, Vantaa, Finland. One individual also 
recommended contacting the New York Port Authority for information 
regarding tunnel inspection guidelines developed in the 1980s.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)

    Most commenters did not suggest any particular QC/QA procedures. Of 
those commenting on the issue, eight agreed with QC/QA requirements 
similar to the NBIS, while six stated that such requirements should be 
general and not arbitrary.

Cost of Inspections

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked for information related to tunnel 
inspection costs. Several commenters had no comment or indicated no 
data was available. Of those commenting on cost of inspections, several 
suggested a cost per lane foot as opposed to linear foot of tunnel 
length as the most accurate way to itemize the actual inspection costs.
    The TBTA/MTA commented that its recent inspection of the Queens-
Midtown Tunnel cost $631,500, which translates to approximately $24.89 
per linear foot of each roadway lane. Because this cost could change 
depending on the number of traffic lanes and tunnel tubes, TBTA/MTA

[[Page 42650]]

suggested that a unit such as cost per lane-foot would more accurately 
predict tunnel inspection costs. Washington State DOT reported a cost 
of $5 per linear foot for civil and structural component inspections. 
PB Americas suggested that tunnel inspection costs for structural, 
mechanical electrical lighting, and traffic controls ranges between $65 
and $75 per lane foot. PB Americas suggested that these costs can be 20 
to 40 percent higher if the work window is less than 4 hours per shift. 
Additionally, PB Americas noted that costs associated with traffic 
diversions and single lane closures range from $100 to $150 per linear 
foot of tunnel per day or shift.
    The FHWA requests that commenters provide additional information 
regarding estimated or actual costs associated with tunnel inspections, 
particularly the typical inspection costs per linear foot of tunnel. In 
addition, the FHWA asks for comments regarding the anticipated 
increased costs the proposed NTIS would impose on tunnel owners.

Research

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA provided summary information on completed 
and ongoing research related to tunnel design, construction, 
rehabilitation, and inspection. The FHWA solicited feedback on other 
existing or completed tunnel research, and any ideas for additional 
needed research.
    Numerous commenters indicated the need for additional tunnel-
related research. The AASHTO and the Oregon and Florida DOTs listed as 
a research priority identifying hidden deficiencies with structural 
elements such as tunnel liners and portals, including non-destructive 
methods. Several commenters recommended as research priorities the 
needs identified in the research roadmap by the AASHTO Bridge 
Subcommittee's T-20 Technical Committee. The ACEC and PB Americas 
recommended FHWA develop a new, more detailed tunnel inspection manual 
addressing ventilation testing and mechanical and electrical 
inspection. They also recommended updates to the tunnel asset 
management database. PB Americas further suggested research to test the 
performance in fires of various materials used, or proposed for use in 
tunnels. The AASHTO commented that tunnel safety during construction, 
rehabilitation, inspection, and maintenance needs to be addressed 
through research. The AASHTO also requested research to develop 
guidance on improving vertical clearance in bored tunnels. Further, 
AASHTO indicated urban and rural highway tunnels have different issues 
of concern. One consultant recommended that the FHWA continue to work 
with European and Asian highway and rail management agencies. One 
consultant commented that newer research is available from European 
associations like the World Road Association and the European Thematic 
Network on Fire in Tunnels on tunnel fire protection and fixed fire 
suppression. The NFPA provided a summary of the ``International Road 
Tunnel Fire Detection'' research project published by the Fire 
Protection Research Foundation.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals

    The proposed NTIS are based, in part, on comments received in 
response to the ANPRM published on November 18, 2008. Giving due 
consideration to the comments received and summarized in the preceding 
section, this section presents the basis for the FHWA's proposed 
rulemaking. The FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR Part 650 (Bridges, 
Structures, and Hydraulics), by adding Subpart E--National Tunnel 
Inspection Standards. The proposed NTIS would apply to all tunnels 
constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located 
on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The NTIS would 
establish a tunnel definition, frequency of inspections, technical 
references, inventory database, and QC/QA requirements. The proposed 
rule also discusses procedures for follow-up on critical findings. 
Lastly, this action proposes to establish inventory and reporting 
requirements, including timeframes for submission of data by both the 
State and Federal agencies.

Proposed Section 650.501 Purpose

    The majority of commenters on the ANPRM supported the establishment 
of NTIS. Section 650.501 would identify the NTIS purpose to establish 
the proper safety inspection and evaluation for tunnels constructed or 
renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public roads 
and tunnels on Federal-aid highways.

Proposed Section 650.503 Applicability

    The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would apply to tunnels constructed 
or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public 
roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways.
    The proposed NTIS would apply to inspection of life safety systems 
installed on a highway tunnel-like-structure space made by a group of 
bridges, or airtight structures. The NTIS would not apply to culverts 
or other types of non-highway tunnels. The FHWA would encourage owners 
of tunnels not subject to the NTIS to inspect their tunnels according 
to the NTIS. However, FHWA does not have jurisdiction to require 
inspection of tunnels that are not linked to title 23 Federal funds.

Proposed Section 650.505 Definitions

    Proposed section 650.505 would include several definitions related 
to tunnel inspection.
    Because the NTIS would be modeled after the NBIS and in order to 
ensure consistency in definitions, the agency proposes that the terms 
``American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) Manual,'' ``bridge inspection experience,'' ``critical 
finding,'' ``damage inspection,'' ``hands-on inspection,'' and 
``operating rating'' would have the same meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
    The FHWA proposes to define a ``complex tunnel'' as one 
characterized by advanced or unique structural elements and functional 
systems because the inspection of these tunnels requires a 
multidisciplinary inspection team approach. For example, a tunnel with 
a suspended ceiling would be considered a complex tunnel requiring a 
multidisciplinary inspection, as suspended ceilings are structural 
elements that contribute to a functional system (ventilation plenum).
    The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would include a number of 
definitions largely modeled after definitions used in the NBIS. For 
example, the proposed definitions of ``professional engineer'' and 
``routine permit load'' would be substantially similar to the 
definitions for those terms in the NBIS. The FHWA also proposes to use 
the same definition for ``tunnel inspection experience'' as the NBIS 
definition for ``bridge inspection experience,'' replacing the word 
``bridge'' with the word ``tunnel'' as applicable. Similarly, the FHWA 
proposes that the terms ``legal load,'' ``quality assurance,'' 
``quality control,'' ``routine inspection,'' ``special inspection,'' 
and ``team leader'' would be modeled after the definitions in the NBIS, 
except that the word ``tunnel'' would replace the word ``bridge'' in 
each definition. The definitions of ``in-depth inspection,'' ``initial 
inspection,'' and ``load rating'' would largely mirror the definitions 
found in the NBIS, with changes made to account for the differences 
between bridges and tunnels. The FHWA notes that under the proposed 
definition of ``load rating,'' for roadways carried within a tunnel, 
any internal structural support systems,

[[Page 42651]]

even multilevel, would be evaluated according to AASHTO load rating 
procedures. For roadways crossing over the tunnel, the tunnel's ability 
to support the route's vehicular live loads would also be calculated. 
Both of these capacities would be evaluated for tunnels, which is 
different from bridges where load carrying capacities are only 
calculated for vehicles carried on the roadway deck.
    In order to maintain consistency with established terms, the FHWA 
proposes that a number of terms in the NTIS would have the same meaning 
as terms that appear in title 23 of the United States Code. For 
example, the term ``Federal-aid highway'' would have the same meaning 
as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5), and the term ``highway'' would have the same 
meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11). The term ``public road'' would have 
the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(27). The term ``State 
transportation department'' would have the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 
101(a)(34).
    The FHWA proposes a definition of ``functional systems'' that would 
include non-structural systems, such as electrical, mechanical, fire 
suppression, ventilation, lighting, communications, monitoring, 
drainage, traffic signals, emergency egress, refuge room spacing, 
carbon monoxide, or traffic safety components. The agency believes this 
definition would be broad enough to encompass any functional systems 
that might be present in tunnels.
    The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would include a definition of 
``portal'' to refer to the entrance and exit of a tunnel exposed to the 
environment, including bare rock, constructed tunnel entrance 
structures, and buildings. This definition would convey that portals 
exist on all tunnels, but may vary in structure and complexity.
    The proposed definition of ``Program Manager'' would refer to the 
individual in charge of the program who has been assigned or delegated 
the duties and responsibilities for tunnel inspection, reporting, and 
inventory. Under this definition, the Program Manager would provide 
overall leadership and guidance to inspection Team Leaders. The agency 
believes that a Program Manager should not only have a strong 
background in the technical nature of tunnels, but a thorough 
understanding of the NTIS program requirements.
    Regarding the definition of ``tunnel,'' FHWA agrees with most of 
the commenters that the AASHTO tunnel definition, with some 
modification, should be used in the NTIS. Accordingly, the proposed 
definition of tunnel is a modified AASHTO definition without 
establishing a minimum length under the proposed NTIS. In order to 
ensure that tunnels and bridges are only inspected under either the 
NTIS or the NBIS, the proposed definition modifies the AASHTO 
definition to clarify that a tunnel does not include a bridge which is 
inspected under the NBIS. The agency recognizes many structures exist 
where the distinction between tunnel or bridge could be difficult to 
determine. In cases where a tunnel or bridge may overlap, FHWA 
recommends that States determine whether the NTIS or NBIS is most 
appropriate for a particular structure. When a tunnel is comprised of 
several abutted, dissimilar structures, the NTIS would apply to the 
entire tunnel. Additionally, the proposed definition of ``tunnel'' 
specifies that a tunnel is a structure that requires special design 
considerations that may include lighting, ventilation, fire protection 
systems, and emergency egress capacity based on the owner's 
determination.

Proposed Section 650.507 Tunnel Inspection Organization

    Section 650.507 would specify which tunnels must be inspected under 
the NTIS, inspection program responsibilities, organizational 
requirements and general deliverables of an inspection program, and 
program delegation requirements.
    In general, ANPRM commenters suggested that tunnel owners should 
determine the organization and composition of tunnel inspection 
programs to best address various tunnel types, complexities, 
structures, and related systems. The ANPRM commenters also indicated 
that the NTIS should provide guidance on the levels and delegation of 
responsibility involved in conducting tunnel inspections, reporting 
findings, ensuring quality assurance, and maintaining tunnel 
inventories, but that States should determine the final distribution of 
responsibility among program administrators and inspection teams. The 
FHWA agrees that the NTIS should provide general guidance on the 
organization and composition of tunnel inspection programs, leaving the 
specifics of program administration and delegation to the States and 
Federal agencies involved.
    In section 650.507(a), the FHWA proposes requiring that each State 
inspect or cause to be inspected all tunnels constructed or renovated 
with title 23 Federal funds located on public roads that are within the 
State's boundaries, except for tunnels owned by Federal agencies. 
Therefore, State inspection responsibilities would be limited to 
tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are 
located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The FHWA 
also proposes to exclude States from inspection responsibilities for 
tunnels owned by Federal agencies.
    Proposed section 650.507(b) describes the tunnel inspection 
responsibilities of Federal agencies that own tunnels. The proposed 
rule would require Federal agencies to ensure inspection of all highway 
tunnels within their respective jurisdiction.
    Under section 650.507(c), the FHWA proposes that where a tunnel is 
jointly owned, all bordering States and Federal agencies with ownership 
interests should determine through a joint agreement the inspection 
responsibilities of each State and Federal agency.
    Proposed section 650.507(d) describes basic tunnel inspection 
program organization requirements. The proposed rule would require 
State transportation departments and Federal agencies to be organized 
with a unit or units that are responsible for setting statewide or 
Federal agency-wide tunnel inspection program policies and procedures, 
assuring regularly scheduled quality inspections are performed 
throughout the State or agency, and maintaining the State or Federal 
tunnel inventory. In order to ensure tunnel inspection program 
consistency and uniformity, the FHWA proposes to require that all of 
these activities be performed at a statewide or Federal agency-wide 
organizational level of the State DOT or the Federal agency. This 
section would not preclude, however, the specific tunnel inspection 
activities, as noted in section 650.507(d)(2), from being assigned to a 
qualified authority or consulting engineering firm.
    The FHWA recognizes the broad range of tunnel structure complexity 
that exists along State and Federal highways, and therefore, proposes 
under section 650.507(d)(1) that, in addition to the development of 
general program policies and procedures, State and Federal agencies 
would prepare tunnel-specific policies and procedures guiding tunnel 
inspections.
    Proposed section 650.507(d)(2) refers to a requirement for a State 
or Federal agency tunnel owner to establish load ratings for the 
tunnel. As presented, ``load ratings'' refers to allowable vehicular 
live loads on suspended or spanning roadways within the tunnel or 
roadways above the tunnel. Load ratings may be directly related to the 
structural capacity of the tunnel lining and

[[Page 42652]]

support system in cases where tunnels or overlying roadways bear on the 
tunnel structural elements. The tunnel structural system condition 
would be assessed during inspection which, in turn, may lead to an in-
depth structural capacity appraisal of the lining and support system if 
conditions warrant.
    Proposed section 650.507(e) would allow State and Federal agencies 
to delegate certain tunnel inspection functions, as generally described 
or referred to in sections 650.507(d)(1) and (d)(2), to qualified 
individuals; however, the overall program responsibility could not be 
delegated. This section is intended to ensure that State and Federal 
agencies choosing to delegate tunnel inspection activities do so under 
formal written agreement that clearly states the roles and 
responsibilities of all agencies and entities involved. As with other 
State-administered Federal-aid programs under title 23, United States 
Code, delegation of tunnel inspections, reports, load ratings and other 
requirements of the NTIS must be accompanied by appropriate State 
transportation department oversight.