Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Bridge Safety Standards

Compliance Manual

October 2018

Office of Railroad Safety

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL GUIDANCE.......................................................... 1

NTRODUCTION TO THIS MANUAL ............................................................................................... 1

AFETY .................................................................................................................................... 1

RIDGE SAFETY OVERSIGHT ..................................................................................................... 1

CTIVITY-CODE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ......................................................................................... 2

RIORITIZING OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 4

PENING CONFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 6

LOSING CONFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 6

EFECT TRACKING ................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 – FIELD REPORTING PROCEDURES AND FORMS .................................................... 8

NTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 8

NSPECTION REPORT, FORM FRA F6180.96 .............................................................................. 8

General Instructions ............................................................................................................ 8

Special Instructions–Inspections from/to State Lines ........................................................... 9

Defect Line Item Form FRA F6180.96 ................................................................................10

Violation Recommended Line Item Form FRA F6180.96 ....................................................10

IOLATION REPORT NARRATIVE – FORM FRA F6180.111 .........................................................11

General Instructions ...........................................................................................................11

Submission of Photographs as Evidence ............................................................................12

Statements of Witness ........................................................................................................13

OURCE CODES ......................................................................................................................17

ULTIDISCIPLINE ACTIVITY CODE TABLE OF DEFINITIONS ...........................................................19

RIDGE AND TRACK ACTIVITY CODE TABLE OF DEFINITIONS.......................................................29

EFECT CODES .......................................................................................................................39

NSTRUCTIONS, FORM FRA F6180.96, INSPECTION REPORT .....................................................45

NSTRUCTIONS, FORM FRA F6180.111, TRACK VIOLATION REPORT FORM .................................54

CHAPTER 3 – BRIDGE SAFETY STANDARDS ............................................................................. 58

NTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................58

UBPART A – GENERAL ...........................................................................................................59

§ 237.1 Application .............................................................................................................59

§ 237.3 Responsibility for compliance .................................................................................60

§ 237.5 Definitions ..............................................................................................................63

§ 237.7 Penalties ................................................................................................................64

§ 237.9 Waivers ..................................................................................................................65

UBPART B – RAILROAD BRIDGE SAFETY ASSURANCE ..............................................................65

§ 237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs ..........................................................65

§ 237.33 Content of bridge management programs ............................................................66

UBPART C – QUALIFICATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE PERSONS .........................70

§ 237.51 Railroad bridge engineers ....................................................................................70

§ 237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors ...................................................................................71

§ 237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors .................................................................................72

§ 237.57 Designation of individuals ....................................................................................72

UBPART D – CAPACITY OF BRIDGES .......................................................................................73

§ 237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities ...............................................................74

§ 237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension loads .......................78

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

SUBPART E – BRIDGE INSPECTION ...........................................................................................79

§ 237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections ........................................................................79

§ 237.103 Bridge inspection procedures .............................................................................81

§ 237.105 Special Inspections ............................................................................................82

§ 237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections ............................................................................84

§ 237.109 Bridge inspection records ...................................................................................84

§ 237.111 Review of bridge inspection reports ...................................................................90

UBPART F – REPAIR AND MODIFICATION OF BRIDGES ..............................................................91

§ 237.131 Design ...............................................................................................................91

§ 237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications ............................................................92

UBPART G – DOCUMENTATION, RECORDS, AND AUDITS OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ..93

§ 237.151 Audits; general ...................................................................................................93

§ 237.153 Audits of inspections ..........................................................................................93

§ 237.155 Documents and records .....................................................................................94

PPENDIX A – SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF AGENCY POLICY ON THE SAFETY OF RAILROAD

BRIDGES .................................................................................................................................95

PPENDIX B – SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES ........................................................................ 102

CHAPTER 4 – EXCEPTIONS TO THE STANDARDS .................................................................... 106

NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 106

EFECT REPORTS ................................................................................................................. 107

IOLATION REPORTS ............................................................................................................. 107

Knowledge Standard ........................................................................................................ 108

Criteria Affecting the Seriousness of a Noncomplying Condition ....................................... 108

Complaint and Accident Investigations ............................................................................. 111

OMPLIANCE ORDERS AND COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS .......................................................... 111

General Instructions ......................................................................................................... 111

Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 111

Docum

entation ................................................................................................................. 112

MERGENCY ORDERS ............................................................................................................ 113

General Procedures ......................................................................................................... 113

Technical Considerations ................................................................................................. 114

Scheduling ........................................................................................................................ 114

Inspection ......................................................................................................................... 114

Voluntary Corrective Action .............................................................................................. 115

Refusal to Correct ............................................................................................................. 115

Information Needed to Support Issuance of an Emergency Order .................................... 115

Violation of FRA Emergency Order ................................................................................... 118

NFORCEMENT OF THE SAFETY LAWS AND REGULATIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS ....................... 118

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction and General Guidance

Introduction to This Manual

The Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual provides technical guidance to Federal bridge

specialists. This manual provides guidance for enforcement of Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards (BSS). The guidance provided in this

manual may be revoked or modified without notice by a memorandum from the Associate

Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer. This manual does not modify, alter,

or revise the regulatory provisions in the Bridge Safety Standards (BSS) in any way.

Comments, additions, and suggestions for future changes should be directed to the Chief

Engineer–Structures for consideration.

Bridge specialists should refer to this manual as often as necessary for clarification of Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) regulation interpretation and policy. When a bridge specialist is

unsure of meaning or intent in this manual, the bridge specialist should promptly contact the

Chief Engineer–Structures for guidance. This manual can be viewed at

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Find#p1_z50_lCM_s66_s43_s67_kcompliance%20manual.

Safety

FRA’s first priority is safety. Therefore, all activities are to be conducted with personal safety

and the safety of accompanying personnel in mind. Bridge specialists must conduct activities in

accordance with the safety instructions contained in the General Manual. Guidance for Roadway

Worker Protection (RWP), bridge worker safety, and on-track roadway maintenance machine

safety is contained in the Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual,

Volume III.

Bridge Safety Oversight

A bridge specialist’s primary duty is to conduct inspections to determine whether the railroads

are complying with the BSS as well as railroad workplace safety regulations (bridge worker

safety, roadway worker protection, and roadway maintenance machine safety). Effective

inspection requires identification, evaluation, and reporting of conditions and practices that fail

to meet minimum Federal compliance requirements.

All instances of noncompliance with the BSS are to be documented as defects on the Form FRA

F6180.96, Inspection Report (Form FRA F6180.96 or F6180.96). Refer to Chapter 2, Field

Reporting Procedures and Forms, for more information.

Because the purpose of regular inspection activity is to evaluate the performance of the carrier

and the carrier’s representatives in conducting thorough inspections and complying with the

BSS, an evaluation of bridge inspection records maintained by the carrier, as required by 49 CFR

§ 237.109, is also necessary.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

The adequacy of the carrier’s bridge inspections is determined by evaluating what is recorded on

the carrier’s inspection reports and whether these reports reflect the actual conditions of the

bridge structure.

Prior to inspection, the following preparations should be made:

• Obtain the names and locations of the supervisor’s territory to be inspected.

• Advise the supervisor of the territory to be inspected and invite them to have a railroad

representative accompany you.

• Set a date, time, and location for the inspection.

• Make appropriate transportation arrangements necessary to execute the inspection.

• If you must change the date, time, or location, make every effort to contact the railroad as

soon as possible to advise it.

• Always have a copy of the BSS and this manual as references.

• Carry measuring and inspection equipment (tape measure, level, string line, plumb bob,

hammer, binoculars, etc.).

Bridge specialists should review the following information before the inspection:

• Current carrier bridge management program (BMP)

• Recent carrier bridge inspection reports

• Timetables and special instruction for speeds, restrictions, and load capacities

• Current slow orders

• Train, tonnage, and hazardous material information

• Current and recent program work

For information on general FRA inspection policies, bridge specialists should review the General

Manual, Chapter 2, for guidance about issues such as property entry, refusal to permit

inspections, forcible interference with official duties, and release for entry, as well as strike or

labor disputes.

Activity-Code Specific Guidance

Ideally, the first bridge safety oversight activity to be performed would be a BMP review.

However, any of the following activities can be conducted independently of one another and at

any time, or as a result of an inquiry, complaint, accident, or natural event.

BIR – Bridge Inspection Record Field Audit – A Bridge Inspection Record Field Audit is used

to evaluate whether a bridge inspection record accurately documents the condition of the subject

bridge. The bridge specialist should exercise care when picking bridge inspection reports to

audit to ensure that a representative sample is selected. In addition to selecting bridges that

appear to have deterioration, reports for bridges that appear to be in good condition should be

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

sampled to ensure that inspection reports accurately document field conditions. Further, the

audit must be performed in two directions: first, evaluate whether conditions shown on the

report actually exist on the bridge; and second, evaluate whether all deficient bridge conditions

observed are documented on the report.

BMP – Bridge Management Program Review – (Note: The acronym BMP has two uses. In

the title of this paragraph and in one reference in the Bridge and Track Activity Code Table of

Definitions, it is the activity code used in the Railroad Inspection System for Personal Computers

(RISPC). In the body of this paragraph and elsewhere in this manual, BMP is the abbreviation

for Bridge Management Program.) A BMP review is a method used to determine whether a

track owner has adopted a bridge management program, and whether it complies with the

requirements stipulated in 49 CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards. It is important that the

bridge specialist perform a thorough BMP review to ensure that all occurrences of

noncompliance with the BSS are documented on Form FRA F6180.96. Use the BMP checklist

to ensure that all required items are covered in the review and included on Form FRA F6180.96.

Follow-up reviews need to be equally as thorough as initial reviews since additional

noncompliant conditions may have been introduced during revision of the earlier BMP.

BREC – Bridge Inspection Record Review – A Bridge Inspection Record review is an

opportunity to verify that bridge inspection records adhere to the requirements of the track

owner’s BMP and the BSS. This activity code is used for the office audit of bridge inspection

records/reports. Unless all of a track owner’s inspection reports for a given territory and year are

being reviewed, care must be taken to select a random sample. Records selected must be

evaluated to determine whether they conform to the requirements of the track owner’s BMP and

include all information required by 49 CFR §§ 237.109(b) and 237.109(c) of the BSS.

Timeliness of inspections and submission of completed inspection records should also be

evaluated.

BSSE – Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Evaluation – This code encompasses multiple

activities involved in determining whether a track owner is following the policies and procedures

outlined in their BMP. These activities include, but are not limited to:

• Evaluating the accuracy of the track owner’s railroad bridge inventory.

• Verifying that bridge inspections are being conducted in conformance with the track

owner’s bridge inspection procedures.

• Determining if inspections are being documented on the specified form, using the correct

nomenclature, and following the BMP-specified numbering/identification protocol.

• Determining if weight and dimension restrictions are being followed.

• Determining whether inspection reports are being adequately reviewed.

• Verifying that instructions for the protection of train operations following natural or man-

made accidents are being followed.

• Determining whether internal audits are being performed as specified in their BMP.

• Determining whether repairs/modifications that affect bridge load capacity are being

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

supervised by a designated Railroad Bridge Supervisor, following plans, specifications,

and/or procedures developed by a qualified, designated Railroad Bridge Engineer.

Use of other bridge-related activity codes such as BREC and BIR, in conjunction with BSSE, is

permitted and expected. All activities performed under activity code BSSE are to be identified

on Form FRA F6180.96 to document the extent of the evaluation. Use the BSSE checklist to

organize your notes and ensure a complete inspection report.

BWI – Bridge Waiver Investigation – Evaluating a petition for a waiver of compliance with

the requirements of the BSS requires determining whether the track owner’s petition proposes

alternative methods of providing for railroad bridge safety at least equal to the level that would

be provided were the regulations followed. The bridge specialist should conduct such an

investigation in a manner similar to performing a BMP review to ensure a complete and

thorough evaluation.

Prioritizing Oversight Activities

To efficiently allocate FRA’s resources throughout the Nation and ensure the safety and viability

of the railroad system, bridge specialists should prioritize their inspection activities by

considering the following characteristics:

• Operational size of a railroad

• Tonnage – annual tonnage traveling over a railroad’s tracks

• Passenger trains operating on a railroad’s tracks

• Critical energy routes

• Hazardous materials (toxic inhalation hazard (TIH)/poison by inhalation hazard (PIH))

transported on a railroad’s system

• Speed authorized for trains on tracks

• Compliance history of a railroad

• Accident history of a railroad

• Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) Route within a railroad’s track system.

In addition to the above, previous safety reviews, audits, and travel efficiency should be

considered. Prioritize Class III and other small railroads that do not handle passengers,

hazardous materials, or energy products by their operational size and compliance history.

To effectively analyze and manage risk related to the bridge safety program, FRA established a

systematic, data-driven, risk-based methodology for prioritizing BMP reviews. The output of

this model is a list of track owners ranked according to the potential for a bridge failure and the

impact on operations and safety should a failure occur. The prioritized list of track owners

enables FRA to efficiently plan and allocate resources for BMP reviews, and establishes a

framework for other bridge safety activities.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

BMP reviews will be prioritized using a model that evaluates the following criteria:

Criteria Criteria Description Priority Levels

Operational

Size

(miles)

Total length of railway routes open for

public passenger and freight services.

Due to maintenance requirements, a larger

size indicates a higher potential for safety

issues.

< 20 1

20 - 40 2

40 - 200 3

200 - 1000 4

> 1000 5

Total Train

Miles

(per year)

Total mileage operated by trains in a

calendar year.

Due to maintenance requirements, a larger

size indicates a higher potential for safety

issues.

< 10k 1

10k - 20k 2

20k - 200k 3

200k - 2M 4

> 2M 5

Passengers

Carried

(per year)

Railroads carrying passenger trains are

evaluated due to the potential loss of life if

bridge failure occurs.

Impact of an incident would be high.

Priority level is based on number of

passengers carried in a calendar year.

< 10k 1

10k - 100k 2

100k - 1M 3

1M - 10M 4

> 10M 5

Energy

Products

(tank

cars/year)

Railroads carrying energy products are

evaluated due to the potential loss of life

and environmental damage if bridge failure

occurs.

Impact of an incident would be high.

Priority level is based on the number of

tank cars per year where energy products

are carried by railroad.

< 1k 1

1k - 5k 2

5k - 10k 3

10k – 220k 4

> 220k 5

Hazardous

Materials

(tank

cars/year)

Railroads carrying hazardous materials are

evaluated due to the potential loss of life

and environmental damage if bridge failure

occurs.

Impact of an incident would be high.

Priority level is based on the number of

tank cars per year where hazardous

materials (TIH/PIH) are carried by railroad.

< 100 1

100 - 500 2

500 - 1k 3

1k – 15k 4

> 15k 5

Strategic

Rail

Corridor

Network

Does railroad operate over a portion of the

STRACNET?

No 0

Yes 5

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Opening Conference

Before starting an inspection, bridge specialists should introduce themselves to all present and

obtain a list of individuals participating in the inspection. A bridge specialist may then explain

the reason for the inspection as:

• Regular – To ensure the carrier’s process is adequate in finding, reporting, and remedying

non-BSS-compliant conditions.

• Follow-up or “Re-inspection” – Regular inspection to ensure proper remedial action.

• Complaint – Inspection of unsafe conditions alleged by an individual, group, or entity.

Caution must be used not to identify the complainant. It is not mandatory to divulge that

you are on a complaint investigation, as it may compromise the investigation. Bridge

specialists should consult, if appropriate, with appropriate regional track or signal

specialists.

• Accident – Investigations of derailments or accidents, etc.

• Waiver – Investigation for relief from BSS.

• Special Inspections – Focused inspections or program enforcement.

During the Workplace Safety Briefing prior to the inspection, all parties involved must

understand that FRA’s goal is to help the railroad improve safety, and that we welcome

suggestions and ideas.

Closing Conference

Upon completion of an inspection, the bridge specialist must provide the railroad representative a

report (F6180.96) with all conditions that do not meet minimum Federal BSS regulations. Field

reporting is discussed in Chapter 2. The reporting of exceptions to the standards is discussed in

Chapter 4.

Defect Tracking

All defects must be tracked on Form FRA F6180.96 and corrective actions noted. Corrective

actions include remediation, procedural changes, training, and follow-up. Defects that cannot be

remediated or do not warrant follow-up must be recorded on F6180.96, but considered closed

once noted.

If a defect is identified, but a civil penalty is not recommended, the bridge specialist must use the

following process to track corrective action. Since 49 CFR Part 209 Subpart E only requires the

regulated entity to complete and return the remedial action report (back page of the F6180.96)

when a civil penalty is being recommended, the track owner’s response is voluntary and not

required.

1. Create a F6180.96 with a line item that includes a comment indicating the bridge

specialist is requesting remedial action reports be completed for whatever line items of

F6180.96 the bridge specialist deems necessary to ensure proper remedial action is

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

applied. (Example comment: “Reporting of your remedial action is requested for Items

#3 and #6. The completion of a remedial action report for these defects is not required by

regulation; completing the report is voluntary and assists FRA in documenting corrective

actions without re-inspection. Within 60 days, please complete the remedial action report

(on the last page of this report) by entering the appropriate remedial action code and

providing a brief description of the corrective action you took in the narrative section,

then return it to me at fi[email protected].”)

2. Enter a remedial action request for each line item that warrants follow-up (Example

comment: “Please complete the remedial action report for this defect indicating your

corrective action.”). In completing the report, verify “O” is selected in the Written

Notifications to FRA of Remedial Action box for each line item requesting a voluntary

response. Place a “W” in the Railroad (Remedial) Action Code box to indicate a

voluntary remedial action report is being requested. Initially, the Railroad Action Code

date is to show the date of the inspection.

3. Provide the track owner with the inspection report.

4. If the track owner opts not to provide the remedial action within the timeframe specified

(typically 60 days), the bridge specialist must contact the track owner to confirm the

remedial action was completed and, if necessary, conduct a re-inspection to ensure the

remedial action was satisfactory.

5. When the remedial action report is returned or when the remedial action follow-up has

been completed, the bridge specialist must enter the updated information into the

remedial action reporting section of RISPC. This will document the follow-up and

remedial action.

6. At least once per month, bridge specialists must run a query on the Safety Data Secure

Site to determine which defects have not been remediated within the specified timeframe

and plan appropriate follow-up.

This process ensures compliance with the BSS, documents remedial actions taken, and aids in

follow-up prioritization planning.

If a bridge specialist notifies a railroad both that (1) assessment of a civil penalty will be

recommended for the railroad’s failure to comply with a provision of the BSS, and (2) that a

remedial actions report must be submitted, the railroad must report actions taken to remedy that

failure to the bridge specialist within 30 days after the end of the calendar month in which such

notification is received. This requirement, found in 49 CFR Part 209, Subpart E, is outlined in

the “Reporting of Remedial Actions” section of Chapter 3 of the General Manual.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CHAPTER 2 – Field Reporting Procedures and Forms

Introduction

Bridge specialists must record each field inspection on Form FRA F6180.96 (also called “Form

96” and “F6180.96 report”). Inspection reports must be completed and promptly submitted, even

when an inspection is free of defect observations. The data contained in each Form FRA

F6180.96 (including a railroad’s reply to corrective action items) transfers to FRA’s safety

database for processing to permit the generation of several management reports. This data helps

to determine the effectiveness of the overall inspection program, the degree of compliance, and

the effect of the BSS on reducing bridge-related accidents.

Inspection Report, Form FRA F6180.96

General Instructions

This section describes the methods used to prepare an inspection report. Since January 1995,

inspectors have been recording their inspection activities on a multidiscipline form, Form FRA

F6180.96. The purpose of the form is to record inspections and defects for placement into

FRA’s safety database.

RISPC provides inspectors with the capability to enter inspection data via their laptop computers.

This program allows inspectors to maintain electronic records, which facilitates data analysis.

Throughout RISPC, help instructions are available to assist in the navigation and use of the

software (by using the menu’s “Help” selection or the question mark icon).

Each inspector engaged in field inspection activities must promptly complete one or more

F6180.96 reports as necessary, sign them electronically, and submit the completed F6180.96

reports to the railroad representative. Electronic RISPC-generated inspection report entries are

the preferred method to be used.

Bridge specialists must provide notice of defective conditions found on the day of the inspection

by either: 1) an electronic PDF copy of F6180.96 (email or another electronic medium) or 2)

verbal notification followed up promptly by a PDF copy of the F6180.96. If F6180.96 reports

contain line items recommending a civil penalty, then a copy, electronically signed by the bridge

specialist, must be provided to the railroad representative.

For instructions on the completion of each field in Form FRA F6180.96, refer to Instructions,

Form FRA F6180.96, Inspection Report, later in this chapter.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Special Instructions–Inspections from/to State Lines

Complete an inspection report that begins within a State and terminates at the State line as

follows: Enter the name of the community (if not originating in a community, use the county)

nearest the inspection starting point in the “From City” block on the inspection report and the

State line name from the drop-down menu in the “Destination City” block to indicate the State

line. A four-digit artificial identifier code, starting with the digits “99,” to indicate a State line,

followed by the two-digit State code for the adjacent State, is in the drop-down menu. For

example, an inspection conducted from Erie, PA, to Ashtabula, OH, would be reported on two

separate reports as follows:

First Report

From

Destination

City:

Erie

2640

State:

City:

PA/OH State line

9939

County:

Erie

C049

County:

Erie

C049

Second Report

From Destination

City: OH/PA State Line 9942

State: OH 39 City: Ashtabula 0330

County: Ashtabula C007 County: Ashtabula C007

Inspection reports should be numbered consecutively. They can then be associated with each

other in a listing of inspection activity, and a clear picture of the location of the entire inspection

will be available.

An inspection crossing an entire State must show State line identifiers at each end, and must be

associated with adjoining inspection reports by use of consecutive report numbers. For example,

report an inspection from Pittsburgh, PA, through WV, to Columbus, OH, as follows:

First Report

From

Destination

City:

Pittsburgh

6600

State:

City:

PA/WV State Line

9954

County:

Allegheny

C003

County:

Allegheny

C003

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Second Report

From

Destination

City:

WV/PA State Line

9942

State:

City:

WV/OH State Line

9939

County:

Brooke

C009

County:

Brooke

C009

Third Report

From

Destination

City:

OH/WV State Line

9954

State:

City:

Columbus

1800

County:

Jefferson

C081

County:

Franklin

C049

Use a county or nearest city code for inspections beginning or ending at international borders

(e.g., Canada or Mexico).

Note: When an inspection occurs at one point only, for example an inspection within the

confines of a yard in one municipality, it is not necessary to fill in the “destination” fields.

Defect Line Item Form FRA F6180.96

Bridge specialists must upload their RISPC inspection reports on a weekly basis. If an error is

discovered requiring correction of a report, then the corrected report must be issued to the

railroad representative. Furthermore, as soon as possible, the corrected report must be uploaded

to FRA’s data contractor.

When making an unaccompanied inspection, the bridge specialist must deliver a copy of the

report to the railroad personnel having jurisdiction in the area covered by the report. However,

when an inspection such as one from a train occurs and no defects are noted, it is not necessary

to deliver a copy of the report.

In the Bridge and Structures discipline, do not mix defect-only line items and items checked

“yes” in the “Violation Recommended” field on a Form FRA F6180.96. In the case where a

bridge specialist discovers defect items and violation items during an inspection, these will

require at a minimum two separate reports (one with defects only and another with violation

items only). See below for line items with a recommendation for violation.

Violation Recommended Line Item Form FRA F6180.96

Bridge specialists must complete a separate Form FRA F6180.96 for any items identified as

recommended for violation. However, the above instructions pertaining to uploading and

corrections also apply to reports containing items checked “yes” in the “Violation

Recommended” field. In addition, carefully monitor the “Written Notification to FRA of

Remedial Action Required” field to ensure railroads are complying with this requirement.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Failure of the railroad to comply with the written notification requirement must be considered for

a violation (Part 209, Section 405(a)).

Multiple violation line items on a F6180.96 must be of the same CFR part, because all items

from such a report will automatically populate into a Form FRA F6180.111 violation narrative

report (see below).

Violation Report Narrative – Form FRA F6180.111

General Instructions

It is always necessary to provide supplemental information to a Form FRA F6180.96 by writing

a narrative report (Form FRA F6180.111) when recommending a violation. These written

narratives will accompany the Form FRA F6180.96.

In RISPC, use F6180.96 forms that contain items recommended for civil penalty to generate a

Form FRA F6180.111. Open the RISPC main menu and perform the following actions:

1. Select “Other Programs”

2. Select “New Violation Report”

3. At the blank violation screen, select “New Report”

4. Highlight the report and line item number you want and click on “Select and Create

Violation Report”

5. Bridge specialists are to enter their sequential violation number and click on “OK”

Note: When recommending a violation for a Roadway Workplace Safety item, select the Track-

214 form. This will open a Part 214 Railroad Workplace Safety Violation Report Form, FRA

F6180.119.

To complete each field in the Form FRA F6180.111, refer to Instructions, Form FRA F6180.111,

Track Violation Report Form, later in this chapter.

A narrative submitted with an inspection report must contain sufficient detail to completely

describe and support the inspection activity. Copies of all pertinent data should also be furnished

to further support the inspection activity; pertinent data includes railroads’ plans, records,

bulletins, or orders; any pertinent photographs; the names and titles of railroad employees who

were witnesses; the time of day when the inspection or investigation was conducted; and the

location of any violation with reference to some fixed object. GPS coordinates, if available, may

also be used.

When filing a violation report, take great care to obtain adequate evidence to support each

element of each violation recommended in the violation report. This should include evidence

obtained through personal observation and/or records indicating noncompliance.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

If pertinent, include copies of previous FRA reports or the railroad’s own records to document

the railroad’s prior knowledge of the presence of the defect. Establish knowledge of a defect by

constructively showing that the defect is of such a nature that the railroad would have known of

the defect from past inspections. In this regard, it is helpful to note the date of the railroad’s last

inspection (and include the railroad’s last inspection record) and explain why the condition must

have been present at that time by stating that this type of condition takes a longer time to develop

than the time between the railroad’s last inspection and FRA’s inspection. See Chapter 4 of this

manual for additional instructions concerning the knowledge standard.

In the narrative report, bridge specialists must be careful to identify all circumstances or facts

that they did not witness by stating the source of such information. If necessary, attach a report

of an interview to the narrative report. Identify all copies of records by providing the name, title,

and address of the custodian of original records.

If more than one count (or occurrence) is listed in a line item of an inspection report, the

narrative of the violation report must clearly state whether all counts are being recommended as

separate violations or as one violation for the entire line item, as the intent is not always clear. If

separate violations are being requested for each count, the Transmittal of Violation Report cover

sheet must list each violation as a separate line item (the Railroad Enforcement System (RES)

must list each violation as a separate line item as well unless multiple days are being requested).

This will ensure that FRA’s Office of Chief Counsel (RCC) is aware of both the bridge

specialist’s intent and the Chief Engineer–Structures’ approval of the number of counts

requested. Note that entering the violations as multiple occurrences on F6180.96 in RISPC

automatically generates a footnote indicating that penalties have been assessed for 2 or more

days on which the violation continued, which is not correct in many cases.

Submission of Photographs as Evidence

Photographs can be very strong evidence in support of a violation. When using photographs in

the violation narrative package, explain what each photograph shows. Clearly identify what each

photograph illustrates to support the violation. In violations with multiple counts or line items,

caption each photograph to link it to a specific violation item (e.g., CES_001, Line Item 2).

Photographs must be in digital format. It is acceptable to place descriptions or pointers using

software to help the reader understand the nature of the violation. However, photographs must

not be digitally manipulated in any manner to alter the appearance of any item or element in the

photograph. Digital photographs must be annotated to indicate that there are no electronic

alterations.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Statements of Witness

Unless a violation is substantiated by a bridge specialist’s personal knowledge, the railroad’s

own records, or admissions of railroad officials contained in reports of interview, the violation

report should be accompanied by one or more witness statements on the appropriate “Statement

of Witness” form. (That form is designed for use when obtaining statements by railroad

employees; if a statement is being obtained from a nonemployee, consult RCC about how to

proceed.) The witness statement must clearly substantiate any elements of the violation not

established by other evidence. As in any case where a violation report is based on information

received from a complainant, neither the report nor any of its attachments should reveal that the

case arose from a complaint or identify any person as a complainant. The whistleblower

protections found at 49 U.S.C. § 20109(i)(1) prohibit FRA from revealing the identity of anyone

who brings a safety complaint to FRA without that person’s written consent. However, 49

U.S.C. § 20109(i)(2) states that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will disclose to the

Attorney General the name of an employee described in 49 U.S.C. § 20109(i)(1) if the matter is

referred to the Attorney General for enforcement.

Each witness statement must contain the time, date, full name, title, and mailing address of the

person who was interviewed. Note: Bridge specialists should reference the General Manual,

Chapter 5, for witness statement guidance and an example of a witness statement form.

FRA Guidelines for Conducting Interviews

Bridge specialists should reference the General Manual, Chapter 5, for guidance in conducting

interviews.

Copies of Railroad’s Records

When necessary, the violation report must be accompanied by legible copies of the railroad’s

relevant records containing information that will provide RCC with substantiating documentation

of the violation. The violation report should give a clear understanding of how the documents

help demonstrate the violation of Federal safety regulations.

This information may be submitted in the form of duplicated copies of the railroad’s records or

through comprehensive, word-for-word extracts taken from the railroad’s records.

Violation Report Package Arrangement

When the violation report and all supporting documents have been converted into a PDF format,

these documents must be combined into one master document.

Each violation report is required to have a master file in PDF format. The filename must contain

the following information: Region, Case Type, Bridge Specialist Initials, and Violation Number

(for example: R4-TS-CLD-49.pdf). The following table lists violation case types.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Violation Case Type List

Code

Type

Alcohol and Drug Regulations

Accident Reports Regulations

BSS

Bridge Safety Standards

Bridge Worker Safety Standards

Conductor Certification

CIS

Critical Incident Stress

FRA Emergency Order

Railroad Enforcement Procedures

Engineer Qualification Regulations

FCS

Freight Car Safety Standards

Grade Crossing Signal Safety Regulations

Safety Glazing Standards

HMT

Hazardous Materials Regulations

Hours of Service Laws

HSR

Hours of Service Record Keeping Regulations

Locomotive Safety Standards and Statutes

LIS

Steam Locomotive Safety Standards and Statutes

PEP

Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Regulations

PEQ

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

REM

Rear End Marking Device Regulations

RMM

Roadway Maintenance Machines

ROP

Railroad Operating Practices

ROR

Railroad Operating Rules

RSP

Railroad Communications Regulations

Roadway Worker Protection Regulations

Safety Appliance Statutes and Regulations

Signal Inspection Regulations and Statutes

Train Horn/Quiet Zone

Track Safety Standards

The violation report package must be arranged in the following order: Violation Report,

List of Exhibits page, and exhibits in order of relevance. The requirements for these

documents are detailed as follows:

1. Violation Report – Form FRA F6180.111, including any continuation sheets: Bridge

specialists must ensure all reports in the violation report package are signed using an

authenticated electronic signature.

2. List of Exhibits: A List of Exhibits page must be created and inserted immediately after

the Form FRA F6180.111.

a. The Exhibit List must be a separate document titled “List of Exhibits.”

b. The list must not be entered in the narrative of the Violation Report (field 34).

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

c. All exhibits must be listed in order of relevance, and must not be numbered 1, 2, 3 or

lettered A, B, C.

3. Exhibits: Exhibits include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Original Form FRA F6180.96, railroad copy, containing the recommendation for civil

penalty.

b. Form FRA F6180.96 for the inspection that includes the defects not recommended as

violations – railroad copy.

c. Statements of Witness, if any.

d. Copies of pertinent pages of the timetable and any other instructions that are in effect

at the time of violation.

e. Photographs, as described above. Photographs should clearly illustrate the severity of

the violation, or anything to further document why the defect is recommended for

violation. Do not include photographs if they do not show something that is

significant in supporting the violation.

f. Copies of railroad records when they are available and are part of your determination

to recommend a violation.

g. Include any other items that may further substantiate the violation.

For identification purposes, each exhibit of the violation report package must be labeled with the

bridge specialist’s initials and the violation report number (for example, JDP-55), which must be

placed in the lower right corner of each sheet.

If a bridge specialist recommends that a violation receive special handling, the bridge specialist

must submit an additional cover memo (to be signed by the Chief Engineer–Structures)

justifying the recommendation. Special handling includes a penalty above the amount shown in

the penalty schedule (Appendix B to Part 237), up to or including the aggravated maximum

penalty of $113,894, or when counts for multiple days are recommended. Please ensure that the

cover memo is included as a separate attachment from the violation report package and that the

memo provides the information and justification required by the “Enhanced Penalties” memo

dated August 31, 2016 (see General Manual, Appendix D).

The entire violation package for transmittal contains:

1. TFR – F6180.72x (transmittal document)

2. Cover letter regarding extraordinary penalties (if applicable)

3. Violation report package

Note: One and two are separate files and do not require a digital signature by the bridge

specialist.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Supervisory Review

Upon receipt of a bridge discipline inspection report, or any other report submitted by a bridge

specialist, the Chief Engineer–Structures must make a thorough review to determine that:

• The report is complete.

• It has been prepared in accordance with existing instructions.

• The type and number of inspections are consistent with the goals of FRA.

• With respect to violation reports that the bridge specialist has recommended for civil

penalty, the bridge specialist’s recommendation for prosecution demonstrates the degree

of seriousness of the violation and that, where a willful violation or an extraordinary

penalty is sought, the report and/or Chief Engineer–Structures cover memo provides the

additional justification to support a penalty beyond the ordinary level stated in the penalty

schedule for the BSS violated.

Before uploading a Form FRA F6180.111 to RISPC and sending the electronic package to

headquarters, bridge specialists are to send a draft copy to the Chief Engineer–Structures for

review. An electronic draft copy can be generated by “printing to PDF” and emailing it. The

Chief Engineer–Structures—after considering the hazard of the specific BSS violation, the

railroad’s record of accidents, and its overall compliance attitude—must indicate his or her

concurrence or non-concurrence with the bridge specialist’s estimate of the seriousness of the

violation. The Chief Engineer–Structures may also indicate edits or corrections the bridge

specialist can incorporate into the final report package.

If the Chief Engineer–Structures does not concur with the bridge specialist’s estimate of the

seriousness of the violation, the Chief Engineer–Structures must prepare a memo stating that fact

and the reasons for his or her non-concurrence and attach a copy to the violation report, with a

copy furnished to the bridge specialist. The report must then be discussed with the bridge

specialist.

Violation Report Package Distribution

Upload the Form FRA F6180.111 to RISPC within 30 days after the date of the inspection

report. After the upload process, bridge specialists must prepare an electronic master document

of the entire violation package and send it to the Chief Engineer–Structures. The violation report

package must include a copy of the inspection report and supporting documentation bookmarked

for easy reference.

After review, the Chief Engineer–Structures will electronically submit the violation report

package, including the original report, exhibits and photographs, to RCC.

The bridge specialist must number the violation narrative reports sequentially throughout his/her

career without regard to the end of any calendar or fiscal year.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Source Codes

(From April 2015 General Manual, Chapter 3)

A: Regular Inspection (All) – A periodic inspection activity conducted by Federal and/or State

railroad safety inspectors, in accordance with established procedures, to determine railroad,

shipper, consignee, contractor, and manufacturing facility compliance with Federal statutes,

rules, regulations, orders, and standards within the jurisdiction of FRA.

B: Complaint Investigation (All) – Any inspection initiated for the purpose of performing a

complaint investigation. A complaint file number must be assigned and indicated on the

inspection report when this code is used.

C: Accident Investigation (All) – Any inspection resulting from an accident/incident

investigation. An accident file number must be assigned and indicated on the inspection report

when this code is used.

D: Special Inspections or Investigations (All) – Inspections initiated for a specific reason or

purpose not otherwise identified. A file number must be assigned and indicated on the

inspection report when this code is used.

E: Waiver Investigation (All) – Inspections resulting from either investigating requests for

temporary relief from Federal regulations or validating compliance with any waiver conditions

already in effect. Use of this source code automatically requires an entry in the File Number

Field. When validating compliance with existing waiver conditions, inspectors may list all

inspection results on the same report, including results not associated with the waiver. The

Federal Register docket number, i.e., the waiver investigation file number, must be indicated in

the File Number field of the inspection report when this code is used.

F: Reserved for future use.

G: ECP Brake-Equipped Trains (MP&E) – Inspectors must complete a separate inspection

report using Source Code G, along with all related inspection activity associated with the

electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake-equipped trains (e.g., 49 CFR Parts 215, 231,

and 232). Source Code G must also be used when inspection activities, such as CFR Parts 218,

223, and 229, involve ECP brake-equipped trains and equipment.

H: Nuclear Route Shipment (HM, OP, MP&E, S&TC) – Inspections of nuclear routes or

shipments as specified in the Safety Compliance Oversight Program Plan.

I: Automated Track Inspection Program (ATIP) Survey (OP, Track) – Survey while on

board specialized FRA track geometry vehicles.

J: ATIP Follow-up (Track) – Field inspections to determine railroad remedial action resulting

from noncompliance identified by specialized FRA track geometry vehicles.

K: Reserved for future use.

L: Regular Inspection of a STRACNET Segment (Track).

M: Special Investigation or Assessment on STRACNET Segments (Track).

N: ATIP Survey (Using Test Car) on STRACNET Segments (Track).

O: RS&I Investigation (S&TC) – Inspections performed while investigating a request of relief

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

from the requirements of the rules, standards, and instructions (RS&I) contained in 49 CFR Part

236. A file number must be assigned and indicated on the inspection report when this code is

used.

P: BS-AP Investigation (S&TC) – Inspections performed while investigating a request for

discontinuance or material modification of a signal or train control system (block signal

application). A file number must be assigned and indicated on the inspection report when this

code is used.

Q: False Proceed Investigation (S&TC) – Inspections performed while investigating a false

proceed signal occurrence. A file number must be assigned and indicated on the inspection

report when this code is used.

R: Re-inspection (All) – Inspection activity carried out to examine, monitor, or further develop

previously conducted work. Inspectors must use good judgment when deciding the appropriate

interval for the re-inspection, taking into consideration factors such as the inherent seriousness of

the noncompliance and the railroad’s general level of current compliance as revealed by the

original inspection as a whole. S&TC and Track inspectors must also be governed by discipline-

specific guidelines. The File Number field must contain the inspector identification and the

previous inspection report number.

S: Reserved for future use.

T: Reserved for future use.

U: Waiver Inspection (Follow-up).

V: Inspection of or at Manufacturers Facility (MP&E/HM).

W: Reserved for future use.

X: Activation Failure (Signal) – Inspections performed while investigating an activation failure

occurrence. A file number must be assigned and indicated on the inspection report when this

code is used.

Y: Reserved for future use.

Z: Outbound Extended Haul Trains (MP&E)

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Multidiscipline Activity Code Table of Definitions

(The table is based on the RISPC Database Revised on January 17, 2012)

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

174A H, M

General Requirements – The purpose of this inspection is to determine compliance with §§

174.3, 174.5, 174.9, 174.14, 174.16, and 174.50. This code is to be used for railroad facility

inspections. Record one unit for the inspection of each car transporting hazardous materials.

174B H, O

General Operating Requirements – The purpose of this inspection is to review a train crew’s

documentation for each rail car containing hazardous material, including any changes in

placement of the car. The inspection should include determining compliance with the basic

hazardous materials shipping paper descriptions as required in § 174.26. Record one unit for

each train consist inspected, and one subunit for each inspection of the basic shipping paper

description of each car containing hazardous materials.

Note 1: Inspectors must use Activity Code TPLH to record inspections associated with train

placement requirements.

Note 2: Inspectors must use this code instead of Code 172C when inspecting shipping

papers specific to a particular train.

209 ALL

Remedial Action – The purpose of this inspection is to report a railroad that has not complied

with a requirement to provide a remedial action as noted in a previous inspection report.

Record one unit for each remedial action not in compliance.

(See General Manual for additional guidance).

215D H, O, S, T

Freight Car Mechanical Inspection – The purpose of this inspection is for any inspector

other than an MPE inspector to determine compliance with Part 215, including Appendix D.

The inspection includes those performed by an FRA inspector or when an FRA inspector

observes railroad employees performing this inspection. MPE inspectors should reference

Activity Code 215. Record one unit for each freight car inspected or observed inspected for

compliance with § 215. For articulated cars, count each platform as one unit.

Note 1: HM and OP inspectors should use the Activity Code HM for ALL of their Part 215

inspections.

Note 2: Properly stenciled maintenance-of-way equipment is exempt from Part 215.305(b).

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

217E ALL

Emergency Order – The purpose of this inspection is to determine compliance with a current

Emergency Order. Record each unit and subunit as directed by the unique instructions

issued by FRA Headquarters regarding each specific Emergency Order. Inspectors must

thoroughly explain the inspection in the inspection report’s narrative.

217O ALL

Other Operations Obs

ervations – The purpose of this inspection is to observe railroad

employees of any craft performing duties regarding railroad operating rules (ROR) and railroad

safety rules (RSR). It will include all related RORs, RSRs, railroad bulletins, and any written

railroad policy not otherwise covered in Federal regulations. Noncompliance will be recorded

as a non-FRA defect under this activity code. Record one unit for an entire yard or equivalent

facility monitored, and one subunit for each crewmember, yardmaster, contractor, track

employee, mechani

cal employee, si

gnal maintainer, etc., that the inspector continually

observed a sufficient amount of time to determine compliance or noncompliance.

Note: Unlike noncompliance with Federal regulations, it is FRA policy that inspectors provide

information recorded under this activity code regarding noncompliance of an ROR/RSR,

without identifying the noncompliant employee by name, in the Federal inspection report.

See the General Manual for further explanation.

Example 1: An FRA Track inspector observes a 20-person section gang working for

approximately 45 minutes when the inspector observes a track employee sitting on the rail.

The FRA inspector intervenes by addressing the employee’s noncompliance with an RSR, and

then discusses the noncompliance with the employee’s supervisor. The inspection report will

include the recording of one occurrence of a non-FRA defect for a track employee’s failure to

comply with the specific RSR that prohibits employees from sitting on a rail. The inspector will

record the inspection as one unit and 20 subunits.

Example 2: An FRA MPE inspector observes four persons working on a railroad car with

proper Blue Signal Protection for approximately 10 minutes when the inspector observes one

of the workers perform a task while not wearing the required protective equipment. The FRA

inspector intervenes by addressing the employee’s noncompliance with an RSR by

discussing it with the employee’s supervisor. The inspection report will include the recording

of a non-FRA defect for a car shop employee’s failure to comply with the specific RSR that

prohibits performing the task without the proper protective equipment. The inspector will

record the inspection as one unit and four subunits.

218C O, S, T

Camp Car Protection - The purpose of this inspection is to determine compliance with camp

car protection. Record one unit for each track inspected that requires camp car protection.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

218M M, O

Blue Signal Protection on Main or Other than Main Track – The purpose of this inspection

is to determine if the protection provided railroad employees requiring Blue Signal Protection is

in accordance with §§ 218.25, 218.27, and 218.30. Record one unit for each track that

requires Blue Signal Protection. If the track requiring Blue Signal Protection has more than one

train or cut of cars requiring protection, record one unit for the entire track.

Regarding inspecting compliance with Blue Signal regulations involving a remotely controlled

switch, record one unit for all associated recordkeeping requirements at that location, and one

subunit for each track associated with those records.

Note 1: Exc

ept for stub tracks, both ends of the track must be inspected for

compliance with the Blue Signal regulations.

Note 2: There is a drop-down FRA observation code inspectors may use in lieu of writing a

comment when there are not any exceptions noted.

218O ALL

Part 218, Subpart F – The purpose of this inspection is to determine a railroad’s compliance

with Part 218 Subpart F, including the requirement for a railroad to have complying railroad

operating rules as indicated in the regulation. Record one unit for each day, or partial day,

spent

reviewing relevant railroad rules, or for each yard or equivalent facility monitored. Record one

subunit for each crewmember, yardmaster, contractor, track employee, mechanical employee,

signal maintainer, etc., that the inspector continually observed for a sufficient amount of time to

determine compliance or noncompliance.

Note: It is FRA policy that inspectors provide information regarding incidents recorded under

this activity code as noncompliance of a Federal regulation. It will include identifying the

noncompliant individual by name in the inspection report. See the General Manual for a

further explanation.

Example 1: An FRA Track inspector observes a 12-person section gang working for

approximately 45 minutes when the inspector observes a track employee throwing a switch

with equipment in the foul of the switch. The FRA inspector intervenes by addressing the

employee’s noncompliance with Part 218 Subpart F, and then discusses the noncompliance

with the employee’s supervisor. The inspection report will include the recording of the

noncompliance for the track employee’s failure to comply with Part 218, Subpart F, and the

name of the employee in noncompliance. The inspector will record the inspection as one unit

and 12 subunits.

Example 2: An FRA MPE inspector observes six persons switching railcars in a car shop

for approximately 10 minutes when the inspector observes one of the workers fails to

properly protect a shoving movement. The FRA inspector intervenes by addressing the

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

employee’s noncompliance with Part 218 Subpart F, and then discusses the noncompliance

with the employee’s supervisor. The inspection report will include the recording of the

noncompliance for the car shop employee’s failure to comply with the Part 218 Subpart F,

and the name of the employee in noncompliance. The inspector will record the inspection

as one unit and six subunits.

Example 3: An inspector reviews the railroad rules to determine if they are in compliance with

the requirements set forth regarding railroad equipment in the foul and operating switches. The

inspection report will include the recording of one unit for this inspection and will also reference

the precise railroad rules, or lack thereof, in the inspection report’s narrative.

218S M, O

Blue Signal Protection Locomotive or Car Shops – The purpose of this inspection is to

determine compliance with regulations requiring Blue Signal Protection in a locomotive

servicing track area, a car shop repair track area, or a track that has been designated as a

repair track or expedite track. Record one unit for each area inspected.

If § 218.29(c), Alternative methods of protection, applied in a car shop repair track area or a

locomotive servicing track area, one unit is recorded for the entire area, regardless of the

number of tracks in the area or the number of cars or locomotives on those tracks.

Note: There is a drop-down FRA observation code inspectors may use in lieu of writing a

comment when there are not any exceptions noted.

221 M, O

Rear End Markers – The purpose of this inspection is to monitor compliance with Part 221.

This activity code should not be used when inspecting an End of Train (EOT) device under

Part 232. Record one unit for each train, locomotive (including distributed power units

(DPUs)), or caboose inspected for compliance.

The inspection of each rear end marking device in rooms or locations where rear end marking

devices are stored and/or recharged and maintained is one unit. Each rear end marker ID must

be recorded in the line item along with the appropriate observation. Individual marking devices

that are not attached to trains or in storage areas not subject to service are not recorded as a

unit.

Note: There is a drop-down FRA observation code inspectors may use in lieu of writing a

comment when there are not any exceptions noted.

227N IH

227N - Occupational Noise Exposure - The purpose of this inspection is to determine

compliance with Part 227 regarding occupational noise exposure in the locomotive cab. It

will include audiometric test records, employee noise exposure monitoring plan and

monitoring records, cab noise monitoring records, postings of monitoring results, training

plans and records, or interviewing persons regarding noise exposure. Record one unit for

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

each day or partial day of an inspection and one subunit for each Part 227 record reviewed.

Note: This activity may only be claimed when accompanied by a member of the

Industrial Hygiene staff.

228 O, S

Hours of Service Records Inspection – determine if Hours of Service (HOS) records are in

compliance with Part 228. Record one unit for each day or partial day of inspection, and one

subunit for each HOS record reviewed. This activity code includes any examination of HOS

logs, HOS report forms, HOS documents, interviewing employees regarding HOS, and any

other HOS records review activity. This activity code is not used to document an employee

exceeding the HOS.

Note: Reports taking exception to an employee exceeding the hours of service should not be

recorded under this activity code; please reference the proper activity code associated with the

employee’s type of work or discipline. Example: Activity Code 228P, 211, or HSL.

228C O, S

Construction of Employee Sleeping Quarters – The purpose of this inspection is to determine

compliance with Part 228, Subpart C. Record one unit for each day, or partial day, spent

reviewing relevant facilities regarding Part 228, Subpart C.

229X H, O

Locomotive Inspection in Operations – The purpose of this inspection is for any inspector,

other than an MP&E inspector, to determine a railroad’s compliance with Part 229. Record

one unit for any locomotive inspected. The inspection may include, but is not limited to, the

locomotive daily inspection, any passageway tripping hazards, cab sanitation, cab lighting,

speed indicator check, etc.

232E M, O

End of Trai

n Device – The purpose of this inspection is to inspect an End of Train (EOT)

device for compliance with Part 232. The inspection must include verifying that the information

on the calibration sticker is legible, and that it contains the date, name of person, and location

of the last calibration. This activity also includes comparing the quantitative values between

the front and rear unit, as well as the ability of the rear unit to effect an emergency application

in response to an emergency application initiated from the front unit. Record one unit for each

EOT i

nspected or

observed for compliance.

Note: This act

ivity code will be used when citing defects on the Head End Device

(HED) associated with the EOT device

232O H, O, S, T

Freight Train Brake Test Observation – The purpose of this inspection is for any inspector,

other than an MP&E inspector, to determine compliance with Part 232 not covered in activity

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

code 232E or 232X. It includes any airbrake test required by Part 232. Airbrake test inspections

should include in the narrative of the inspection report if the inspector was observing or

accompanying a railroad employee or contractor employee performing the airbrake test. Record

one unit for each observation or inspection, and one subunit for each railcar involved.

232X M, O

Securement of Locomotive and Cars – The purpose of this inspection is to determine if

railroad equipment is in compliance with § 232.103(n). Record units as follows:

1. Record one unit for an inspection of unattended equipment that consists of a single

locomotive or locomotive consist, either attached to cars or not. This inspection includes

determining compliance with the requirements for throttle position, status of the reverse

lever, position of the generator field switch, status of the independent brakes, position of

the isolation switch and handbrake, and position of the automatic brake valve.

2. Record one unit for an inspection of unattended equipment NOT attached to

locomotives that are required to be secured under this regulation. This unit includes

inspections for bottled air.

Note 1: If a train is separated to avoid blocking any type of crossing, it should have each

section of the equipment recorded as a separate unit.

Note 2: The inspection report that records a defect or recommended violation identified

should clearly state the number of handbrakes found to be applied, the number of

handbrakes required to be applied, and the current operating rule in place that indicates the

precise number of handbrakes required to be applied.

Note 3: This in

spection also includes an inspector reviewing railroad rules for compliance

of this part.

Example: If 30 unattended railcars are found on a track that is required to have seven hand

brakes applied but the inspection reveals that only one handbrake is applied, it will be recorded

as one unit with one occurrence for the failure to have the other six handbrakes applied.

238O H, O, S, T Passenger Equipment Inspection (Partial) – The purpose of this inspection is for any

inspector, other than an MP&E inspector, to determine compliance with Part 238 that is not

covered in activity codes 232X or 238T. Record one unit for each inspection and a subunit for

each passenger car inspected.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

238T M, O

Passenger Train Brake Test Observation – The purpose of this inspection is to document

an observation of a passenger train airbrake test, excluding tourist equipment. Record one

unit for each entire brake test observed for compliance with Part 238, and one subunit for

each railroad record associated with the Class I air brake test.

Note: There is a drop-down FRA observation code inspectors may use in lieu of writing a

comment when there are not any exceptions noted.

238X M, O

Passenger Equipment Securement – The purpose of this inspection is to determine if

passenger or commuter equipment is properly secured (excluding tourist equipment).

Record one unit for each train, whether or not a locomotive is attached.

BPL H, M

Bulk Packages (Applies to bulk packagings, including Intermodal Portable Tanks and

Intermediate Bulk Containers, other than tank cars) – Record one unit for each limited,

ground-level inspection of both sides of the bulk package and does not include a top-level

inspection. This activity code may only be used when assessing compliance with §§

172.302, 172.304, 173.326, 172.502, 172.516, and 174.50.

Note 1: Use TCL & TCT codes to record tank car inspections.

BWS S, T Bridge Worker Safety – An inspection concerning Part 214, Subpart B, Bridge Worker Safety

Standards. Record one unit for each bridge gang or work group, and one subunit for each

member of the gang or work group.

FCL H, M

Inspection of Freight Containers, General Handling and Loading

Requirements – The purpose of the inspection includes inspecting the exterior of freight

containers for markings, placards, structural integrity, and securement to the railcar. Record o

unit for each freight container inspected.

Note 1: Use BPL & BPT codes to record intermodal tank inspections.

NOIR ALL

Noise Test Records – The purpose of this inspection is to document a review of a

locomotive’s noise testing session or a locomotive’s noise testing record. Record one unit for

each locomotive’s noise testing session monitored and/or all noise testing records associated

with that locomotive tested.

Example 1: A short line railroad has three records on file documenting a locomotive horn test

performed on locomotive SP 1234. Record one unit for the examination of all three records.

Example 2: A short line railroad has three records on file documenting a locomotive horn test

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

performed on locomotive SP 1234, and two records on SP 2345. Record two units for the

inspection of the noise testing records for two locomotives.

Example 3: An inspector monitors three noise testing sessions on SP 4567, and then reviews

three noise testing records regarding that same locomotive. Record one unit for the

locomotive and testing records involved.

Note 1: This activity code should only be used by inspectors who have been trained to

inspect locomotive horn testing records.

Note 2: This activity code should not be used with Part 227 Occupational Noise Exposure

inspections (activity code 227N), or when performing a noise test (activity code NOIS).

NOIS ALL

Noise Tests – The purpose of this inspection is to perform a noise test in accordance with

Federal regulations. This activity code should only be used by inspectors who have attended

the FRA training course regarding the equipment used to conduct these inspections. Record

one unit for each day or partial day of an inspection.

This activity code should not be used with Part 227 Occupational Noise Exposure inspections

(activity code 227N), or when reviewing noise records (activity code NOIR).

RADX H, O, T

Radar Speed Monitoring – The purpose of this inspection is to monitor and/or accurately

validate the speed of trains and railroad equipment for compliance with Federal regulations

and/or railroad operating rules. Record one unit for each speed monitoring session and one

subunit for each locomotive, train, or railroad equipment on the rail monitored. Noncompliance

with railroad operating rules should be recorded under activity code 217O.

Note 1: When entering this code, the inspector must indicate the initials and number of the lead

locomotive, or a locomotive within the consist, in the Train # / Site field. This field permits the

entry of 15 characters. Each train or piece of equipment monitored will require a new line item.

Note 2: FRA and participating state employees must not perform radar monitoring sessions

unless they receive a certificate of qualification from an FRA employee who holds a current

certificate as a stationary radar trainer. See Chapter 3 of the General Manual for a complete

discussion of FRA policy.

Revised

2/26/2011

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

RMM T, S

Roadway Maintenance Machine & Hi-Rail – The purpose of this inspection is to document

an observation or inspection concerning Part 214 Subpart D, On-Track Roadway

Maintenance Machines and Hi-Rail Vehicles. Record one unit for each roadway

maintenance machine or hi-rail vehicle inspected.

Example: If a large-scale tie unit consisting of 20 roadway maintenance machines and one

Hi-Rail vehicle is operating on the tracks, and only five of those machines are inspected, then

record five units.

Note: If a machine operator fails to comply with railroad rules not covered by Part 214 or any

Federal regulation, the inspector must note the non-compliance by recording it using a Non-

FRA defect under activity code 217O, as provided in the guidelines of that activity code.

RWP O, S, T

Roadway Worker Protection – The purpose of this inspection is to determine compliance with

Part 214, Subpart C, Roadway Worker Protection (RWP). Record one unit for an individual

worker or group of employees (with a roadway worker in charge) at a specific location. This

will include attending a job briefing with a group of RWP employees. Record each train

required to provide an audible warning signal as a separate unit, and each employee requiring

RWP as a subunit.

Note: When performing multi-point inspection work with the same employee (or group of

employees), record only one unit for determining compliance, and one subunit for each

employee of the workgroup per day.

Example 1: W

hen observing or inspecting a large production crew, record a separate unit

for each different location where an employee (or group of employees) is monitored for

compliance. For instance, large projects may have multiple teams or workgroups at various

locations along the right of way, record each worker, team or workgroup at each different

location as a separate unit.

Example 2: You observe an RWP crew consisting of one Employee-In-Charge and 20 track

employees together at a single location. Record one unit for the location and 21 subunits for the

entire RWP work group.

TCL H, M

Tank Car Inspection – The purpose of this inspection includes inspecting for markings,

placards, and structural integrity, and securement. Record one unit for each ground-level

inspection that did not include a top-level inspection. This activity code may only be used when

assessing compliance with §§ 172.302(a)(1), 172.304, 172.502(a)(1)(i), 172.516(c)(2) and (6),

174.50, 179, and 180.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activit

Discipline Definition Comments

TPLH H, M, O

In-Train Placement of Placarded Rail Cars, Transport Vehicles, and Freight Containers

– The purpose of this activity is to determine compliance with positioning in-train of placarded

cars, §§ 174.84 and 174.85. Record one unit for each train inspected.

RULE ALL

Rulebook Review - The purpose of this inspection is to record an inspector’s review or

formal discussion with a railroad manager, regarding railroad rules that will determine if they

accurately correlate with current FRA regulations. Record one unit for each day, or partial

day, spent reviewing a railroad rule(s) for compliance with Federal regulations. Record a

subunit for each CFR section involved. Only comments should be recorded under this

activity code. Any defects should be recorded under the proper corresponding activity code.

Note: Inspections regarding reviewing railroad rules to ensure compliance regarding §

232.103 (n) and Part 218, Subpart F, should not be recorded under this activity code.

Inspectors should reference activity code 232X and 218O respectively for those railroad rule

inspections.

Example 1: An

inspection of NEBR railroad’s rulebook determined that railroad rules regarding

signal systems (Part 234 and Part 236) comply with Federal regulations. Record one unit and

two subunits.

Example 2: An inspection that included discussions with railroad managers regarding

NEBR railroad’s rulebook and bulletins determined that the railroad’s rules regarding Part

217 and Part 220, Subpart C, correlated with FRA regulations. Record one unit and two

subunits.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Bridge and Track Activity Code Table of Definitions

Revised March 17, 2014

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

ATIP T

Automated Track Inspection Program Surveys (ATIP) – The purpose of this

activity code is to document an inspection onboard an FRA geometry car. Record

one unit for monitoring and accessing each mile of track tested.

Note: Not to be used by OP inspectors for ATIP on-board assignments. OP

inspectors must use activity code 217R.

BAI T

Bridge Accident Investigation – The purpose of this activity code is to document

accident investigations involving railroad bridges. Claim one unit for the

investigation. Count each bridge observed as part of the accident investigation

using Activity BOBS.

BCI T

Bridge Complaint Investigation – The purpose of this activity code is to

document bridge observations and evaluations relating to a complaint. Claim one

unit per complaint. Count each bridge observed using Activity BOBS.

BCR T

Bridge Capacity Review – The purpose of this activity code is to document the

review of the safe load capacity determination for a specific bridge. Claim one

unit for each capacity determination reviewed.

BIR T

Bridge Inspection Record Field Audit – The purpose of this activity code is to

document a comparison of existing bridge conditions with a track owner's

bridge inspection records. Claim one unit per bridge inspection record audited

in the header of the F6180.96 inspection report. If the inspection record

accurately reflects the conditions present at the bridge, document the bridge

observation using Activity Code BOBS as a single Item on the F6180.96

inspection report. If the bridge inspection record is sufficiently inaccurate to

warrant a defect, then a second Item using BIR should be entered on the

inspection report.

BMP T

Bridge Management Program Review – The purpose of this activity code is to

document the review of a track owner's Bridge Management Program and other

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

written policies for compliance with Part 237 requirements. Claim one unit per

program review.

BMSC T

Miscellaneous Structure Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to

document observations and evaluations of retaining walls, station platforms,

culverts, overhead bridges, and other miscellaneous structures not covered by

Activity Codes BOBS, BTNL, or BMV. Claim one unit per structure observed.

BMV T

Movable Bridge Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to

document movable bridge observations. Claim one unit per movable bridge

observed.

BOBS T

Bridge Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to document railroad

bridge structural observations. A unit may only be recorded when specifically

observing or evaluating bridge structural components, including ties on an open-

deck bridge where the timbers are an integral structural load distribution element

of the bridge. Claim one unit per bridge observed.

BREC T

Bridge Inspection Record Review – The purpose of this activity code is to

document the review of bridge inspection records to determine if inspections were

performed on a timely basis, if the record is complete, and whether the record

complies with the requirements of the track owner's bridge management program.

This activity is an office audit. Refer to BIR for field inspection record audits.

Claim one unit per inspection day and one subunit for each inspection record

reviewed.

BSSE T

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Evaluation – The purpose of this activity

code is to document evaluation of a track owner's compliance with their adopted

Bridge Management Program as well as compliance with Part 237 requirements

falling outside of the BMP. Claim one unit per day of the compliance evaluation.

BTNL T

Tunnel Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to document railroad

tunnel observations. Claim one unit per tunnel observed or for tunnels exceeding

one mile in length, claim one unit per tunnel mile or fraction thereof.

BWI T

Bridge Waiver Investigation – The purpose of this activity code is to document

evaluation of Part 237 Bridge Safety Standards waiver applications. Claim one unit

per waiver application.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

DER T

Derail – The purpose of this activity code is to document a complete inspection of

any derailing device used to divert free-rolling equipment off the track to ensure

the device functions as intended. Record one unit per derail inspected.

GRMG T

Gage Restraint Measurement Vehicle–Government Owned – The purpose of

this activity code is to document an inspection onboard an FRA-owned gage

restraint measurement vehicle used to determine compliance with § 213.110

(GRMS track). Record one unit for monitoring and accessing each mile of track

tested.

GRMS T

Gage Restraint Measurement Vehicle–Other Than Government Owned – The

purpose of this activity code is to document an inspector’s observations occurring

on board a railroad owned gage restraint measurement vehicle. Record one unit

for monitoring and accessing each mile of track tested.

HGCT T

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing–Track – The purpose of this activity code is to

document a walking inspection to determine whether vegetation on railroad

property interferes with motorist visibility of highway-rail grade crossing warning

devices. See §§ 213.37(a)(2) and 213.321(a)(2). Record only one unit per

highway-rail grade crossing installation.

LRA T

Lift Rail Assembly – The purpose of this activity code is to document a complete

inspection of a railroad bridge lift-rail assembly and associated devices such as

expansion joints. Record one unit per assembly or device. Each assembly on a

bridge is considered a unit and each track on a moveable bridge should have four

lift rails.

LTT T

Life Tips Track – The purpose of this activity code is to document and record

one unit for interacting with/briefing railroad or contractor employees regarding

Federal regulations or issues regarding railroad safety. Count each member of

the work group as a subunit. When using this code, the inspector must write a

brief description (two sentences or so) in the “Comments” section of the F6180.96

report.

Example 1: You attend a safety meeting to discuss railroad safety issues (Part

214, Part 218 Subpart F, etc.). This meeting consisted of one track supervisor

and two inspection and repair foremen. Record this activity as one unit under

LTT, and three subunits under LTT.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

Example 2: You have active involvement in a job safety briefing with a train crew,

group of roadway workers, etc. Your involvement may include FRA regulations

regarding personal or operational safety (Parts 214, 218, etc.) Record this activity

as one unit under LTT, and record one subunit for each train crew member, work

crew member, etc.

Example 3: You have active involvement in a discussion with five railroad

workers regarding an FRA Safety or Emergency Advisory. Record this activity as

one unit and five subunits under LTT.

Note 1: This activity code does not include an FRA inspector debriefing a

railroad representative(s) in connection with an FRA inspection report

(F6180.96).

Note 2: This activity code does not include attending meetings with short line

railroad operators, labor organizations, etc., regardless of whether the inspector

discussed safety regulations.

MSB T

Bridge Track Inspection – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

inspection of track located on a railroad bridge. Record only one unit per bridge.

A unit may only be recorded when specifically inspecting bridge track

components such as ties, rail, rail fastenings, joint bars, etc.

MTH T

Main Track–Hi-Rail – The purpose of this activity code is to document a main

track inspection while on board a hi-rail or other on-track vehicle such as a

motorcar.

Note 1: Inspectors will monitor compliance with the note to the requirements of

213.233 Track inspections.

Note 2: Hi-rail vehicles should be operated at a speed 5 mph below the maxim

speed recommended by the manufacturer for the safe operation of the hi-rail and

apparatus during use on the rail, where practicable.

Record one unit per mile of track inspected.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

MTW T

Main Track–Walking – The purpose of this activity code is to document a main

track inspection while walking. Record one unit per track mile walked.

Example: if an inspector walked three curves at three different milepost

locations each curve having about 528 feet per curve, only one unit should be

documented. If the total accumulated footage is less than 5280 feet, one unit is

to be recorded; if more than 5280 feet is inspected, record a second unit.

BMSC T

Miscellaneous Structure Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to

document observations and evaluations of retaining walls, station platforms,

culverts, overhead bridges, and other miscellaneous structures not covered by

Activity Codes BOBS, BTNL, or BMV. Claim one unit per structure observed.

BMV T

Movable Bridge Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to

document movable bridge observations. Claim one unit per movable bridge

observed.

BOBS T

Bridge Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to document railroad

bridge structural observations. A unit may only be recorded when specifically

observing or evaluating bridge structural components, including ties on an open-

deck bridge where the timbers are an integral structural load distribution element

of the bridge. Claim one unit per bridge observed.

BREC T

Bridge Inspection Record Review – The purpose of this activity code is to

document the review of bridge inspection records to determine if inspections were

performed on a timely basis, if the record is complete, and whether the record

complies with the requirements of the track owner's bridge management program.

This activity is an office audit. Refer to BIR for field inspection record audits.

Claim one unit per inspection day and one subunit for each inspection record

reviewed.

BSSE T

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Evaluation – The purpose of this activity

code is to document evaluation of a track owner's compliance with their adopted

Bridge Management Program as well as compliance with Part 237 requirements

falling outside of the BMP. Claim one unit per day of the compliance evaluation.

BTNL T

Tunnel Observation – The purpose of this activity code is to document railroad

tunnel observations. Claim one unit per tunnel observed or for tunnels exceeding

one mile in length, claim one unit per tunnel mile or fraction thereof.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

BWI T

Bridge Waiver Investigation – The purpose of this activity code is to document

evaluation of Part 237 Bridge Safety Standards waiver applications. Claim one unit

per waiver application.

DER T

Derail – The purpose of this activity code is to document a complete inspection of

any derailing device used to divert free-rolling equipment off the track to ensure

the device functions as intended. Record one unit per derail inspected.

GRMG T

Gage Restraint Measurement Vehicle–Government Owned – The purpose of

this activity code is to document an inspection onboard an FRA-owned gage

restraint measurement vehicle used to determine compliance with § 213.110

(GRMS track). Record one unit for monitoring and accessing each mile of track

tested.

GRMS T

Gage Restraint Measurement Vehicle–Other Than Government Owned – The

purpose of this activity code is to document an inspector’s observations occurring

on board a railroad owned gage restraint measurement vehicle. Record one unit

for monitoring and accessing each mile of track tested.

HGCT T

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing–Track – The purpose of this activity code is to

document a walking inspection to determine whether vegetation on railroad

property interferes with motorist visibility of highway-rail grade crossing warning

devices. See §§ 213.37(a)(2) and 213.321(a)(2). Record only one unit per

highway-rail grade crossing installation.

LRA T

Lift Rail Assembly – The purpose of this activity code is to document a complete

inspection of a railroad bridge lift-rail assembly and associated devices such as

expansion joints. Record one unit per assembly or device. Each assembly on a

bridge is considered a unit and each track on a moveable bridge should have four

lift rails.

LTT T

Life Tips Track – The purpose of this activity code is to document and record

one unit for interacting with/briefing railroad or contractor employees regarding

Federal regulations or issues regarding railroad safety. Count each member of

the work group as a subunit. When using this code, the inspector must write a

brief description (two sentences or so) in the “Comments” section of the F6180.96

report.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

Example 1: You attend a safety meeting to discuss railroad safety issues (Part

214, Part 218 Subpart F, etc.). This meeting consisted of one track supervisor

and two inspection and repair foremen. Record this activity as one unit under

LTT, and three subunits under LTT.

Example 2: You have active involvement in a job safety briefing with a train crew,

group of roadway workers, etc. Your involvement may include FRA regulations

regarding personal or operational safety (Parts 214, 218, etc.) Record this activity

as one unit under LTT, and record one subunit for each train crew member, work

crew member, etc.

Exampl

e 3: You have active involvement in a discussion with five railroad

workers regarding an FRA Safety or Emergency Advisory. Record this activity as

one unit and five subunits under LTT.

Note 1: This activity code does not include an FRA inspector debriefing a

railroad representative(s) in connection with an FRA inspection report

(F6180.96).

Note 2: This activity code does not include attending meetings with short line

railroad operators, labor organizations, etc., regardless of whether the inspector

discussed safety regulations.

MSB T

Bridge Track Inspection – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

inspection of track located on a railroad bridge. Record only one unit per bridge.

A unit may only be recorded when specifically inspecting bridge track

components such as ties, rail, rail fastenings, joint bars, etc.

MTH T

Main Track–Hi-Rail – The purpose of this activity code is to document a main

track inspection while on board a hi-rail or other on-track vehicle such as a

motorcar.

Note 1: Inspectors will monitor compliance with the note to the requirements of

213.233 Track inspections.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

Note 2: Hi-rail vehicles should be operated at a speed 5 mph below the maximum

speed recommended by the manufacturer for the safe operation of the hi-rail and

apparatus during use on the rail, where practicable.

Record one unit per mile of track inspected.

MTW T

Main Track–Walking – The purpose of this activity code is to document a main

track inspection while walking. Record one unit per track mile walked.

Example: if an inspector walked three curves at three different milepost

locations each curve having about 528 feet per curve, only one unit should be

documented. If the total accumulated footage is less than 5280 feet, one unit is

to be recorded; if more than 5280 feet is inspected, record a second unit.

RII T

Rail Integrity Inspection – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

inspection of a non-destructive rail testing operation. Record one unit per

operation.

ROWP T

Review Subpart G Right-of-Way Plan – The purpose of this activity code is to

document the monitoring of a railroad’s high-speed "right of way" plan by an

inspector. Record one unit per plan monitored.

RREC T

Review Railroad’s Rail Inspection Records – The purpose of this activity code i

to document an inspection of the carrier’s rail inspection records. Record one uni

for records associated with one day of inspection by one test car, and one subuni

if any supplemental records exist.

RXM T

Rail Crossing–Main Track – The purpose of this activity code is to document a

walking inspection of an at-grade rail-to-rail crossing (diamond) located in a main

track. Record one unit per rail crossing.

RXY T

Rail Crossing–Yard Track – The purpose of this activity code is to document a

walking inspection of an at-grade rail-to-rail crossing (diamond) located in other

than main track. Record one unit per rail crossing.

TGMS T

Inspection from a Track Geometry Measurement Vehicle (Other Than

Government Owned) – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

inspector’s observations occurring on board an other than government owned

geometry measurement vehicle. Record one unit for monitoring and accessing

each mile of track tested.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

TOM T

Inspect Main Track Turnout – The purpose of this activity code is to document a

walking inspection of a turnout located in a main track. Record one unit per

turnout inspected.

Note: A yard is a system of auxiliary tracks used exclusively for the classification

of passenger or freight cars according to commodity or destination; assembling of

cars for train movement; storage of cars; or repair of equipment. If a track doesn’t

fit this definition, inspectors must consider it a main track.

TOY T

Inspect Yard Track Turnout – The purpose of this activity code is to document a

walking inspection of a turnout located in other than main track. Record one unit

per turnout inspected.

Note: A yard is a system of auxiliary tracks used exclusively for the classificati

of passenger or freight cars according to commodity or destination; assembling o

cars for train movement; storage of cars; or repair of equipment. If a track doesn’

fit this definition, inspectors must consider it a main track.

TREC T

Review Railroad’s Track Inspection Records – The purpose of this activity

code is to document an inspection of a carrier’s track inspection records. Record

one unit per subdivision and one subunit per record reviewed.

TRM T

Inspection from a Train – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

observation or inspection of track/train interaction, right-of-way signage, signals

obscured, etc., when on board a train. Under this activity code, Part 213 defects

are limited to items an inspector can clearly justify in an inspection report, such

as vegetation. Record one unit per train and one subunit per track mile.

VTI T

Inspection from a Vehicle/Track Interaction Car – The purpose of this activity

code is to document an observation occurring on board a VTI vehicle. Record

one unit for monitoring and accessing each mile of track tested.

WPI T

Inspect Welding Plant Facility – Document an officially directed visit to a rail

welding facility. Claim one unit per facility.

YTH T

Inspect Yard Track–Hi-Rail – The purpose of this activity code is to document an

inspection of other than main track while onboard hi-rail or other on-track vehicle

such as a motor car. Record one unit per mile of track hi-railed. Example: if an

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Activity

Discipline

Definition

Comments

inspector hi-railed three yard tracks with about 528 feet per track, only one unit is

to be documented. If the total accumulated footage is less than 5280 feet, one

unit is to be recorded; if more than 5280 feet is inspected record a second unit.

Note: Yard means a system of tracks, not including main tracks and sidings,

used for classifying cars, making-up and inspecting trains, or storing cars and

equipment. If a track doesn’t fit this definition, inspectors must consider it a main

track.

YTW T

Inspect Yard Track–Walking – The purpose of this activity code is to document

an inspection of other than main while walking. Record one unit per mile of track

walked. Example: if an inspector walked three yard tracks with about 528 feet per

track, only one unit is to be documented. If the total accumulated footage is less

than 5280 feet one unit is to be recorded, if more than 5280 feet is inspected

record a second unit.

Note: Yard means a system of tracks, not including main tracks and sidings,

used for classifying cars, making-up and inspecting trains, or storing cars and

equipment. If a track doesn’t fit this definition, inspectors must consider it a main

track.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Defect Codes

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0031

FAILURE TO ADOPT BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

237

0033

LACK OF RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY.

237

0033

Aii

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS UNIQUE IDENTIFIER FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Aiii

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS BRIDGE LOCATION FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Aiv

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS CONFIGURATION FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Avi

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS NUMBER OF SPANS FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Avii

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS SPAN LENGTHS FOR EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Aviii

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY LACKS OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR THE

MANAGEMENT OF BRIDGE SAFETY.

237

0033

Aix

RAILROAD BRIDGE NOT LISTED IN RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY.

237

0033

RAILROAD BRIDGE INVENTORY INACCURATE.

237

0033

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS RECORD OF SAFE LOAD CAPACITY OF EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISION TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS

OF EACH BRIDGE.

237

0033

Cii

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISION TO DOCUMENT ALL REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS.

237

0033

Ciii

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISION TO DOCUMENT ALL BRIDGE INSPECTIONS.

237

0033

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM CONTENT.

237

0033

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS INSPECTION PERSONNEL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS.

237

0033

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS TYPES OF INSPECTION INCLUDING REQUIRED DETAIL.

237

0033

D3i

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS DEFINITIONS OF DEFECT LEVELS.

237

0033

D3ii

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM USING CONDITION CODES LACKS DEFINITIONS OF DEFECT LEVELS

ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITION CODES USED.

237

0033

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS METHOD OF DOCUMENTING INSPECTIONS INCLUDING STANDARD

FORMS OR FORMATS.

237

0033

D5i

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE TYPES.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0033

D5ii

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS COMPONENT NOMENCLATURE.

237

0033

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM LACKS PROTOCOL FOR NUMBERING OR IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTRUCTURE

UNITS, SPANS, AND INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS.

237

0051

RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER NOT DETERMINED BY TRACK OWNER TO BE COMPETENT TO PERFORM

REQUIRED FUNCTIONS.

237

0051

RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER LACKS NECESSARY EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.

237

0053

RAILROAD BRIDGE INSPECTOR NOT DETERMINED BY TRACK OWNER TO BE TECHNICALLY COMPETENT.

237

0053

RAILROAD BRIDGE INSPECTOR NOT DESIGNATED TO AUTHORIZE OR RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF

RAILROAD TRAFFIC OVER A BRIDGE ACCORDING TO ITS IMMEDIATE CONDITION OR STATE OF REPAIR.

237

0055

RAILROAD BRIDGE SUPERVISOR NOT DETERMINED BY TRACK OWNER TO BE TECHNICALLY COMPETENT.

237

0057

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO DESIGNATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS QUALIFIED AS RAILROAD BRIDGE

ENGINEERS.

237

0057

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO DESIGNATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS QUALIFIED AS RAILROAD BRIDGE

INSPECTORS.

237

0057

iii

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO DESIGNATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS QUALIFIED AS RAILROAD BRIDGE

SUPERVISORS.

237

0057

TRACK OWNER DID NOT INCLUDE BASIS FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS QUALIFIED RAILROAD

BRIDGE ENGINEERS, RAILROAD BRIDGE INSPECTORS, AND RAILROAD BRIDGE SUPERVISORS.

237

0071

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO DETERMINE SAFE LOAD CAPACITY OF BRIDGE.

237

0071

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO DOCUMENT BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITY IN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,

ALONG WITH METHOD USED TO DETERMINE CAPACITY.

237

0071

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO USE A DESIGNATED RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER TO DETERMINE BRIDGE

LOAD CAPACITY.

237

0071

Cii

FAILURE OF RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER TO USE APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING METHODS AND STANDARDS

TO DETERMINE BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITY.

237

0071

USE OF NON-CONFORMING RECORDS, FAULTY DATA, OR IMPROPER METHODS FOR THE DETERMINATION

OF BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITY.

237

0071

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO PRIORITIZE BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITY DETERMINATIONS, AS ESTABLISHED BY

RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0071

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO HAVE NEW BRIDGE CAPACITY DETERMINED WHEN RAILROAD BRIDGE

ENGINEER HAS FOUND CHANGE IN CONDITION THAT MIGHT ADVERSELY AFFECT ABILITY OF THE BRIDGE TO

CARRY THE TRAFFIC BEING OPERATED.

237

0071

FAILURE TO STATE BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITY IN TERMS OF WEIGHT AND LENGTH OF EQUIPMENT.

237

0071

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY A RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER.

237

0073

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONFIGURATION AND OPERATION OF TRAINS

OVER BRIDGES TO PROTECT BRIDGES FROM OVER-WEIGHT OR OVER-DIMENSION LOADS.

237

0073

FAILURE TO EXPRESS WEIGHT INSTRUCTIONS IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT WEIGHTS, AND EITHER

MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LENGTHS OR AXLE SPACING.

237

0073

FAILURE TO EXPRESS DIMENSIONAL INSTRUCTIONS IN TERMS OF FEET AND INCHES OF CROSS SECTION AND

EQUIPMENT LENGTH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH COMMON RAILROAD INDUSTRY PRACTICE.

237

0073

INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED THAT EXCEED THE LOAD OR DIMENSIONAL CAPACITY OF ONE OR MORE

STRUCTURES.

237

0101

FAILURE TO INSPECT EACH BRIDGE IN RAILROAD SERVICE.

237

0101

Aii

FAILURE TO INSPECT EACH BRIDGE IN RAILROAD SERVICE AT LEAST ONCE PER CALENDAR YEAR.

237

0101

Aiii

FAILURE TO INSPECT EACH BRIDGE IN RAILROAD SERVICE NO MORE THAN 540 DAYS BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE

INSPECTIONS.

237

0101

FAILURE TO INSPECT BRIDGE MORE FREQUENTLY WHEN RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER HAS DETERMINED

INCREASED FREQUENCY IS NECESSARY.

237

0101

FAILURE OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO DEFINE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION OF A

BRIDGE TO BE PERFORMED WHENEVER BRIDGE IS INVOLVED IN EVENT THAT MAY HAVE COMPROMISED

THE INTEGRITY OF THE BRIDGE.

237

0101

FAILURE TO INSPECT ANY RAILROAD BRIDGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN IN RAILROAD SERVICE AND NOT

INSPECTED IN PREVIOUS 540 DAYS, PRIOR TO RESUMPTION OF RAILROAD SERVICE.

237

0103

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS BRIDGE INSPECTION PROCEDURES.

237

0103

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROCEDURES NOT SPECIFIED BY A RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER.

237

0103

Bii

FAILURE TO INCORPORATE IN THE BRIDGE INSPECTION PROCEDURES THE METHODS, MEANS OF ACCESS,

AND LEVEL OF DETAIL TO BE RECORDED.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0103

FAILURE OF THE BRIDGE INSPECTION PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AND

INSPECTION PROCEDURES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE BRIDGE CONFIGURATION, CONDITIONS FOUND

DURING PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS, THE NATURE OF RAILROAD TRAFFIC MOVED OVER THE BRIDGE, AND THE

VULNERABILITY OF THE BRIDGE TO DAMAGE.

237

0103

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROCEDURES ARE INADEQUATE TO DETECT, REPORT AND PROTECT DETERIORATION

AND DEFICIENCIES BEFORE THEY PRESENT A HAZARD TO SAFE TRAIN OPERATIONS.

237

0105

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROCEDURE FOR PROTECTION OF TRAIN OPERATIONS AND FOR

INSPECTION OF BRIDGE DAMAGED BY NATURAL OR ACCIDENTAL EVENT.

237

0105

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR DETECTION OF SCOUR OR DETERIORATION OF

SUBMERGED BRIDGE COMPONENTS.

237

0107

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS NOT CONDUCTED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF A DESIGNATED RAILROAD

BRIDGE INSPECTOR.

237

0107

BRIDGE INSPECTION RESULTS NOT ACCURATE.

237

0107

iii

BRIDGE INSPECTION DOES NOT CONFORM TO BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

237

0109

FAILURE OF TRACK OWNER TO KEEP A RECORD OF EACH INSPECTION PERFORMED ON BRIDGES.

237

0109

BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORD MISSING DATE(S) OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION.

237

0109

Bii

BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORD MISSING DATE RECORD WAS CREATED.

237

0109

Biii

BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORD NOT SIGNED OR CERTIFIED.

237

0109

Biv

BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORD FALSIFIED.

237

0109

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FAILS TO SPECIFY THAT EVERY BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT CONTAIN

THE MINIMUM REQUIRED INFORMATION.

237

0109

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT MISSING BRIDGE IDENTIFICATION.

237

0109

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT MISSING DATE PHYSICAL INSPECTION COMPLETED.

237

0109

C3i

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT MISSING INSPECTOR'S IDENTIFICATION.

237

0109

C3ii

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT MISSING INSPECTOR'S WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE.

237

0109

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS INDICATION OF TYPE OF INSPECTION PERFORMED.

237

0109

C5i

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS METHOD TO INDICATE A NEED FOR REVIEW BY RAILROAD BRIDGE

ENGINEER.

237

0109

C5ii

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS INDICATION OF NEED FOR REVIEW BY RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER,

WHERE APPROPRIATE.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0109

C5iii

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS METHOD OF REPORTING RESTRICTIONS PLACED AT TIME OF

INSPECTION

237

0109

C5iv

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS INDICATION OF RESTRICTIONS PLACED AT TIME OF INSPECTION,

WHERE APPROPRIATE.

237

0109

C6i

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT MISSING CONDITION OF COMPONENT INSPECTED.

237

0109

C6ii

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION NECESSARY TO CORRECTLY INTERPRET

REPORT.

237

0109

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT COVERING LESS THAN ENTIRE BRIDGE LACKS INDICATION OF PORTIONS

INSPECTED.

237

0109

FAILURE TO PLACE INITIAL BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT IN LOCATION DESIGNATED IN BRIDGE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE BRIDGE INSPECTION.

237

0109

Dii

INITIAL BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS REQUIRED INFORMATION.

237

0109

FAILURE TO PLACE FINAL BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT IN LOCATION DESIGNATED IN BRIDGE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITHIN 120 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE BRIDGE INSPECTION.

237

0109

Eii

FINAL BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT LACKS REQUIRED INFORMATION.

237

0109

FAILURE TO SPECIFY RETENTION PERIOD OR LOCATION FOR BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORDS.

237

0109

Fii

FAILURE TO RETAIN BRIDGE INSPECTION RECORDS AS REQUIRED.

237

0109

FAILURE TO PROMPTLY REPORT A DEFICIENT CONDITION ON A BRIDGE THAT AFFECTS THE IMMEDIATE

SAFETY OF TRAIN OPERATIONS TO THE PERSON WHO CONTROLS OPERATION OF TRAINS ON THE BRIDGE.

237

0111

FAILURE TO REVIEW BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN

PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRESCRIBED SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIED PROCEDURES.

237

0111

FAILURE TO REVIEW BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS TO EVALUATE WHETHER ANY ITEMS ON THE BRIDGE

INSPECTION REPORT REPRESENT A PRESENT OR POTENTIAL HAZARD TO SAFETY.

237

0111

FAILURE TO REVIEW BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY MODIFICATIONS ARE

NEEDED TO THE INSPECTION PROCEDURES OR FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS FOR THAT BRIDGE.

237

0111

FAILURE TO REVIEW BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY REPAIRS OR

MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY SHOULD BE SCHEDULED.

237

0111

FAILURE TO REVIEW BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIGHER-LEVEL REVIEW IS

NEEDED.

237

0131

BRIDGE REPAIR OR MODIFICATION NOT DESIGNED BY RAILROAD BRIDGE ENGINEER, AS REQUIRED.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CFR

RULE

SUBRULE

DESCRIPTION

237

0133

BRIDGE REPAIR OR MODIFICATIONS NOT PERFORMED UNDER IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF A RAILROAD

BRIDGE SUPERVISOR, AS REQUIRED.

237

0151

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISIONS FOR AUDITING THE PROGRAM, INCLUDING VALIDITY

OF BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS, BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA, AND THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF

MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS.

237

0153

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISIONS FOR AN INTERNAL AUDIT TO DETERMINE WHETHER

THE INSPECTION PROVISIONS OF THE PROGRAM ARE BEING FOLLOWED.

237

0153

Aii

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LACKS PROVISIONS FOR AN INTERNAL AUDIT TO DETERMINE WHETHER

THE PROGRAM IS EFFECTIVELY PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE SUBJECT BRIDGES.

237

0153

FAILURE TO EVALUATE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR ACCURACY AT

THE BRIDGES NOTED.

237

0155

FAILURE TO MAKE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AND

REPRODUCTION BY FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION.

237

0155

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

237

0155

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SYSTEM SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

Note: Defect code descriptions are not regulatory language. They are analytical instruments only, and are subject to change as needed.

Activity and source codes are analytical instruments only for use with FRA’s RISPC software program. These codes are specific to

the Bridge and Structures discipline only and use additional codes for other activities as appropriate.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Instructions, Form FRA F6180.96, Inspection Report

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Inspector’s ID

Number

Numeric RISPC automatically places the inspector’s ID number in this field. An inspector using a hand-

printed report must show the assigned five-digit identification number. This field is mandatory

because RISPC rejects a report without the inspector’s ID number.

Report Number Numeric A report number is assigned to each inspection activity. Inspectors must number their reports

consecutively beginning with number one (1) on the first inspection day of each calendar year.

Care must be taken so that subsequent numbers are correct and not duplicated. This field is

automatic with RISPC and will generate a mandatory report number, or you can enter a report

number up to a maximum of 999. A maximum of three digits is allowed for each number.

Date (of an

Inspection Activity)

Date Inspectors must show the correct inspection date and enter the occurrence of the inspection

activity. The field is mandatory and automatically entered by RISPC. Use a two-digit number to

indicate the year, month, and day of the inspection. For example, enter June 19, 2001, as

06/19/01. Inspectors can make an entry postdated, but they cannot predate inspection reports.

Violations

Recommended

Check Box

(Y/N)

If an inspector recommends a civil penalty (violation) against a track owner or other responsible

party, a narrative report is generated (Form FRA F6180.111) by RISPC.

The narrative numbering

sequence begins with the first report submitted by an FRA inspector and continues sequentially

throughout their career without regard to the annual inspection numbering. The Form FRA

F6180.96 that accompanies an inspector’s violation report must have one or more line items with

the “yes” field (recommended as violations to RCC). Where a variety of defects are discovered

during an inspection (e.g., some of which meet the criteria to support a recommendation for civil

penalty), two separate reports must be prepared: 1) a report listing defects only and 2) a report

listing items recommended for civil penalty only. See instructions under “

Violation Report

Narrative – Form FRA F6180.111.”

Railroad/Company

Name and Address

Drop-down

List/Text

Enter the name of the railroad/company responsible and the subject of the inspection. RISPC

users default to the R/C field first, then enter in the RR/CO. code. This field generates a name

and address based upon the railroad code input. In RISPC, click on the “table lookups” button to

search for and select a code. Click the scroll bar arrows or drag the field in the scroll bar to look

through the entries. You may also search through the entries and enter division and subdivision.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

R/C Drop-down

(R/C)

Enter either the code “R” if the report is for an inspection of a railroad defined in the general

railroad system of transportation or a “C” for a company (facility) not a part of the general railroad

system of transportation. This field is mandatory and is necessary for the proper classification of

reports.

Source code V should be associated with this type of activity (e.g., inspection conducted

in a welding plant [Activity Code WPI] or rail plant [RMI] facility).

RR/CO. Code Drop-down

List/Text

Enter the code assigned by FRA for the railroad/company. This field is mandatory. If the

required information is missing or invalid, RISPC will flag the report as incomplete pending

inspectors’ verification and correction. Indicate the name of the railroad responsible for the

maintenance of the track, for which the report is prepared, and the correct alphabetical code for

that railroad in the space provided on the form. In addition to the RISPC listing, the source of this

code is published in Appendix A of the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports,

without periods, hyphens, or other additions (maximum of four characters).

Division Text RISPC allows division codes—an elective for regional inspector purposes. Division is the

alphabetic code representing an operating division (or region–district) of a railroad. For railroads

not divided into operating divisions show as “System.”

Subdivision Drop-down

List/Text

Railroads can be organized into subdivisions (sometimes called branch lines, or other names),

identified in timetables or other railroad special instructions. Using the RISPC drop-down list,

enter the name of the subdivision at the location the inspections were made. If RISPC does not

contain the subdivision name, use “system.” In such a

case, inform the regional track specialist to

have the name added into RISPC. This field is mandatory.

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

RR/CO.

Representative

(Receipt

Acknowledged)

Text Print the name and title of the railroad official contacted or accompanied. Obtain a signature,

acknowledging receipt by an accompanied railroad official and initialed on the continuation

sheets, to signify receipt of their copy. RISPC allows you to input data, search, and recover

representative record information. If an unaccompanied inspection becomes necessary, show

the word “unaccompanied” in this field. If, on the day of inspection, the inspection report cannot

be personally delivered, those defects and their locations must be given by phone at the end of

the day to a responsible railroad official. Note the time, date, name and title of the person who

receives this defect information on the inspection report form. Mail the railroad’s copy to the

appropriate railroad official.

When using RISPC rather than generating a printed copy, it is acceptable to email a PDF copy to

the railroad representative. A return email from the railroad representative is an acceptable

alternative to a signature of receipt.

From

City/State/County

Drop-down

List/Numeric

RISPC allows users to open State codes from a drop-down menu. Identify the city, State, and

county name, as applicable, where the inspection activity began. In addition to an imbedded

lookup in RISPC, all appropriate codes regarding the city, State, and county names are in the

GSA Worldwide Geographic Location Guide books. Leave this field blank whenever an

inspection did not take place in the boundaries of a city, town, etc. However, list State and county

code identifiers, as they are mandatory. Precede county codes with the letter “C” to ensure that a

listed city is within the geographic boundaries of the county identified. If conducting an inspection

between two points, enter in the appropriate field the name and code of the county in which the

inspection began. Also, see “Special Instructions - Inspections From/to State Lines” above. This

is a mandatory field.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Destination City

and County

Drop-down

List/Numeric

Complete this field if the inspection activity involves a destination other than a location identified i

the “From City/State/County” field. It is not necessary to complete this field when inspections are

contained within a single location, but follow instructions for “From City/State/County.” Enter, in

the field, the State and city codes of the inspection point as shown in the GSA. If the inspection

point is not near a city, substitute the county name and code from the RISPC table lookup menu.

When using the county code, the letter “C” will precede a three-digit number (e.g., C021 or C131

for counties, respectively). Do not record an inspection extending into more than one State on t

same form. Use a separate report form to record an inspection for each State. To more fully

describe inspected track that is limited by borders, a system has been devised to indicate that the

inspection actually extended to a State line rather than having terminated at some point within the

boundary county, as would be the case using simply a county code.

Milepost: From &

Text When conducting a track inspection or performing another inspection activity, i.e., all ATIP

surveys, and train riding, it is mandatory to show a starting milepost identifier in this field. Record,

in the “To” field, the milepost of the farthest point your inspection extended over the segment of

track inspected.

Record the numeric portion of the milepost in an NNNN.NN format. The computer can

accommodate a maximum of 10 characters, but only two to the right of the decimal point. For

example, 1234.56 and 12.15 are acceptable identifiers of a milepost location (maximum 10

characters). If the railroad uses an alphabetic identifier in conjunction with a milepost number,

they should precede the numeric value and not exceed three characters in length. Acceptable

field entries include SL12.25, R218.5, YL12.50, ABB146.55, and X12.45.

If a portion of

track cannot be inspected between “From” and “To” fields, then tracks inspected

should also be indicated in the “Inspection Point” field, or, if necessary, in a separate line item

“comment.” For example: If inspecting from milepost BF1 to BF22 and BF7 to BF9 was

inaccessible, enter BF1 to BF7 and BF9 to BF22 in the “Inspection Point” field and only claim

miles actually inspected. Capture only one set of milepost ranges on the database.

Inspection Point Text As an elective, enter the name of the site, branch or the milepost location limits of the track

inspected (e.g., a repair facility, train yard, interlocking plant, single or double main track). The

field has a maximum of 50 characters.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Activity Codes (1) Drop-down

List/Text

Pick activity code(s) from the RISPC lookup table. See Activity Codes.

Units Drop-down

List/Numeric

Each mile of track, turnout, record, crossing at-

grade, and derail, as inspected, should be counted

as a unit. The number of track miles inspected is limited to 125 per report. The number of

railroad track records inspected is limited to 650 per report. For additional instructions concerni

units, see Activity Codes.

Source Code Drop-down

List/Text

Enter one of the available letter codes to identify the source of (why or purpose for) the

inspection. Only one letter may appear on the inspection report. If the required information is

missing or invalid, the report will be “incomplete,” pending inspectors’ verification and correction.

See Source Codes.

File Number Text A file number is required for ATIP activities (Source Codes I & J), complaint investigations with

assigned numbers (source code B) and waiver investigations (Source C

ode E). For an inspection

without a file number that is not a re-inspection, leave this space blank. When conducting a re-

inspection, inspectors are to type in their ID and report numbers of the previous inspection.

Accompanying

Inspectors

Numeric Use this field when conducting a joint inspection (two or more inspectors). Complete one

F6180.96 inspection report. Insert the accompanying inspector ID number.

Item Numeric An inspection is limited to not more than 999 line items (maximum three digits).

Note: The

following fields

repeat for each

line item.

Initials/Milepost Text Indicate the location of the defect to the nearest one hundredth of a mile (52.8-feet). In this field,

it is necessary to use the same milepost criteria as described in the “Milepost: From & To” field

as shown above.

Equipment/Track # Text Indicate the

track number where the defect exists. For a track with a name (no number), enter an

abbreviation (maximum three digits or characters).

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Type/Kind Drop-down

List/Text

Enter the appropriate type code listed at the bottom of the form (maximum one digit).

“M”– defects located on controlled and non-controlled main tracks. However, for defects in

turnouts, see “T” and “X” below. Use care in distinguishing the type of track distinctions among

main and other than main trackage identified in § 213.233(c).

“S”– defects located on controlled and non-controlled sidings identified in timetables or other

pertinent information conveyed to allow opposing trains to pass (but, not where defects are

located in the turnout).

“Y”– defects located within yard classification tracks or other tracks designated to store or make-

up trains. For tracks such as industrial spurs and auxiliary tracks designated other than main

tracks use “I.”

“I”– defects located on industrial

track (i.e., grain elevator tracks, spur and back tracks owned and

maintained by the railroad).

“T”– defects located within a turnout area, whether on the straight side or the turnout side. The

turnout area extends from the point of a switch to the heel of the frog.

“X”– defects located on a track that is between the two turnouts (heel of the frog to heel of the

frog) of a crossover, independent of track centerline distance.

49 CFR/USC Drop-down

List/Text

Refers to the CFR parts pertaining to the BSS under

Part 237; Roadway Workplace Safety, under

Part 214; etc.

Defect (Rule) Drop-down

List/Numeric

Refers to the defect codes explained and listed in Chapter 3 of this manual. The defect code or

“Rule” refers specifically to the digits to the right of the decimal point.

Subrule (Defect

Code)

Drop-down

List/Text

Subrule refers specifically to the digits to the right of the decimal point. Some defect codes have

fewer than six digits, therefore use zeros as fillers. For example, defect code 7.1 would be

recorded as 0007 (Defect) and 01 (Subrule).

Speed Text Speed, in miles per hour, is for the track as authorized by the railroad. If freight and passenger

speeds differ, show only the speed that establishes the highest track class under § 213.9(a). Do

not attempt to show more than one speed.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Class Numeric Class of track for the speed designated is under the speed field above and in accordance with

§§ 213.9(a) and 213.307(a) of the regulations that prescribe the maximum allowable operating

speed for each track class. If the railroad has designated the track as excepted, insert “X.”

Train #/Site Text This is an option to capture additional descriptions of defect locations.

SNFR Dropdown

(Y/N)

Use when issuing a Special Notice for Repairs (SNFR), FRA F6180.8.

RCL Drop-down

(Y/N)

This field will indicate whether the line item relates to remote control locomotives.

# of Occ.

(Occurrences)

Numeric

Special instructions. Inspectors can record multiple defects of the same type in this field as

long as the number of times the defects occur is on a specific unit of inspection. Defects captured

in this field will be the number entered. For no entry, use a single defect count of one (1). Other

noncompliance items (i.e., an inaccurate bridge inspection report) are recorded by a point-by-

point basis and summarized.

If a systemic condition is found over an area, in addition to identification of specific identified

defects/locations, inspectors may add a comment in the last noted defect and indicate that the

above defects are “representative conditions.” In such a case, the specific limits and track

number/name of the respective conditions should be noted. An occurrence would only be taken

for each item identified. Only record an occurrence for each item specifically identified by

location. An acceptable alternative method of identifying each occurrence would be where all

items between two specific locations are defective.

Activity Code (for

each line item)

Text Choose a code that matches the activity occurring when observing the defect. It must match one

of the activities listed in the activity code field in the form header.

Description (type) Check Box Choose: 1) Defect, 2) Non-FRA Defect or Observation, or 3) Comments to Railroad/Company.

Non-FRA defects include items of concern that are not regulated by FRA, such as rough

highway/rail grade crossing

surfaces, items that are imminently close to becoming an FRA defect,

etc. Observations include information such as suggestions to improve a bridge management

program or bridge inventory, deficient bridge conditions recommended for evaluation by a railroad

bridge engineer, or noting an inspection with “no defect found.”

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Description Text Provide a description of the defect in this space. It must include actual field dimensions of the

defect, when applicable, and a description of physical conditions associated with defects not

involving numbers or dimensions. Confine any comments concerning the defect to the

description field. If necessary, use more than one line to describe the nature and location of

defects. Brevity is desirable, but it is essential that the railroad representative understand the

defect and its precise location or nature to take corrective action. Record dimensions or

adequate description of the defect to evaluate the appropriateness of the railroads’ reported

follow-up action. The field is limited to 1,000 characters.

Latitude/Longitude Numeric GPS coordinates, where applicable (e.g., ATIP program), may be used in addition to standard

location descriptive in description field. General use is anticipated for the future.

Violation

Recommended

Drop-Down

(Y/N)

This is a required field. This field signifies whether or not a RR/Company is to receive a Federal

violation.

Remedial Action Drop-down

(R/O/Blank)

Railroads, under § 213.5(a), must bring the track into compliance when any defective condition is

discovered. In addition, railroads must inform FRA in writing of the remedial action taken to abate

those deficiencies identified as violations whenever the “Y” is selected in the “Violations

Recommended” section of the header (as per § 209.405). All line entries must contain an “R”

(Required), “O” (Optional), or blank check mark in the “Required” block field. It is optional, not

mandatory, to return the report to you when the “N” is selected in the “Violations Recommended”

section of the header.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

F6180.96 Field

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Railroad Action

Code & Date

Date/Text When an inspection report indicates that an inspector recommends a violation, the codes on the

reverse side of the form are for the railroad representative to record what remedial action was

taken to correct the defect and the date it took place. The railroad should provide a brief

description of corrective action according to the list of codes on the reverse side of Form 96.

Enter the comment regarding the corrective action opposite the item number; it does not have to

be confined to one line. The railroad must correct the defects immediately and must report the

corrective action taken within 30 days following the end of the month the inspection took place.

responsible railroad employee should sign and date the report in the space provided on the back

before returning it to the inspector. Remember, the return of this form is mandatory when a

violation (“Yes” box checked) is recommended, with notations of railroad corrective action being

voluntary. Return of the form is strictly voluntary and no violation of law or regulation is incurred

for the railroad’s refusal to submit forms when defects are cited for correction (“No” box checked).

However, railroads should be encouraged to return the form as requested. Two alternatives in

RISPC exist: print the backside after printing the F6180.96 report or have a supply of copies of

the backside page and continuation sheet available to print reports on.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Instructions, Form FRA F6180.111, Track Violation Report Form

Field #

F9180.111 Field

Editable

Auto

in 96

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Inspectors Name

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Inspector’s Violation

Number

Yes

Numeric

Inspector to type in the first number–subsequent sequential numbers

generated automatically. Mandatory field.

Annual F6180.96

No.

Yes

Numeric

Mandatory field.

Inspection Date

Yes

Date

Mandatory field.

Violation Date

Yes

Drop-down

Date

RISPC populates this field with the same date as field 4. However,

this date-

formatted field is editable to allow the inspector to place a

date of the violation report if that date is not the same as the inspection.

Mandatory field.

Violation Report

Number

Yes

Drop-down

Date

Same as field No. 5. Mandatory field.

RR/Co. Initial

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Railroad/Company

Name

Yes

Text

RISPC populates this field with the full name of the company only, if

available. Otherwise, type in the name for entities such as a

contractor. Mandatory field.

Division

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Subdivision

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Inspection Point

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Track Type

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Track

Number/Name

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Initials/Milepost

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Speed

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Track Class

Yes

Text

Mandatory field.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Field #

F9180.111 Field

Editable

Auto

in 96

Format

Instructions/Special Features

MGT (Million Gross

Tons)

Yes

Text

Optional field (e.g., MGT may not be known at some locations such

as a yard track or may be a track inspection record violation).

HazMat

Yes

Drop-down

(Y/N)

Check box. Since an activity might be a record inspection, this is an

optional field.

Method of

Operation

Yes

Drop-down

List/Text

Drop down list: Manual Block; Traffic Control System; Automatic

Block System (ABS); Yard/Restricted Limits; Automatic Block Signal

with Manual Block; Interlocking Rules; and Other Than Main Track.

Since an activity might be a record inspection, this is an optional field.

Line Item

Yes

Numeric

RISPC automatically populates in the F6180.96 line item number.

Since an activity might be a record inspection, this is an optional field.

Mandatory field.

Part No.

Yes

Text

RISPC automatically populates in “213.” Mandatory field.

Part Title

Yes

Text

RISPC automatically populates in “Track Safety Standards.”

Mandatory field.

Section No.

Yes

Text

RISPC automatically populates “defect” No. from the F6180.96.

Mandatory field.

Section Title

Yes

Text

RISPC automatically generates the title based on No. 23 above (e.g.,

53 = gage, 109 = crossties, etc.). Mandatory field.

Paragraph Code

Yes

Numeric

RISPC automatically populates from the F6180.96 the subrule field.

Mandatory field.

# of Occ.

Yes

Text

RISPC automatically populates the field from “# of Occ.” from the

F6180.96. This is a numeric field allowing three characters.

Mandatory field. Note, fields 12 through 26 will repeat as a block

group in the F6180.111 for multiple line items on an F6180.96

recommended for civil penalty.

Text of Violated

Paragraph

Yes

Text

RISPC populates in the entire subrule paragraph text corresponding

to No. 25. If the paragraph includes a table, RISPC will not populate

the table. Mandatory field.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Field #

F9180.111 Field

Editable

Auto

in 96

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Synopsis of

Violation

Yes

Text

The synopsis is an opening paragraph that briefly describes what the

report is about and includes: 1) who, what, where, when, the date of

the inspection; 2) who was involved; railroad, contractor, FRA, and

others; 3) what regulation was violated, and the actual violated

condition (what did you find?); and 4) where found. Mandatory field.

Geographic

Condition/Location

Yes

Text

The intent of this field is for the reader to get a mental picture of the

location and track leading to the violation. Include a statement, such

as the accompanying railroad representative supplied all information

regarding milepost locations, track names, bridge numbers, or any

other identifiable information of defect location. GPS identification, if

available, would eliminate any conflict for a follow-up inspection.

Conclude by introducing the F6180.96 that recommends a violation

as exhibit A. Mandatory field.

Seriousness

/Reasons for

Violation

Yes

Text

Use this field to establish the reason for recommending a civil

penalty. Begin with the type of inspection (program review, bridge

inspection report audit), and describe the conditions and introduce

photographs (where appropriate) of the defective condition.

Mandatory field.

Prior Constructive

Knowledge

Yes

Text

Use this field to show how the railroad or company should have

known of the defect prior to the FRA inspection. Review previous

railroad inspection records for a reasonable timeframe prior to your

inspection for similar defects or failure to record defects. Consider

the number and type of defects found during your inspection.

Establish and state the inspection frequency for the bridge, and state

only what is required. The text of the rule does not need to be

included. Determine if this condition is something that could happen

within a short timeframe, or one that develops over time (that

previous railroad inspections failed to note). Mandatory field.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Field #

F9180.111 Field

Editable

Auto

in 96

Format

Instructions/Special Features

Other Items Found

During Inspection

(not recommended

for violation)

Yes

Text

List other defects noted during your inspection that are not

recommended for civil penalty. List the defects found in association

with your inspection. Enter the additional inspection report as an

exhibit.

Background/Special

Circumstances

Yes

Text

Use this field to include other pertinent information, such as: 1)

population of the area; 2) proximity to schools, airports, waterways,

etc.; 3) specific information about hazardous material movement; 4)

are hazardous materials transported over this section of railroad? If

so, list the type of materials observed; 5) recent compliance; and 6)

previous violations. Mandatory field.

List of Exhibits

Yes

Text

Leave this field blank.

Inspector Signature

n/a

Blank field for signature (no database link). The report should be

signed electronically. Mandatory field.

Date Signed

Yes

Drop-down

Date

Mandatory field.

FRA Inspector No. 2

Yes

Numeric

Import name from first ID number of accompanying inspector on

F6180.96. Optional field.

Name

(Railroad/Company

Representative)

Yes

Text

RISPC populates with data from F6180.96. Optional field.

Title

(Railroad/Company

Representative)

Yes

Text

RISPC populates with data from F6180.96. Optional field.

Accompanied FRA

During Inspection

Yes

Check Box

(Yes/No)

Indicate if the railroad representative to whom No. 38 and 39 is

referenced was the same person who was present during the

inspection. Optional field.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

CHAPTER 3 – Bridge Safety Standards

Introduction

This chapter provides additional guidance for FRA inspectors, including State inspectors

participating in the Federal program, to facilitate the implementation of the BSS during

inspection activities. This chapter is not to be construed as a modification, alteration, or revision

of the published BSS found in 49 CFR Part 237.

Any legal proceeding instituted against a track owner must be based on the regulations found in

Part 237. FRA inspectors should refer to this chapter as often as necessary to understand the

intent of any particular rules, thereby assuring to the extent practicable, the nationally uniform

application of these rules as intended by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

(RSIA), Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4890 (49 U.S.C. 20103, note).

FRA inspectors must not, under any circumstances, adjust, correct, or repair bridges, or

appurtenances; nor authorize, suggest, or recommend any movements over any bridge. Full

responsibility for these matters rests with the track owner. The FRA inspector must immediately

inform the track owner of any condition not in compliance with the BSS.

This chapter is based on the BSS published on July 15, 2010 (see 75 FR 41282). The BSS

prescribe 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 the BSS.

Appendix A of this Manual is the Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of

Railroad Bridges, which contains non-regulatory items that are useful as information and

guidance for track owners.

Appendix B of this manual contains the Schedule of Civil Penalties for Part 237.

Text in italic font in this chapter is regulatory language, whereas indented paragraphs provide

field guidance for FRA inspectors. Indented guidance paragraphs are not to be construed as

regulatory language in any manner.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Subpart A – General

§ 237.1 Application

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, this part applies to all owners of

railroad track with a gage of two feet or more and which is supported by a bridge.

Guidance. This rule applies to all owners of track carried on railroad bridges with certain

exceptions as outlined or explained in the following subsections.

As delineated in FRA’s Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal

Railroad Safety Laws, FRA exercises jurisdiction over some tourist, scenic, and excursion

railroad operations even if they are not 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.” (Part 209, Appendix A).

FRA notes that a “tourist railroad,” including scenic or excursion railroads, comes under the

uniform FRA definition of the term “railroad,” as found at § 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.

FRA typically does not exercise jurisdiction over operations on track gage that is less than 24

inches, and as a matter of policy, FRA does not consider devices that run on rails in

amusement parks to be railroads.

With respect to the BSS, FRA is exercising jurisdiction over all tourist and excursion

operations conducted over railroad bridges supporting track with a gage of 2 feet or more,

regardless of whether they are conducted on the general system or whether they are insular.

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.

(b) This part does not apply to bridges on track used exclusively for rapid transit operations in

an urban area that are not connected with the general railroad system of transportation.

Guidance. This is in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20102 and Part 209, Appendix A.

FRA will exercise limited jurisdiction over an urban rapid transit operation only to the extent

necessary to ensure railroad bridge safety on the portion of the urban rapid transit system

where general system operations occur. Consequently, if the general system portion of an

urban rapid transit operation is over a railroad bridge, then Part 237 applies to that bridge.

general railroad system of transportation and over which trains are not operated by a railroad.

Guidance. “An installation which is not part of the general railroad system of transportation

and over which trains are not operated 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 § 209.3 operates over a bridge inside such an

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

installation, then this regulation applies to that bridge and to the owner of track on that

bridge. A captive rail operation such as a mine to power plant rail line that is not part of the

general system and not operated by a railroad but is run solely by the track owner’s

employees is not covered by Part 237.

Part 237 may apply to a bridge even if railroad employees do not operate a locomotive over

that bridge. Merely moving rolling equipment over a bridge while under the control of

railroad employees makes that bridge subject to these regulations. For example, in a coal

unloading operation where the serving railroad shoves cars over a trestle leading to a rotary

car dumper, at which point an indexing or mechanical car moving system takes over and

moves the cars onto the car dumper, the approach trestle would be covered by this part, but

the rotary car dumper would be exempt because the rolling stock was not being moved

thereon by the railroad.

§ 237.3 Responsibility for compliance

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an owner of track to which this part

applies is responsible for compliance.

Guidance. 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. The track owner may be a railroad, museum, public

agency, or other private company. 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.

Technically, this section requires all track owners to apply their respective BMPs and

required inspections to jointly owned properties. This is not an efficient use of resources;

therefore, it is anticipated that one party will assume responsibility. In cases where

responsibility for compliance is not in dispute, FRA will accept actions indicative of

acceptance of responsibility as governing. However, joint owners should spell out

responsibility for compliance by filing documentation with the appropriate FRA region.

Where the parties dispute who is responsible for compliance with this part, FRA may hold all

parties liable.

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 § 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 (TSS), and that where such responsibility is already established, it would not be

necessary for the track owner to file an additional assignment of responsibility. FRA will

consider any previously established assignment of responsibility for compliance with the

TSS to apply to compliance with the BSS until a properly filed assignment of responsibility

under § 237.3(b) is made altering this linkage between the TSS and BSS.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

This 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

ensure that the inspections and maintenance are performed correctly by qualified and

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. Where track is

owned by a State or other public agency, unless a compliant assignment of responsibility is

on file for either Part 213 or Part 237, the State or other public agency, as the track owner,

would be required to adopt a BMP, and comply with the terms of their BMP, as well as all

other requirements of Part 237.

(b) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns responsibility for the bridges that

carry the track to another person (by lease or otherwise), written notification of the assignment

shall be provided to the appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 30 days in advance of the

assignment. The notification may be made by any party to that assignment, but shall be in

writing and include the following—

(1) The name and address of the track owner;

(2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is assigned (assignee);

(3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner and the assignee;

(4) A precise identification of the track segment and the individual bridges in the assignment;

(5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to carry out the bridge safety

duties of the track owner under this part; and

(6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment to him of responsibility

for purposes of compliance with this part.

Guidance. Section 237.3(b) gives a track owner the responsibility to notify FRA in writing

through the appropriate regional office when the responsibility for compliance with this part

is assigned. Notification must contain the specific information required in this paragraph and

must be made 30 days before the assignment of the responsibility becomes effective. In any

case of assignment of responsibility, the assignee must first accept the assignment before it

can become effective. The written notification of assignment must include a statement

signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment. A notification that does not include

an acknowledging statement would not comply with § 237.3(b)(6), and FRA would disregard

the assignment.

compliance with this part and subject to penalties under § 237.7.

Guidance. This paragraph concerns situations where the track is not owned by the operating

railroad through an arrangement such as a lease agreement. Typically, when recommending

civil penalties, the operating railroad will be cited. However, it may be appropriate to

recommend civil penalties against the operating railroad and the track owner when both

parties contributed to the deficiency. Inspectors must determine the responsible party when

recommending civil penalties for noncompliance and alert RCC when violation reports

involve parties other than the track owner.

This paragraph also provides that the party responsible for compliance can be other than the

actual owner of the track through assignment of responsibility or if the Surface

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Transportation Board (formerly Interstate Commerce Commission) has issued a directed

service order. FRA may hold responsible any party contracted by the track owner to ensure

compliance with this part.

(d) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to

provide service over the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the

owner of that track for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the directed

service order remains in effect.

Guidance. 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 as the owner for the purposes of

compliance with the BSS.

(e) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track owner, performs any

function required by this part, that person is required to perform that function in accordance

with this part.

Guidance. 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.

This paragraph specifies that both employees of railroads and track owners, and contractors

to railroads and track owners, are subject to the requirements of the BSS when they perform

functions required by the BSS. This includes a State agency which performs a function on a

railroad bridge that is required by the BSS. Section 237.109 requires that the track owner

keep the bridge inspection records, 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.

(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.

Guidance. FRA advises a track owner to resubmit a notification of assignment if the owner

is uncertain whether an assignment has been made. Likewise, where it is not intended for

responsibility for compliance with this part to be assigned to the same party assigned

responsibility for the segment of track upon which bridges are located, then a new

assignment should be made. Assignment does not relieve a track owner of compliance with

Part 237, as § 237.3(c) states that FRA can always hold the track owner responsible for

compliance with the BSS.

(g) FRA reserves the right to reject an assignment of responsibility under § 237.3(b) for cause

shown.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Guidance. 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 49

CFR § 237.7. But, 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.

§ 237.5 Definitions

Guidance. The definitions in this section are only intended to apply to Part 237, and not to

alter the same terminology wherever used outside this part for other purposes.

For the purposes of this part—

Bridge modification means a change to the configuration of a railroad bridge that affects the

load capacity of the bridge.

Bridge repair means remediation of damage or deterioration which has affected the structural

integrity of a railroad bridge.

Guidance. This part requires that modifications and repairs to bridges be designed by

railroad bridge engineers, and that the work be supervised by designated railroad bridge

supervisors. These definitions clarify 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.

Replacement of structural components in-kind often extends beyond the scope of minor

modification or repair, and therefore design by a railroad bridge engineer is warranted. For

instance, while it may be common practice to replace failed timber stringers with similarly

sized timber, improper execution can result in reduced bridge load capacity. In such cases,

input from a qualified and designated railroad bridge engineer is required, as is the

supervision of such work by a designated railroad bridge supervisor.

Railroad bridge means any structure with a deck, regardless of length, which supports one or

more railroad tracks, or any other undergrade structure with an individual span length of 10 feet

or more located at such a depth that it is affected by live loads.

Guidance. A “railroad bridge” is any structure that spans an opening under the track, except

for a small culvert, pipe, or other such structure where that structure 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, car dumpers,

track scales, turntables, transfer tables, and waterfront structures such as piers and wharves

that fall within the definition of a railroad bridge are considered bridges for purposes of the

BSS.

Additionally, culverts with a span of 10 feet or more located at such a depth that they are

affected by live loads are subject to this regulation and must be included in the track owner’s

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

BMP. The determination of whether such a structure is affected by live loads is the

responsibility of the railroad bridge engineer through the use of appropriate engineering

methods and judgment.

A bridge deck includes open decks, ballasted decks, and solid decks. Essentially, a bridge

deck is the component of the bridge on which the track is supported, and which is subject to

bending stresses from trains moving over it.

Retaining walls and other roadbed structures are not included because they do not carry track

on a span over a gap. 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 the BSS. A structure in a

locomotive or car maintenance facility that is used to support cars or locomotives for

maintenance is not included in the specific requirements of this regulation.

Track owner means a person responsible for compliance in accordance with § 237.3.

§ 237.7 Penalties

(a) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such

requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $853 and not more than $27,904 per

violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations,

and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an

imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to

exceed $111,616 per violation may be assessed. “Person” means an entity of any type covered

under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a manager, supervisor,

official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of

railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services

to a railroad; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent

contractor; and anyone held by the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to be

responsible under § 237.3(d). Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

See Appendix B to this part for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.

Guidance. This provision conforms to provisions of the enabling legislation and 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 $111,616

for any violation where circumstances warrant. (See Part 209, Appendix A.) This section

covers all subparts of Part 237. Note that while these maximum and minimum penalty

amounts are what is currently in Part 209, Appendix A, an inflation adjustment may be made

to raise the minimum penalty, the ordinary maximum penalty, and the aggravated maximum

penalty.

(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or report required by this part

may be subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

§ 237.9 Waivers

(a) Any person subject to a requirement of this part may petition the Administrator for a waiver

of compliance with such requirement. The filing of such a petition does not affect that person’s

responsibility for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being considered.

Guidance. FRA inspectors have no authority under the BSS to grant waivers.

(b) Each petition for waiver must be filed in the manner and contain the information required by

part 211 of this chapter.

Guidance. Any petition for a waiver must be filed by the track owner or designated operator

with the Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, in Washington, DC. Refer to the FRA

General Manual for complete information regarding waiver procedures. Title 49 CFR Part

211 prescribes rules of practice that apply to waiver proceedings. The processing of petitions

for the waiver of safety rules is found at Part 211, Subpart C.

consistent with railroad safety, the Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions

the Administrator deems necessary. If a waiver is granted, the Administrator publishes a notice

in the Federal Register containing the reasons for granting the waiver.

Guidance. FRA inspectors must be notified of any waivers in effect in their assigned

territory.

Subpart B – Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance

Guidance. 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 in turn relies

upon the work of the railroad bridge engineer who makes the critical decisions regarding the

management and use of that bridge.

§ 237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs

Each track owner shall adopt a bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration

of railroad bridges by preserving their capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated over

them, and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and disruption to the

Nation’s railroad transportation system that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure, not

later than the dates in the following schedule:

(a) March 14, 2011: Class I carriers;

(b) March 14, 2011: Owners of track segments which are part of the general railroad system of

transportation and which carry more than ten scheduled passenger trains per week;

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Guidance. For a track segment to be considered part of the general railroad system of

transportation, it must be of standard (4 feet 8½ inches) gage.

and

(d) September 13, 2012: All other track owners subject to this part and not described [in]

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.

Guidance. Any track owner subject to this part commencing operations on or after

September 13, 2012, must adopt their BMP by the date those rail operations begin.

§ 237.33 Content of bridge management programs

Guidance. Certain primary elements of a BMP 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. The track owner should consider its BMP

a policy to ensure bridge safety. As such, track owners may want to expand the document to

include safety management for other structures such as culverts and tunnels.

In cases where the requirements specified in a track owner’s BMP exceed the minimum

regulatory requirements, FRA cannot cite either a defect or a violation against the company

for failure to comply with its own BMP, to the extent that the company’s requirements

exceed those of the regulations. In such a case, the FRA inspector should write a comment to

the company detailing such deficiencies. If, however, the company fails to meet the

minimum regulatory requirements, then either a defect or a violation is appropriate.

Not all items required to be included in a track owner’s BMP are listed in this section.

Additional provisions required to be included in the BMP include scheduling of inspections

(§ 237.101(a)), requirements for special inspection following a potentially compromising

event (§ 237.101(c)), inspection procedures (§ 237.103(a)), prescription of procedures to

protect operations following a potentially compromising event (§ 237.105(a)), underwater or

scour inspection (§ 237.105(b)), minimum content of bridge inspection reports

(§ 237.109(c)), record retention location (§ 237.109(d) and (e)), and internal audit provisions

(§ 237.153(a)).

Each bridge management program adopted in compliance with this part shall include, as a

minimum, the following:

(a) An accurate inventory of railroad bridges, which shall include a unique identifier for each

bridge, its location, configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span lengths, and all

other information necessary to provide for the management of bridge safety;

Guidance. Congress mandated that the new regulations require each track owner to

“develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its railroad bridges, which shall identify the

location of each bridge, its configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span

lengths, and all other information necessary to provide for the safe management of the

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

bridges” (RSIA Section 417(b)(1)). 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 monitor inspection, maintenance, and repair of the

property units.

The basis for the unique identifier used for each bridge should be specified in the BMP.

Examples include using the division/subdivision or other line designation along with the

milepost or bridge number. A track name or number may also be required in situations

where individual bridges support multiple tracks at the same milepost location.

With regard to location, Appendix A provides non-regulatory guidance in Guideline

14(b)(2), suggesting that track owners provide “[t]he location of the bridge by nearest town

or station, and geographic coordinates.” FRA prefers that the town/city/political subdivision

and State be provided. Giving the location by railroad subdivision and milepost is

permissible because that information is sufficient to locate the bridge in the field.

The configuration of the bridge refers to its physical layout. The inventory should reflect the

order of the spans in the actual arrangement of the bridge, especially where different bridge

types are involved.

Including the “feature crossed” in the inventory is encouraged but is not strictly required

unless FRA deems it so under the blanket of “all other information necessary to provide for

the management of bridge safety.” For bridges over streets or navigable waterways used by

commercial maritime vessels, inclusion of the name of the feature crossed is necessary to

provide for the management of bridge safety in the event of a vehicle or vessel collision.

Geographic (GPS) coordinates are not required but are encouraged, as they are useful in

locating the correct bridge, especially following an adverse event such as a derailment or

bridge strike.

The bridge inventory need not be complete in all of its details at the time of BMP adoption.

It is reasonable to expect that an adopted program would specify the format for recording the

inventory information, or “bridge list,” and that information be readily available from

existing records, such as valuation maps, that could be used to initially populate the database.

After that, additions and refinements to that information would be generated by normal

inspection work.

The bridge inventory may be included as an appendix to the BMP or referenced as a separate,

stand-alone document. In such a case, it is desirable for the actual BMP to contain a sample

inventory page or otherwise define the format and content required in the full inventory.

(b) A record of the safe load capacity of each bridge;

Guidance. 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.” (RSIA Section

417(b)(3)). This paragraph thereby requires that a record of the safe load capacity of each

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

bridge be established. The safe load capacity would typically be the Normal Rating. The

operation of excessively heavy loads over a bridge will considerably 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 know that the loads permitted to

be operated on a bridge are within the safe limits of the bridge. See § 237.71 for additional

information.

document all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge; and

Guidance. 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 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.

Pursuant to § 237.33(c), the program 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.

Records of individual designations as required by § 237.57, especially regarding railroad

bridge engineers designing repairs or modifications, should be treated as permanent bridge

records and retained with the rest of the design documents.

(d) A bridge inspection program covering as a minimum:

(1) Inspection personnel safety considerations;

(2) Types of inspection including required detail;

(3) Definitions of defect levels along with associated condition codes if condition codes

are used;

(4) The method of documenting inspections including standard forms or formats;

(5) Structure type and component nomenclature; and

(6) Numbering or identification protocol for substructure units, spans, and individual

components.

Guidance. Bridge inspection is essential to an effective BMP. In this paragraph, FRA

requires that the track owner’s BMP contain a bridge inspection program. Items (1) through

(6) must be addressed in the program to a degree that promotes effective and efficient

conduct of the inspection program.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Regarding Item (1), bridge inspection can present certain risks that are inherent in working at

heights and around moving vehicles. A bridge inspection program must at least address the

unique hazards associated with the inspection process. The track owner’s program may

either directly cover the safety issues unique to bridge inspection or refer to existing safety

policies and procedures that cover the same topics. The safety aspects that FRA expects to

see covered include Roadway Worker Protection; bridge worker safety and fall protection;

use of ladders; working around highway traffic; traversing hazardous, sloping, or slippery

ground or surfaces; and environmental issues such as poisonous vegetation, dangerous

reptiles, stinging insects, and other hazardous wildlife likely to be encountered.

Regarding Item (2), a bridge inspection program must 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 particularly applicable for other

types of inspections that occur only infrequently.

Regarding 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.

The “definition of defect levels” referred to in Item (3) requires a bridge inspection program

using adjective descriptors (good, fair, poor, serious, critical, etc.) to describe in a

quantitative manner the level of deterioration of a component or structural system that is

associated with each descriptor. For example, if not defined, one inspector might classify 10

percent steel reduction in a critical area as fair, while another might classify the defect as

critical. This can lead to wide variations between inspectors when assigning condition codes

to identical conditions. The ultimate goal is for the content of an inspection report to convey

to the railroad bridge engineer sufficient information for the engineer to make an informed

decision as to the criticality of a deficiency. It is only acceptable for a bridge inspection

program not to define defect levels when the program requires narrative descriptions of

deficiencies. Such narrative descriptions must be quantitative, providing information such as

percentage of section loss, widths and lengths of cracks, dimensions of spalls, etc., to provide

the reviewing engineer sufficient detail to accurately interpret the conditions present at the

bridge.

Various railroads use condition codes, priority codes, or a combination of the two. Typically,

the difference between these two systems is that adjective-based condition codes describe to

the railroad bridge engineer the extent or seriousness of a deficiency, while priority codes

provide the railroad bridge inspector’s opinion of how soon a deficiency must be remediated.

Item (4) requires that there be a method to document bridge inspections. The minimum

information to be included is specified in § 237.109. Often, the method of documentation is

a paper form but may be an electronic file. The BMP must specify whether paper forms or

electronic files are the official inspection records for the track owner. The BMP must contain

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

a copy of standard paper form(s) or electronic format(s) for documenting the bridge

inspections.

Subpart C – Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons

Guidance. This subpart establishes minimum standards for the qualifications 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.

§ 237.51 Railroad bridge engineers

(a) A railroad bridge engineer shall be a person who is determined by the track owner to be

competent to perform the following functions as they apply to the particular engineering

work to be performed:

(1) Determine the forces and stresses in railroad bridges and bridge components;

(2) Prescribe safe loading conditions for railroad bridges;

(3) Prescribe inspection and maintenance procedures for railroad bridges; and

(4) Design repairs and modifications to railroad bridges.

Guidance. This section sets forth the minimum standards that a railroad bridge engineer

(RBE) must meet. Congress directed FRA to “ensure that an engineer who is competent in

the field of railroad bridge engineering – (A) is responsible for the development of all

inspection procedures; (B) reviews all inspection reports; and (C) determines whether bridges

are being inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequency, and reviews any

items noted by an inspector as exceptions” (RSIA Section 417(b)(7)). 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 RBEs will be faced with all aspects of railroad bridge

engineering. For example, an engineer engaged to prescribe safe loads for short steel spans

and timber trestles on a particular railroad might never have to perform a detailed analysis of

a large truss bridge. The basic premise is that the engineer must be competent to perform the

functions that are encompassed by that individual’s employment. The determination of

qualifications by the track owner includes employment of the engineer by the track owner

and designation of the engineer to exercise the authority called for in this part. An RBE need

not be an actual employee of the track owner, and could be a consultant or independent

contractor engaged to provide this service.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

The determination of the competence of an RBE is the responsibility of 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 reviewing the engineer’s

qualifications and experience in the light of the qualification requirements of this part. Track

owners should be extremely diligent when determining the competency of an RBE as this is a

safety-critical function. The engineer’s employer or the engineer’s client has always had the

prerogative and responsibility to determine the qualifications of that individual, and FRA

does not intend to alter that relationship.

(b) The educational qualifications of a railroad bridge engineer shall include either:

(1) A degree in engineering granted by a school of engineering with at least one program

accredited by ABET, Inc. or its successor organization as a professional engineering

curriculum, or a degree from a program accredited as a professional engineering

curriculum by a foreign organization recognized by ABET, Inc. or its successor; or

(2) Current registration as a professional engineer.

Guidance. FRA did not intend to exclude engineers who received their education in other

Nations from being recognized as RBEs. To fulfill the educational requirements of this

section, an RBE 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.

An RBE 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.

FRA believes that the critical nature of railroad bridge engineering work called for in this

rule requires persons to meet a minimal educational or experience standard that is common to

the engineering profession and that is necessary for an individual who will perform the

functions of an engineer as called for in this rule.

engineering.

Guidance. Recognition by FRA as an RBE would not enable a person to provide

professional engineering services in violation of a State law or regulation. FRA does not

intend to preempt or interfere with any State laws regarding the professional practice of

engineering. For example, a person registered as a professional engineer in Maryland could

not work as a professional engineer in Virginia under this regulation if such work violated

Virginia law regarding the practice of engineering.

§ 237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors

A railroad bridge inspector shall be a person who is determined by the track owner to be

technically competent to view, measure, report and record the condition of a railroad bridge and

its individual components which that person is designated to inspect. An inspector shall be

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

designated to authorize or restrict the operation of railroad traffic over a bridge according to its

immediate condition or state of repair.

Guidance. This section represents minimum standards that a railroad bridge inspector (RBI)

must meet. Effective inspection of bridges is essential to preserving their integrity and

serviceability. Track owners should be extremely diligent when determining the competency

of an RBI as this is a safety-critical function. RBIs must be able to understand and carry out

the inspection procedures, including accessing inspection points on a bridge, measuring

components and any changes, describing conditions found in a standard, unambiguous

manner, and detecting the development of conditions that are critical to the safety of the

bridge. It is essential that an RBI who detects a potential hazard to the safe operation of

trains be authorized by the track owner to place appropriate restrictions on the operation of

railroad traffic, pending review as necessary by an RBE. An individual who is not competent

in railroad bridge work cannot overrule a determination made by a designated RBI, RBE, or

railroad bridge supervisor (RBS).

§ 237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors

A railroad bridge supervisor shall be a person, regardless of position title, who is determined by

the track owner to be technically competent to supervise the construction, modification or repair

of a railroad bridge in conformance with common or particular specifications, plans and

instructions applicable to the work to be performed, and to authorize or restrict the operation of

railroad traffic over a bridge according to its immediate condition or state of repair.

Guidance. This section represents minimum standards that an RBS must meet. Individuals

who supervise and take responsibility for construction, repair, and modification of railroad

bridges must be competent to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with valid

standards and any particular specifications, plans, and instructions applicable to the work to

be performed. Track owners should be extremely diligent when determining the competency

of an RBS as this is a safety-critical function. An RBS must be authorized by the track

owner to approve or restrict the movement of railroad traffic over a bridge according to its

current condition or state of repair. This provision applies to any such individual, regardless

of job title, who directly oversees such work and approves or restricts the movement of

railroad traffic during the progress of the work.

§ 237.57 Designation of individuals

Each track owner shall designate those individuals qualified as railroad bridge engineers,

railroad bridge inspectors and railroad bridge supervisors. Each individual designation shall

include the basis for the designation in effect and shall be recorded.

Guidance. In the RSIA, Congress mandated that the bridge regulations designate qualified

bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to authorize the operation of trains on bridges

following repairs, damage, or indications of potential structural problems (RSIA Section

417(b)(8)). In this section, FRA requires that each track owner designate certain individuals

as qualified RBEs, RBIs, or RBSs, and provide a recorded basis for each designation in

effect. The track owner must record designations of individuals, whether employees,

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

consultants, or contractors. If a consultant or contractor has several individuals performing

the described functions, then one or more individuals should be designated as being

responsible to the track owner for the work performed under that engagement, with the others

working under the responsible charge of that individual.

Designation must be made by name, not by craft or position title. Although the non-

regulatory language contained in Appendix A, Guideline Paragraph 14(a), states that “[t]he

designations may be made by position or by individual,” FRA requires that proper names be

used in the records of designations, as stated in regulatory text.

Where design plans and specifications are prepared by a consultant RBE, it is permissible for

the track owner’s BMP to specify that the record of designation is the signature and seal of

the responsible professional engineer affixed to the design documents, and the basis for the

designation is licensure as a professional engineer.

Records of designations must be retained for as long as they are needed to demonstrate

compliance with this section. In the case of bridge inspection records, this would be for as

long as the inspection record exists. The record of designation for the RBI that conducted the

inspection must be maintained for as long as the report remains in the track owners’ records.

Additionally, the records of designation for the RBS and/or RBE who reviewed the report

must be maintained for a similar period. For example, if the track owner chooses to purge

bridge inspection records after the minimum 2-year retention, the records of designation

pertaining thereto may also be destroyed. However, if the track owner decides to keep the

inspection reports for 10 years, the designation records must also be retained for 10 years.

For engineering designs completed relative to construction, repair, or modification, where the

actual work is performed on or after September 13, 2010, the required designation record

retention period would be for the life of the bridge.

For bridge work such as construction, repairs, or modifications that is required to be designed

by an RBE per § 237.131, the designation records should be treated like a permanent bridge

record and retained until the bridge no longer exists, as required by § 237.33(c). The record

of designation documentation could be kept in the bridge file or retained in some other

manner. While not required, it is good practice for the track owner’s BMP to specify the

location and manner in which designation records are filed.

Subpart D – Capacity of Bridges

Guidance. This subpart prescribes minimum standards to be incorporated in railroad BMPs

to prevent the operation of equipment that could damage a bridge by exceeding safe stress

levels in bridge components or by extending beyond the horizontal or vertical clearance

limits of the bridge. Protection of bridges and bridge components from overstress is essential

to the continued integrity and serviceability of the bridge. It is also essential that equipment

or loads that exceed the clearance limits of a bridge not be operated due to the potential for

severe damage to the bridge.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

§ 237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities

(a) Each track owner shall determine the load capacity of each of its railroad bridges. The load

capacity need not be the ultimate or maximum load capacity, but must be a safe load capacity.

Guidance. Each track owner must determine the load capacity of each of its railroad

bridges. The safe load capacity would typically be the Normal Rating and include an

evaluation of the substructure as well as the superstructure. It is essential that the track

owner know that loads operated over a bridge do not exceed the safe capacity of that bridge.

However, once it is determined that a bridge has adequate capacity to carry the loads being

operated, the regulation does not require that the track owner precisely calculate the

additional capacity of that bridge, although that could be useful from a planning or economic

standpoint.

(b) The load capacity of each bridge shall be documented in the track owner’s bridge

management program, together with the method by which the capacity was determined.

Guidance. This paragraph requires that the load capacity of each bridge be documented in

the track owner’s BMP, together with the method by which the capacity was determined.

Once the load capacity is determined, the value must be recorded for it to be useful. The

record of safe load capacity should include, at a minimum, the safe load capacity for the

superstructure and the substructure (or for the bridge as a whole), the name of the RBE

determining the capacity, the date of determination, the method used and the basis of the

determination. The basis is the information on the bridge used in the determination, such as

design drawings, field measurements, etc., as explained further in §237.71(d).

appropriate engineering methods and standards that are particularly applicable to railroad

bridges.

Guidance. In the RSIA, Congress mandated that a professional engineer competent in the

field of railroad bridge engineering, or a qualified person under the supervision of the track

owner, determine bridge capacity (RSIA Section 417(b)(2)). Load capacity determination in

most instances requires the education, experience, and training of an engineer who is familiar

with railroad bridges and the standard practices unique to that class of structure.

The present standard references for railroad bridge design and analysis are found in the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association’s (AREMA) Manual

for Railway Engineering. The chapters in the manual dealing with timber, concrete and steel

structures, and seismic design are under continuous review by committees consisting of

leading engineers in the railroad bridge profession, including FRA representatives. Although

bridges exist that were designed using different or earlier references, they can still be

evaluated by use of the AREMA Manual.

There is a clear distinction between what some consider a “condition rating” ascribed to a

bridge by an RBI, and a “capacity rating,” which is determined by a qualified railroad bridge

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

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.

(d) Bridge load capacity may be determined from existing design and modification records of a

bridge, provided that the bridge substantially conforms to its recorded configuration.

Otherwise, the load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and calculation of

the properties of its individual components, or other methods as determined by a railroad bridge

engineer.

Guidance. This paragraph permits bridge load capacity to be determined from existing

design and modification records of a bridge, provided that the bridge substantially conforms

to its records configuration. Where deterioration or section loss exists, the effects of such

must be taken into account. Determination of bridge load capacity requires information on

the configuration of the bridge and the dimensions and material of its component parts. If the

bridge is found to conform to the drawings of its original design and modifications, those

drawings may serve as the basis for any rating calculation that might be performed; thereby,

simplifying the process. Lacking that prior information, it is necessary that the configuration,

dimensions, condition, and properties of the bridge and its components be determined by on-

site measurement of the bridge as it currently exists.

While the primary focus for determination of bridge load carrying capacity is usually on the

superstructure, the bridge substructure must also be taken into account. The capacity of

exposed pile bents or viaduct towers may be calculated based on expected load distribution to

the piles or columns. Other substructure types, such as mass concrete or masonry abutments

and piers, may need to be considered as outlined below.

A rigorous, exact method of rating is not practicable with several types of bridges, including

some massive concrete or masonry structures and many timber trestles. The RBE will

necessarily use judgment in determining the loads that should be permitted to operate over

these bridges, and ensure that adequate inspections are performed so that any developing

deterioration or signs of overload are detected before they progress to become a serious

problem.

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. FRA also 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. In the railroad bridge engineering profession,

the practice 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.

The terms “normal rating” and “maximum rating” found in the AREMA Manual for Railway

Engineering are often used when describing bridge ratings. There may be instances where

the calculated Normal Rating for a concrete structure is not adequate for the equipment that

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

is being operated, and has been operated for decades without incident or signs of structural

distress. In such a case, it is up to the RBE to determine the safe load capacity of the bridge.

Assuming that the rating requirements found in the AREMA Manual are being followed, the

RBE is permitted to determine a safe load capacity greater than a Normal Rating so long as it

is understood that operating loads producing stresses greater than a Normal Rating will likely

shorten the useful life of the bridge. If the loads being permitted produce stresses greater

than the calculated Maximum Rating for the bridge, the RBE will be hard-pressed to justify

the safe load capacity determination. It may be necessary to take core samples to

demonstrate that the strength of the concrete is greater than the design strength and then

recalculate the AREMA ratings using revised material strengths. Alternatively, the RBE

might choose to exercise engineering judgment, as permitted by § 237.71(d), where it states

“[o]therwise, the load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and

calculation of the properties of its individual components, or other methods as determined

by a railroad bridge engineer” (emphasis added). This language was included in the

regulations to permit an RBE to rate a bridge by “observation,” recognizing the fact that

many masonry or concrete structures lack as-built drawings that actually reflect the as-built

configuration.

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 RBE. In the same manner, the determination of the capacity of an existing bridge

requires that the engineer must 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.

(e) If a track owner has a group of bridges for which the load capacity has not already been

determined, the owner shall schedule the evaluation of those bridges according to their relative

priority, as established by a railroad bridge engineer. The initial determination of load capacity

shall be completed not later than five years following the required date for adoption of the track

owner’s bridge management program in conformance with § 237.31.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA requires a track owner to schedule the evaluation of

bridges for which the load capacity has not already been determined. This section provides

for a phase-in period for determination of bridge capacities to allow a reasonable time period

for track owners to accomplish this work. It is intended that the unrated bridges be given

relative priority for rating, based on the judgment of an RBE. This prioritization can be

accomplished either by observation or by evaluation of certain critical members of a bridge,

as determined by the engineer using professional judgment.

The deadlines for the initial determination of load capacity were as follows:

• March 14, 2016: Class I carriers.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

• March 14, 2016: Owners of track segments that are part of the general railroad

system of transportation and that carry more than 10 scheduled passenger trains per

week.

• September 13, 2016: Class II carriers to which § 237.31(b) does not apply.

• September 13, 2017: All other track owners subject to this part and not described in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 237.31.

As of September 13, 2017, all track owners previously subject to Part 237 must have their bridge

safe load capacities determined. For track owners to which Part 237 becomes applicable on or

after September 13, 2017, a complete BMP, including determination of all bridge load capacities,

must be adopted by the time railroad operations commence. There will be no 5-year period

following the date of BMP adoption during which to rate their bridges.

(f) Where a bridge inspection reveals that, in the determination of the railroad bridge engineer,

the condition of a bridge or a bridge component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge

to carry the traffic being operated, a new capacity shall be determined.

Guidance. A new capacity must be determined by an RBE when a bridge inspection record

reveals that the condition of a bridge or a bridge component might adversely affect the load

capacity of the bridge. Accurate determination of current bridge capacity depends on

accurate information about the current configuration and condition of the bridge. It is the

responsibility of the RBE to determine if a change in condition or configuration calls for a

revised rating calculation.

(g) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a standard

system of bridge loads, but shall in any case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual

or combined cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.

Guidance. Engineers use standard definitions of loading combinations for design and rating

of bridges. Common among these standard definitions is a series of proportional loads

known as the Cooper System. The capacity of a bridge and its components can be described

in terms of a Cooper Rating, and the effect of rail equipment on a bridge can also be related

to a Cooper System value.

Proper application of this system requires a full understanding of its use and limitations.

However, the results of its application can be translated into terms of equipment weights and

configurations that can be effectively applied by persons who manage regular transportation

operations of the railroad. This enables them to determine if a given locomotive, car, or

combination can be operated on a bridge with no further consideration, or if the equipment

must be evaluated by an RBE as an exceptional movement.

(h) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of both normal and maximum load

conditions. Operation of equipment that produces forces greater than the normal capacity shall

be subject to any restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge engineer.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Guidance. Normal bridge ratings generally define the loads that can be operated on a bridge

for an indefinite period without damaging the bridge. In some cases, (mostly involving steel

or iron bridges) a higher rating, up to a maximum rating, can be given to the bridge to permit

the operation of heavier loads on an infrequent basis. These heavier loads should not, in

themselves, damage the bridge, but the cumulative effect of the higher resulting stresses in

bridge members could cause their eventual deterioration and reduce their useful life.

Operation of equipment that produces forces greater than the normal capacity must be subject

to any restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by an RBE. An RBE can often

prescribe compensating conditions that will permit the movement of equipment that is

heavier than normal. Examples include speed restrictions to reduce the impact factor of the

rolling load, the insertion of lighter-weight spacer cars between the heavier cars in a train,

restricting operations to only one track at a time, or the installation of temporary bents or

other supports under specific points on the bridge.

§ 237.73 Protection of bridges from over-weight and over-dimension loads

(a) Each track owner shall issue instructions to the personnel who are responsible for the

configuration and operation of trains over its bridges to prevent the operation of cars,

locomotives and other equipment that would exceed the capacity or dimensions of its bridges.

Guidance. Bridges can be seriously damaged by the operation of loads that exceed their

capacity. Movement of equipment that exceeds the clear space on a bridge is an obvious

safety hazard. In this section, FRA addresses Congress’ mandate in the RSIA that the track

owner “develop, maintain, and enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its bridges

are not loaded beyond their capacities” (RSIA Section 417(b)(4)).

Transportation personnel of a railroad are ultimately responsible for the movement of trains,

cars, and locomotives. It is essential that they know and follow any restrictions that are

placed on those movements. Until such time as the initial determination of load capacity has

been made in accordance with § 237.71, FRA expects the track owner to have some

reasonable basis for the weight limits being permitted on its bridges. Old timetables or other

legacy documents should be researched to establish this reasonable basis for use in issuing

weight instructions during that period prior to the RBE determining a safe load capacity

through calculation or other acceptable methods.

(b) The instructions regarding weight shall be expressed in terms of maximum equipment

weights, and either minimum equipment lengths or axle spacing.

Guidance. Transportation personnel have information on the weights and configuration of

cars and locomotives, and they must be able to relate that information to any restrictions

placed on the movement of that equipment. Prior to the promulgation of the BSS, many

railroads issued instructions regarding weight in terms of maximum car weight only. This

paragraph requires that in addition to the maximum weight, the instructions must include

either the minimum equipment lengths or the minimum axle spacing. This requirement

applies to locomotives as well as railroad cars.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

section and equipment length, in conformance with common railroad industry practice for

reporting dimensions of exceptional equipment in interchange in which height above top-of-rail

is shown for each cross-section measurement, followed by the width of the car of the shipment at

that height.

Guidance. In the industry, a standard format exists for the exchange of information on

dimensions of railroad equipment. Use of the industry practice is necessary to avoid error

and confusion. It is permissible to issue dimension instructions using the Association of

American Railroads Clearance Plates, as these define the limiting dimensions for a given

plate.

(d) The instructions may apply to individual structures, or to a defined line segment or group(s)

of line segments where the published capacities and dimensions are within the limits of all

structures on the subject line segments.

Guidance. Railroads commonly issue instructions related to equipment weights and

dimensions to be effective on-line segments of various lengths. It is not necessary that

transportation personnel be advised of the capacity of every bridge as long as each bridge in

the line segment has the capacity to safely carry the loads permitted on that line.

Subpart E – Bridge Inspection

Guidance. This subpart establishes minimum standards to be incorporated into railroad

BMPs to provide for an effective program of bridge inspections.

Bridge inspection is a vital component in any BMP. A bridge with undetected or unreported

damage or deterioration can present a serious hazard to the safe operation of trains. Bridge

inspection and evaluation is a multi-tiered process, unlike many other types of inspection on

a railroad. While track, equipment, and signal inspectors usually can compare measurements

against common standards to determine whether the inspected feature complies with the

standards, this is not the case with most bridges. The evaluation of a bridge requires the

application of engineering principles by a competent person, who is usually not present

during the inspection. It is therefore necessary that an inspection report show any conditions

on the bridge that might lead to a reduction in capacity, initiation of repair work, or a more

detailed inspection to further characterize the condition.

§ 237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections

(a) Each bridge management program shall include a provision for scheduling an inspection for

each bridge in railroad service at least once in each calendar year, with not more than 540 days

between any successive inspections.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA establishes regulations to address Congress’ mandate that

the track owner “conduct regular comprehensive inspections of each bridge, at least once

every year, and maintain records of those inspections that include the date on which the

inspection was performed, the precise identification of the bridge inspected, the items

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

inspected, an accurate description of the condition of those items, and a narrative of any

inspection item that is found by the inspector to be a potential problem” (RSIA Section

417(b)(5)). Annual inspection of bridges has been an industry practice for more than a

century, and has proven to be an effective tool of bridge management. Even where a bridge

sees very low levels of railroad traffic, the potential still exists for damage from external

sources or natural deterioration. This paragraph calls for one inspection per calendar year,

with no more than 540 calendar days between the dates of completion of successive

inspections. For example, if a bridge is inspected on January 3, 2018, it becomes overdue for

inspection on June 27, 2019, 541 days later. If it is inspected on December 18, 2017, it

becomes overdue on January 1, 2019, since it was not inspected in calendar year 2018.

All inspections performed on or after the required date of BMP adoption must comply with

the requirements and procedures spelled out in the track owner’s BMP.

The BSS do not prescribe an inspection procedure—that decision is left to the RBE. It is

quite likely that the RBE might prescribe varying levels of detail for inspections performed at

different periods, depending on the configuration and condition of the bridge.

(b) A bridge shall be inspected more frequently than provided for in the bridge management

program when a railroad bridge engineer determines that such inspection frequency is necessary

considering conditions noted on prior inspections, the type and configuration of the bridge, and

the weight and frequency of traffic carried on the bridge.

Guidance. This paragraph requires that a bridge must be inspected more frequently than the

period referenced in paragraph (a), above, when an RBE determines that such inspection

frequency is necessary. The responsibility for adequate inspection remains with the track

owner, with the conditions prescribed by an RBE. The inspection regimen for every bridge

must be determined from its condition, configuration, environment, and traffic levels.

bridge to be performed whenever the bridge is involved in an event which might have

compromised the integrity of the bridge, including but not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake,

derailment or vehicular or vessel impact.

Guidance. It is essential that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge failure

resulting from damage from an event caused by natural or non-railroad agents. The track

owner must have in place a means to receive notice of such an event, including weather and

earthquakes, and a procedure to conduct an inspection following such an event.

(d) Any railroad bridge that has not been in railroad service and has not been inspected in

accordance with this section within the previous 540 days shall be inspected and the inspection

report reviewed by a railroad bridge engineer prior to the resumption of railroad service.

Guidance. The inspection frequency requirements of this section do not apply to bridges

that are not in railroad service. Clearly the operation of a revenue train constitutes “railroad

service”; however, FRA also considers test trains and deadhead equipment moves to be

included. During the restoration of a track supported by bridges that have been out of service

and not inspected within the previous 540 days, the operation of work trains, including

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

similar equipment capable of moving rail cars, may be done at the discretion of the RBE. It

is not the intent that an inspection must be performed and documented in accordance with the

track owner’s adopted BMP, but rather that the RBE is responsible for determining that the

bridges are safe for the passage of the work trains. Operation of hi-rail or on-track

maintenance-of-way equipment for the purpose of clearing sufficient trees and brush

necessary to access and assess the track and bridges is permitted for a reasonable, short

period of time, after which the RBE must perform a bridge evaluation sufficient to ensure

continued bridge safety during the restoration.

FRA notes that although inspections are not required on out-of-service railroad bridges, State

law regarding responsibility for damage to outside parties that might be caused by the

condition of the bridge is not affected. If a bridge not in service has been inspected within

the 540-day period, the track owner may accept that inspection and begin railroad service,

subject to any determination in that regard by an RBE. If a bridge not in service has not been

inspected within the previous 540 days, an inspection equivalent to the “annual” inspection

must be performed and the inspection report reviewed by an RBE before railroad service may

resume.

It is common practice for railroads to store surplus rail cars on unused tracks for an extended

period of time. Where cars have been stored, access to inspect or otherwise evaluate the

condition of the out-of-service bridges may not be practicable. In such a case, FRA will

allow the track owner to remove the stored cars from the affected bridges as long as engines

or locomotives do not traverse the out-of-service bridges. Before any further rail equipment

may move across the out-of-service bridges, they must be inspected and the reports reviewed

by an RBE.

§ 237.103 Bridge inspection procedures

(a) Each bridge management program shall specify the procedure to be used for inspection of

individual bridges or classes and types of bridges.

(b) The bridge inspection procedures shall be as specified by a railroad bridge engineer who is

designated as responsible for the conduct and review of the inspections. The inspection

procedures shall incorporate the methods, means of access, and level of detail to be recorded for

the various components of that bridge or class of bridges.

procedures are appropriate to: the configuration of the bridge; conditions found during previous

inspections; the nature of the railroad traffic moved over the bridge (including equipment

weights, train frequency and length, levels of passenger and hazardous materials traffic); and

vulnerability of the bridge to damage.

(d) The bridge inspection procedures shall be designed to detect, report and protect

deterioration and deficiencies before they present a hazard to safe train operation.

Guidance. In this section, FRA requires that each BMP specify the procedure to be used for

inspection of individual bridges or classes and types of bridges. The bridge inspection

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

procedures must be as specified by an RBE who is designated as responsible for the conduct

and review of the inspections. See RSIA Section 417(b)(7)(A). In the RSIA, Congress also

mandated that the bridge safety regulations must “ensure that the level of detail and the

inspection procedures are appropriate to the configuration of the bridge, conditions found

during the previous inspections, and the nature of the railroad traffic moved over the bridge,

including car weights, train frequency and lengths, levels of passenger and hazardous

materials traffic, and vulnerability of the bridge to damage.” Accordingly, FRA requires that

the bridge inspection procedures must ensure that the level of detail and the inspection

procedures are appropriate to the configuration of the bridge. Additionally, the bridge

inspection procedures must be designed to detect, report, and protect deterioration and

deficiencies before they present a hazard to safe train operation. The responsibility for

adequate inspection remains with the track owner, with the conditions to be documented and

the procedures to be followed as prescribed by an RBE. The inspection regimen for every

bridge should be determined from its condition, configuration, environment, and traffic

levels. The instructions for bridge inspection may be either general, as by bridge type or line

segment, or specific, as needed by particular considerations for an individual bridge.

The RBE specifying bridge inspection procedures can be either an employee of or a

consultant to the track owner. The RBE is not required to be on site, or even on the property,

during an inspection. A primary purpose of the audit procedure called out in § 237.153 is to

permit the RBE to review and monitor the effectiveness of the bridge inspection program that

has been conducted under his or her overall charge.

In instances where a bridge is shared and supports both railroad and highway loads, the track

owner is responsible for the inspection of all members or components that fall within the

track-supporting load path. In the case of members or components that support both railroad

and highway loads, the evaluation of conditions and load capacity must consider the

combined effect of stresses caused by both sources.

In specifying the bridge inspection procedures, it is permissible for a track owner to adopt

specific chapters or sections of the AREMA Bridge Inspection Handbook by reference;

however, each RBI must have ready access to a copy of the handbook and be cognizant of its

contents.

§ 237.105 Special Inspections

(a) Each bridge management program shall prescribe a procedure for protection of train

operations and for inspection of any bridge that might have been damaged by a natural or

accidental event, including but not limited to a flood, fire, earthquake, derailment or vehicular or

vessel impact.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA requires that each BMP prescribe a procedure for

protection of train operations and for inspection of any bridge that might have been damaged

by a natural or accidental event, including flood, fire, earthquake, derailment, or vehicular or

vessel impact. It is essential that railroad traffic be protected from possible bridge failure

caused by damage from an event caused by natural or non-railroad agents. The track owner

should have in place a means to receive notice of such an event, including weather conditions

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

and earthquakes, and a procedure to conduct an inspection following such an event. For

these procedures to effectively protect train operations, instructions detailing the required

responses, including any restrictions, should be issued to those transportation personnel

responsible for dispatching and operation of trains. All special inspections performed by a

designated RBI must be documented as required by § 237.109(a). During or following

natural events that encompass a widespread area such as flooding or an earthquake, it is

typical for track inspectors to patrol their territory looking out for signs of damage or

instability. Bridge observations made during these patrols serve as triage but do not need to

be documented as bridge inspections. Where questionable conditions are noted, a designated

RBI must be dispatched to perform a documented inspection.

Because natural or accidental events cannot be predicted, and a designated RBI may not be

readily available, it is acceptable for a person who is not a designated RBI to respond to the

scene and relay information to the designated RBI by telephone, two-way radio, or other

means of communication. If the first responder on site can convey to the RBI an accurate

description of the bridge condition, the RBI may authorize railroad operations to resume with

or without restrictions, as appropriate. Should the RBI be unable to make that decision due

to some level of structural damage described by the first responder, the RBI may consult with

a designated RBE. If the RBE is satisfied with his understanding of the damage, the RBE

may authorize resumption of train operations, with or without restrictions, and does not have

to go back to the RBI for that authorization. However, the RBI must file an inspection report

documenting the circumstances and their determination. The procedure should specify that

when the RBI does not respond immediately, the RBI must perform a follow-up inspection

and file a report accordingly. This report should include an indication that the inspection was

made in response to an emergency event that happened on a previous date.

There may also be instances where the first responder must communicate directly with, and

receive guidance from, the RBE. This action is acceptable in the case of an emergency

inspection since the RBE is ultimately responsible for determining the safe loading

conditions for railroad bridges and providing guidance to the RBI. This situation highlights

one reason why a track owner would be well served to designate an individual not just as an

RBE, but also as an RBI, and possibly an RBS, provided the individual is qualified to

perform these functions. The track owner’s BMP should specify the procedure by which a

non-RBI first responder can be used to respond to an emergency event and then communicate

with an RBI or RBE.

(b) Each bridge management program shall provide for the detection of scour or deterioration

of bridge components that are submerged, or that are subject to water flow.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA requires that each BMP provide for the detection of scour

or deterioration of bridge components that are submerged or subject to water flow.

The BMP must specify procedures for detecting scour problems at bridges where the RBE

determines such procedures to be necessary. Bridges founded on shallow footings, highly

erodible soils or located in areas subject to flash flooding should be included. These

locations may or may not be underwater all year long. One example procedure, in the case of

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

locations with little or no water normally present, is taking measurements of channel cross

sections during regular inspections.

The condition of bridge components located underwater is usually not evident from above.

Means to determine their condition might be as simple as using measuring rods from the

surface, or might call for either periodic or special diving inspections. Advanced technology

might also provide devices that can be used to determine underwater conditions. This rule

does not prescribe a particular frequency for underwater inspections; that decision is left to

the RBE, to be based on the particular conditions at each bridge. The BMP must include an

indication of bridges requiring underwater inspection along with the specified frequency of

inspection.

§ 237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections

Bridge inspections shall be conducted under the direct supervision of a designated railroad

bridge inspector, who shall be responsible for the accuracy of the results and the conformity of

the inspection to the bridge management program.

Guidance. In this section, FRA requires that bridge inspections be conducted under the

direct supervision of a designated RBI, who must be responsible for the accuracy of the

results and the conformity of the inspection to the BMP. Bridge inspections can often require

more than one person for safety and efficiency. This provision permits others to assist the

designated inspector, who remains responsible for the results of the inspection.

Direct supervision does not absolutely require the designated RBI to be on site. The intent is

that the RBI be on site during an inspection; however, FRA interprets “direct supervision” to

allow for limited exceptions to the RBI being on site, such as responding to an accidental or

natural event when a designated RBI is not reasonably available. As an example, it is

permissible for the railroad to dispatch a roadmaster to a bridge strike to inspect the track

structure and relay pertinent information to the designated RBI concerning the condition of

the bridge, including any damage. Based on the information provided during some form of

two-way communication, the RBI could make a decision concerning the operation of trains.

The RBI remains responsible for the decision, and is still required to promptly follow up with

an on-site inspection. If use of this limited exception becomes common practice as a matter

of convenience, rather than there being a bona fide excess delay in having an RBI respond,

FRA will consider such abuse unacceptable.

§ 237.109 Bridge inspection records

(a) Each track owner to which this part applies shall keep a record of each inspection required

to be performed on those bridges under this part.

Guidance. In this section, FRA requires that each track owner to which this part applies

keep a record of each inspection required to be performed under this part. A bridge

inspection has little value unless it is recorded and reported to the individuals responsible for

the ultimate determination of the safety of the bridge. Bridge inspectors may use a variety of

methods to record their findings as they move about the bridge. These may include

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

notebooks, voice recordings, having another individual transcribe notes, and photographs.

These notes and other items are usually compiled into a prescribed report format at the end of

the day or at the conclusion of the inspection.

Since FRA cannot be present onsite 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.

(b) Each record of an inspection under the bridge management program prescribed in this part

shall be prepared from notes taken on the day(s) the inspection is made, supplemented with

sketches and photographs as needed. Such record will be dated with the date(s) the physical

inspection takes place and the date the record is created, and it will be signed or otherwise

certified by the person making the inspection.

Guidance. Inspection of a large or complex bridge may take more than 1 day. This

paragraph requires that the bridge inspection record include a notation of all dates during

which the inspection was conducted. Indicating just the beginning and ending dates or just

the ending date is not acceptable. If the record documents inspection work performed on

more than 1 day, each individual date must be shown. It is acceptable for the multiple dates

to be shown in a notation rather than in the report header when the format of the inspection

record does not allow multiple dates in the header. The method by which multiple inspection

dates are to be documented must be specified in the owner’s BMP.

In many instances, inspection records are not filled out on the day of the inspection, but are

created back in an office several days or weeks following the completion of the physical

inspection. This practice necessitates the requirement that the inspection record must reflect

both the date(s) of inspection as well as the date that the inspection record is completed and

signed.

There is no requirement that the designated RBI personally fill out a paper report form or

input an electronic record. Using another individual to perform these tasks is permissible,

and may be desirable, so long as the designated RBI responsible for conducting the

inspection reviews and signs or certifies the report. Ultimately, the designated RBI is

responsible for the accuracy of the report and ensuring that it adequately describes the

condition of the bridge.

include, as a minimum, the following information:

(1) A precise identification of the bridge inspected;

(2) The date on which the physical inspection was completed;

(3) The identification and written or electronic signature of the inspector;

(4) The type of inspection performed, in conformance with the definitions of inspection types in

the bridge management program;

(5) An indication on the report as to whether any item noted thereon requires expedited or

critical review by a railroad bridge engineer, and any restrictions placed at the time of the

inspection;

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

(6) The condition of components inspected, which may be in a condition reporting format

prescribed in the bridge management program, together with any narrative descriptions

necessary for the correct interpretation of the report; and

(7) When an inspection does not encompass the entire bridge, the portions of the bridge which

were inspected shall be identified in the report.

Guidance. In paragraph (c), FRA delineates the minimum elements that must be addressed

and reported in any bridge inspection. Any additional information required by the RBE

should be specified in the BMP.

Section 237.109(c)(1) requires each report to include a precise identification of the bridge

inspected; this identification must be the same as the unique bridge identification used in the

bridge inventory.

Section 237.109(c)(4) requires each report to indicate the type of inspection performed using

one of the inspection types that must be defined in the BMP. Example inspection types may

include annual, periodic, interim, rating, detailed, special, emergency, post-event, etc. The

method used to indicate the type of inspection could be a check box, in writing, by using a

different identified report format for each type of inspection, or other means defined in the

BMP.

Section 237.109(c)(5) requires “[a]n indication on the report as to whether any item noted

thereon requires expedited or critical review by a railroad bridge engineer, and any

restrictions placed at the time of the inspection.”

The report needs to have a means of flagging the report for expedited or critical review.

Lack of such indication is understood to mean no expedited or critical review is

recommended. The track owner could, for example, set up the report with a yes or no check

box to indicate that an expedited or critical review is recommended so that an inspector’s

oversight does not result in a seriously deficient condition being overlooked. For electronic

recordkeeping, the system used must provide a method for the RBI to flag a record for

expedited or critical review so that the inspection record goes to the top of the pile and

potentially follows a parallel path around the normal review and approval path. The BMP

must specify the manner in which reports or records will be flagged for expedited or critical

review.

The same conditions would apply to notations concerning restrictions placed at the time of

inspection. The lack of a restriction notation would be taken to mean no restrictions were

placed. The BMP must specify the procedure to be used for recording restrictions placed at

the time of the inspection.

Section 237.109(c)(6) requires that the report show “[t]he condition of components

inspected….” FRA expects the inspection record to be a condition report where the current

state of all components or classes of components is recorded, not an exception report where

only the condition of deficient components is recorded and all others are assumed to be in a

like-new condition and functioning as intended. Unless a condition assessment is assigned to

a component or class of components, there is no indication that these items were even

inspected. Taken to the extreme, a bridge that is in like-new condition might show just the

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

header information, the date of the inspection, the date of report creation, and the inspector’s

identification. A report containing only these pieces of information would be defective.

Where a structural element is typically hidden from view, such as abutment footings or piles

beneath a pier, the condition is normally evaluated by observing the behavior and condition

of structural elements that are supported by the hidden element. In such a case, no sign of

distress may be inferred to mean that nothing is wrong. If an element is hidden but should

not be, such as bridge seats buried in ballast, then the report should indicate that the element

could not be inspected and the reason.

The regulation does not specify how the track owner must format the inspection report, only

that it be able to capture “[t]he condition of components inspected, which may be in a

condition reporting format prescribed in the BMP, together with any narrative descriptions

necessary for the correct interpretation of the report.” The key here is that there is sufficient

“narrative description necessary for the correct interpretation of the report.” Where the

reporting format does not divide members into discrete elements, adequate narrative is

essential, especially for elements that are in less than good condition. The level of detail

provided must be sufficient for the RBE to evaluate the severity of conditions, considering

the combined effects of multiple deficient conditions, to determine both localized and overall

structural integrity.

Neither does the regulation define what constitutes a component. In the case of a riveted

deck plate girder span with an open deck, one bridge inspection program might attempt to

define the components to be the deck, superstructure, and substructure. FRA believes that

the deck, superstructure, and substructure are not components but rather groups of

components and would find this inadequate. Alternatively, a second program could break

down these global systems further to include ties, tie spacers, hook bolts, girders, cross

bracing, lateral bracing systems, abutments, piers, backwalls, and bridge seats. A third

program might break the girders down into even smaller elements such as top flange, bottom

flange, flange angles, web, intermediate stiffeners, bearing stiffeners, sole plates, and anchor

bolts. FRA expects, at a minimum, conditions to be assessed for all steel superstructure

components at the level of stringers, floor beams, floor system bracing, multi-beams, and

girders. For trusses, FRA expects that the truss be divided at a minimum into inspection

units consisting of upper chords, web members (hangers, diagonals, and posts), lower chords,

bearings, lateral bracing, sway bracing, and portals.

FRA would prefer that a report indicate the conditions of the individual elements making up

a primary load-carrying member; however, as long as sufficient narrative, sketches, or

photographs are supplied with the report to enable the reviewer to evaluate the severity and

extent of deficient conditions, compliance with the regulations would be achieved. FRA

would not expect a narrative for a member or component categorized as being in excellent or

good condition. However, once the condition drops to fair or worse, an indication of the

reason for that assessment is warranted and expected. If the track owner’s BMP and

associated bridge inspection program do not require such explanation, then the program is

defective.

In reviewing the adequacy of a bridge inspection report, the FRA inspector must compare a

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

report prepared in conformance with the track owner’s BMP to the actual conditions found in

the field, and then evaluate whether the report conveys sufficient, accurate information to the

RBE to make an informed decision on the state of the bridge.

(d) An initial report of each bridge inspection shall be placed in the location designated in the

bridge management program within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inspection unless

the complete inspection report is filed first. The initial report shall include the information

required by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA requires that an initial report of each bridge inspection be

placed in the location designated by the BMP within 30 calendar days of the completion of

the field portion of the inspection. If the complete report as described in § 237.109(e) is filed

within 30 days of the completion of the inspection, an initial report is not required. The

initial report must include the information delineated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5).

The actual conduct of the inspection must be reported and recorded, showing that the bridge

was actually inspected on a certain date, the type of inspection performed, by whom it was

performed, and whether any critical conditions were detected. Inspection and reporting

procedures vary widely among different railroads and circumstances. In many cases,

especially on larger railroads, an inspector would prepare the report before leaving the

bridge. The reports might be forwarded by mail, by electronic means, or by hand delivery.

They might be forwarded daily or weekly, or even less frequently. In other circumstances, a

consulting engineer might be engaged by a small railroad to inspect all the bridges on all or

part of the line, and the final report might be prepared by the engineering firm after all the

inspections are completed. Similarly, a large railroad might begin a comprehensive

inspection and evaluation of a large structure that will take several months to complete.

FRA recognizes the wide range of time periods required for these various inspections and

reporting procedures, so this provision was developed as a means for the track owner to

monitor inspection progress, bridge by bridge, with a simple line item showing:

1. Identification of the bridge inspected.

2. Date of completion of the inspection.

3. Identification of the inspector.

4. Type of inspection performed.

5. Indication on the report as to whether any item noted thereon requires expedited or

critical review by an RBE, and any restrictions placed at the time of the inspection.

These five items can usually be listed on a single line of a report. The initial report might

include all the bridges inspected by one individual in 1–2 weeks. FRA does not anticipate

that the initial or summary report include all the data called for in the BMP, together with any

narrative descriptions necessary for the correct interpretation of the report. This information

would be included in the complete inspection report.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

FRA views the initial 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.

An effective BMP requires that the person in charge of the program have reasonably current

information on the progress of the vital function of bridge inspection.

(e) A complete report of each bridge inspection, including as a minimum the information

required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section, shall be placed in the location

designated in the bridge management program within 120 calendar days of the completion of the

inspection.

Guidance. In this paragraph, FRA requires that a complete report of each bridge inspection

must be placed in the location designated in the BMP within 120 days of the completion of

the field portion of the inspection. A bridge inspection is not complete until the report of the

inspection is filed and available to the people who are responsible for the management of the

bridges inspected. This time period does not include the time used by a consultant or in-

house engineering group to complete an analysis of the results of the inspection, and it is not

expected that the analysis must be completed within that time period. In cases where a

detailed analysis is required, FRA intends that the inspection report on which the analysis is

based would be separated from the analysis itself and filed within the required timeframe.

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 FRA

monitoring.

(f) Each bridge inspection program shall specify the retention period and location for bridge

inspection records. The retention period shall be no less than two years following the

completion of the inspection. Records of underwater inspections shall be retained until the

completion and review of the next underwater inspection of the bridge.

Guidance. This paragraph requires that each bridge inspection program specify the retention

period and location for bridge inspection records. The retention period must be at least 2

years from the completion of the physical inspection. A comparison of successive reports

can reveal any accelerating rates of deterioration or degradation of bridge components.

Additionally, an audit or review of the effectiveness of a bridge inspection program requires

comparison of previous inspection reports with the actual condition of a bridge included in

the audit. The practice of comparing previous inspection reports with actual bridge

conditions has been followed by FRA for more than a decade when evaluating railroad

BMPs. It is a valuable factor in determining the effectiveness of a railroad’s program.

For purposes of enforcement, an FRA inspector cannot look back any further than the

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

regulations require, even if the track owner’s BMP specifies a longer retention period. In a

case where bridge inspection records have been retained for at least 2 years but less than

required by the BMP, the inspector must indicate in a comment to the railroad that it has

failed to comply with its own BMP.

(g) If a bridge inspector, supervisor, or engineer discovers a deficient condition on a bridge that

affects the immediate safety of train operations, that person shall report the condition as

promptly as possible to the person who controls the operation of trains on the bridge in order to

protect the safety of train operations.

Guidance. Once it is determined that a condition affects the immediate safety of train

operations, the first notification made must be to the person who controls the operation of

trains. Requiring the party who discovered the deficient condition to make the first

notification to anyone else is unacceptable. This reporting process should be specified in the

BMP.

§ 237.111 Review of bridge inspection reports

Bridge inspection reports shall be reviewed by railroad bridge supervisors and railroad bridge

engineers to:

(a) Determine whether inspections have been performed in accordance with the prescribed

schedule and specified procedures;

(b) Evaluate whether any items on the report represent a present or potential hazard to safety;

bridge;

(d) Schedule any repairs or modifications to the bridge required to maintain its structural

integrity; and

(e) Determine the need for further higher-level review.

Guidance. The RSIA requires an engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge

engineering to review all inspection reports and determine whether bridges are being

inspected according to the applicable procedures and frequencies, and review any items

noted by an inspector as exceptions (RSIA Section 417(b)(7)). In this section, FRA requires

responsible supervisors and RBEs to review bridge inspection reports. Bridge inspection is

usually a multi-tiered procedure. The RBI reports on the conditions noted in the inspection,

but an RBE will necessarily evaluate those noted conditions and determine what, if any,

further action is required.

The regulation does not require that an RBE review every inspection report so long as the

responsible management personnel keep track of the conduct of inspections to see that they

are performed in accordance with the schedule and other requirements of this rule and the

track owner’s program. It should be a simple matter for the inspector to indicate on a report

whether the report would require higher-level or engineering review. The engineering staff

would review the reports that indicate problems or issues for them to resolve. Section

237.153, Audits of inspections, includes a provision for sampling of routine inspection

reports to ensure that the RBIs are properly identifying reports that require review.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Regardless of whether a report is “flagged” for higher-level or engineering review, all reports

must be reviewed by at least a responsible supervisor or manager. While there is no specific

regulatory requirement that a track owner document the fact that individual reports have been

reviewed, failing to do so will likely impede the audit process.

The addition of the signature or initials of the individual who is reviewing an inspection

report should not be viewed as changing the report, nor should any annotations made by the

reviewer as long as it is apparent that someone other than the RBI made the addition and that

individual is identified.

Subpart F – Repair and Modification of Bridges

Guidance. This subpart establishes minimum standards to be incorporated in railroad BMPs

to provide for adequate design and effective supervision of those bridge modifications and

repairs, which will materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any primary

load-carrying component of the bridge. This subpart provides requirements for correct

design and adequate supervision of repair and modification of bridges where the work could

materially affect the capacity of the bridge, or its continued integrity. FRA does not intend

that minor repairs that do not affect the capacity of the bridge must be designed by an

engineer; however, the supervision of that work should be performed by a person who is

competent to ensure that the work does not inadvertently compromise the integrity of the

bridge.

§ 237.131 Design

Each repair or modification which materially modifies the capacity of a bridge or the stresses in

any primary load-carrying component of a bridge shall be designed by a railroad bridge

engineer. The design shall specify the manner in which railroad traffic or other live loads may

be permitted on the bridge while it is being modified or repaired. Designs and procedures for

repair or modification of bridges of a common configuration, such as timber trestles, or

instructions for in-kind replacement of bridge components, may be issued as a common

standard. Where the common standard addresses procedures and methods that could materially

modify the capacity of a bridge or the stresses in any primary load-carrying component of a

bridge, the standard shall be designed and issued by a qualified railroad bridge engineer.

Guidance. Design of entire railroad bridges, modifications, and repairs that materially

modify the capacity of the bridge or the stresses in any primary load-carrying component of

the bridge require the intelligent application of the principles of engineering, and can be

performed only by an engineer with training and experience in the field of railroad bridges.

Railroads have typically issued standard instructions for the performance of common

maintenance repairs, such as replacement or upgrading of components of timber trestles.

This section specifically permits such a practice; however, any instruction or procedure that

carries the potential to impair the ability of a bridge to carry rail equipment while being

performed must be issued by a qualified RBE. For example, a standard procedure used for

the in-kind replacement of steel floor system primary members would need to specify the

number of rivets or bolts that could be removed from a connection and still safely carry

trains, or else clearly prohibit the operation of any trains while certain portions of the work

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

are in progress. For purposes of this part, a primary load-carrying component is a railroad

bridge component, the failure of which would immediately compromise the structural

integrity of the bridge.

In general terms, the regulation requires the design of repairs or modifications that affect the

safe load capacity of a bridge to be done by an RBE. The regulations are silent about the

design of a new railroad bridge. Track owners should be encouraged to include language in

their BMPs indicating what design specification will be used for new bridges, as well as

repairs or modifications to existing structures. The AREMA Manual for Railway

Engineering would be an appropriate design standard, and Guideline 5, Specifications for

design and rating of railroad bridges, Part 237, Appendix A, can be used as the guiding

principle. However, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials bridge code, or any building code, would not be appropriate design standards.

§ 237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications

Each repair or modification pursuant to this part shall be performed under the immediate

supervision of a railroad bridge supervisor as defined in § 237.55 of this part who is designated

and authorized by the track owner to supervise the particular work to be performed. The

railroad bridge supervisor shall ensure that railroad traffic or other live loads permitted on the

bridge under repair or modification are in conformity with the specifications in the design.

Guidance. This section requires that each repair or modification pursuant to this part shall

be performed under the immediate supervision of an RBS as defined in § 237.55 of this part

who is designated and authorized by the track owner to supervise the particular work to be

performed. Modifications and repairs that materially modify the capacity of the bridge or the

stresses in any primary load-carrying component of the bridge must be performed according

to the specific or general specifications and instructions issued by an RBE. The term

“immediate supervision” means that the RBS is on site to ensure the repairs or modifications

are performed in accordance with the specifications and instructions. Particularly when

trains are permitted to pass over a bridge that is being repaired or modified, the supervisor at

the bridge must be able to make the necessary determination to either permit, restrict, or halt

train operations depending on the state of the bridge. As this part does not specify the

employment relationship between the track owner and the bridge supervisor, the track owner

may designate a contractor or a consultant as the RBS. It is necessary, however, that a

qualified individual be responsible for the proper and safe performance of work on a bridge,

and that the individual be authorized to perform the actions necessary to fulfill that

responsibility. FRA intends that the requirement for an RBS to supervise repairs or

modifications would be limited to work performed at the actual construction site and would

not extend to the manufacture of prefabricated components at a steel fabricator’s or precast

concrete supplier’s facility. In these cases, it is expected that the purchase order or contract

requires the supplier to provide components manufactured or fabricated in accordance with

the track owner’s plans and specifications, and for the supplier to have adequate quality

assurance or quality control procedures in place.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Subpart G – Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management Programs

Guidance. Documentation is essential to any effective management program. In Subpart G,

FRA establishes minimum standards to be incorporated in railroad BMPs to provide for

verification of the effectiveness of the program and the accuracy of the information

developed thereby by the track owner, and by FRA to evaluate compliance with this

regulation.

§ 237.151 Audits; general

Each program adopted to comply with this part shall include provisions for auditing the

effectiveness of the several provisions of that program, including the validity of bridge inspection

reports and bridge inventory data, and the correct application of movement restrictions to

railroad equipment of exceptional weight or configuration.

Guidance. Effective management of a safety-critical program requires an adequate level of

review to ensure that the requisite work is being performed correctly. The audit provisions

should identify the entity that is going to perform the audit and the frequency of the audit and

list the specific items that will be audited. The specific items that should be audited include

the validity of bridge inspection reports and bridge inventory data, compliance with BMP

requirements governing inspection frequency and scheduling, performance and

documentation of special inspections following a natural or accidental event, competency of

individuals designated as RBE, RBI, or RBS, adequacy and completeness of bridge

inspection record review, the correct application of movement restrictions intended to protect

bridges from over-weight or over-dimension equipment, and the overall effectiveness of the

BMP itself.

The regulation does not specify who should conduct the internal audit, but general audit

principles would not permit the auditor and/or the person being audited to be the same

individual employee or consulting firm. Since the track owner is ultimately responsible for

the integrity of the program, the track owner or its organization should at least be represented

on the audit even if the representative is not a designated RBE or RBI.

A track owner that performs its own bridge management functions, such as inspections, may

audit its own program. The only caveat is that an individual should not audit his or her own

work. Of course, that person could participate in the audit process as the person being

audited.

§ 237.153 Audits of inspections

(a) Each bridge management program shall incorporate provisions for an internal audit to

determine whether the inspection provisions of the program are being followed, and whether the

program itself is effectively providing for the continued safety of the subject bridges.

(b) The inspection audit shall include an evaluation of a representative sampling of bridge

inspection reports at the bridges noted on the reports to determine whether the reports

accurately describe the condition of the bridge.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

Guidance. FRA has found one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness of a

program is a comparison of recent bridge inspection reports against actual conditions found

at the subject bridges. This is fundamental to an effective audit of a BMP. Therefore, each

BMP must incorporate provisions for an internal audit to determine whether the inspection

provisions of the program are being followed, and whether the program itself is effectively

providing for the continued safety of the subject bridges. Additionally, the inspection audit

must include an evaluation of a representative sampling of bridge inspection reports at the

bridges noted on the reports to determine whether the reports accurately describe the

condition of the bridge.

§ 237.155 Documents and records

Each track owner required to implement a bridge management program and keep records under

this part shall make those program documents and records available for inspection and

reproduction by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Guidance. In this section, FRA requires each track owner required to implement a BMP and

keep records under this part to make those program documents and records available for FRA

inspection and reproduction. This section addresses the RSIA mandate to establish a

program to periodically review bridge inspection and maintenance data from railroad carrier

bridge inspectors and FRA bridge experts (RSIA Section 417(d)). FRA will require access to

the vital documents and records of the various BMPs to enable it to carry out its enforcement

responsibilities.

(a) Electronic recordkeeping; general. For purposes of compliance with the recordkeeping

requirements of this part, a track owner may create and maintain any of the records required by

this part through electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval provided that all of the

following conditions are met:

(1) The system used to generate the electronic record meets all requirements of this subpart;

(2) The electronically generated record contains the information required by this part;

(3) The track owner monitors its electronic records database through sufficient number of

monitoring indicators to ensure a high degree of accuracy of these records;

(4) The track owner shall train its employees who use the system on the proper use of the

electronic recordkeeping system; and

(5) The track owner maintains an information technology security program adequate to ensure

the integrity of the system, including the prevention of unauthorized access to the program

logic or individual records.

(b) System security. The integrity of the bridge inspection records must be protected by a

security system that incorporates a user identity and password, or a comparable method, to

establish appropriate levels of program and record data access meeting all of the following

standards:

(1) No two individuals have the same electronic identity;

(2) A record cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after the record is certified by the

employee who created the record;

(3) Any amendment to a record is either—

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

(i) Electronically stored apart from the record that it amends; or

(ii) Electronically attached to the record as information without changing the original

record;

(4) Each amendment to a record uniquely identifies the person making the amendment; and

(5) The electronic system provides for the maintenance of inspection records as originally

submitted without corruption or loss of data.

Guidance. In these paragraphs, FRA establishes minimum standards for electronic

recordkeeping that a track owner may elect to use to comply with the recordkeeping

provisions of this part. FRA recognizes the growing prevalence of electronic records, and

acknowledges the unique challenges that electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval of

records can present. In these paragraphs, to allow for future advances in technology, FRA is

establishing electronic record storage provisions that are technology-neutral.

For purposes of complying with the recordkeeping requirements of this part, a track owner

may create and maintain any of the required records through electronic transmission, storage,

and retrieval, provided that certain conditions are met. Not only must the system used to

generate the electronic records meet all of the requirements of this subpart and the records

contain all of the information required by this subpart, but the track owner must also: (1)

monitor the electronic database through a sufficient number of monitoring indicators to

ensure a high degree of the accuracy of the records; (2) train the employees who use the

system on the proper use of the system; and (3) maintain an information technology security

program adequate to ensure the integrity of the system, including the prevention of

unauthorized access to the program logic or individual records.

Additionally, as specified in the BSS, the integrity of the bridge inspection records must be

protected by a security system that incorporates user identity and password, or a comparable

method, to establish appropriate levels of program and inspection record data access meeting

all of the following standards: (1) no two individuals can have the same electronic identity;

(2) a bridge inspection record cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after the record

is certified by the employee who created the record; (3) any amendment to the record must

either be electronically stored apart from the record it amends, or electronically attached to

the record as information without changing the original record; (4) each amendment to a

record must uniquely identify the person making the amendment; and (5) the electronic

system must provide for the maintenance of inspection records as originally submitted

without corruption or loss of data.

There must be a record of each inspection made and it must be retrievable. Subsequent

inspections cannot alter the previous record to the extent that a reviewer is unable to

determine the content of the earlier record.

Appendix A – Supplemental Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad

Bridges

A Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges was originally published by FRA

in 2000 as Appendix C of the Federal Track Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 213. With the

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

promulgation of 49 CFR Part 237, Bridge Safety Standards, many of the non-regulatory

provisions in that Policy Statement have been incorporated into the bridge safety standards in

this part.

However, FRA has determined that other non-regulatory items are still useful as information and

guidance for track owners. Those provisions of the Policy Statement are therefore retained and

placed in this Appendix in lieu of their former location in the Track Safety Standards.

Guidance. This appendix is included in this manual as information only. This statement of

agency policy is non-regulatory. In any instance where information contained here

conflicts with regulatory requirements, the regulatory language must prevail.

GENERAL

1. The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is important to the safety of

railroad employees and to the public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is

specified in § 237.3, “Responsibility for compliance.”

2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be determined only by intelligent

application of engineering principles and the law[s] of physics. Track owners should use those

principles to assess the integrity of railroad bridges.

3. The long-term ability of a structure to perform its function is an economic issue beyond the

intent of this policy. In assessing a bridge’s structural condition, FRA focuses on the present

safety of the structure, rather than its appearance or long-term usefulness.

4. FRA inspectors conduct regular evaluations of railroad bridge inspection and management

practices. The objective of these evaluations is to document the practices of the evaluated

railroad, to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety of the public or

railroad employees, and to assure compliance with the terms of this regulation. If the evaluation

discloses problems, FRA seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is jeopardized by a track

owner’s failure to resolve a bridge problem, FRA will use appropriate measures, including

assessing civil penalties and issuance of emergency orders, to protect the safety of railroad

employees and the public.

5. This policy statement addresses the integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. It does

not address the integrity of other types of structures on railroad property (i.e., tunnels, highway

bridges over railroads, or other structures on or over the right-of-way).

6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory. They do not have the force of

regulations or orders, which FRA may enforce using civil penalties or other means. The

guidelines supplement the requirements of part 237 and are retained for information and

guidance.

GUIDELINES

1. Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges.

(a) The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges is specified in § 237.3.

(b) The track owner should maintain current information regarding loads that may be

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

operated over the bridge, either from its own engineering evaluations or as provided by a

competent engineer representing the track owner. Information on permissible loads may be

communicated by the track owner either in terms of specific car and locomotive configurations

and weights, or as values representing a standard railroad bridge rating reference system. The

most common standard bridge rating reference system incorporated in the Manual for Railway

Engineering of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association is the

dimensional and proportional load configuration devised by Theodore Cooper. Other reference

systems may be used where convenient, provided their effects can be defined in terms of shear,

bending and pier reactions as necessary for a comprehensive evaluation and statement of the

capacity of a bridge.

of the maximum loads permitted on the bridge stated in terms of car and locomotive

configurations and weights. No railroad should operate a load which exceeds those limits

without specific authority from, and in accordance with restrictions placed by, the track owner.

2. Capacity of railroad bridges.

(a) The safe capacity of bridges should be determined pursuant to § 237.71.

(b) Proper analysis of a bridge requires knowledge of the actual dimensions, materials and

properties of the structural members of the bridge, their condition, and the stresses imposed in

those members by the service loads.

determine and rate the load capacity of a bridge provided:

(i) The condition of the bridge has not changed significantly; and

(ii) The stresses resulting from the service loads can be correlated to the stresses for which

the bridge was designed or rated.

3. Railroad bridge loads.

(a) Control of loads is governed by § 237.73.

(b) Authority for exceptions. Equipment exceeding the nominal weight restriction on a

bridge should be operated only under conditions determined by a competent railroad bridge

engineer who has properly analyzed the stresses resulting from the proposed loads and has

determined that the proposed operation can be conducted safely without damaging the bridge.

restrictions, restriction of traffic from adjacent multiple tracks, and weight limitations on

adjacent cars in the same train.

4. Railroad bridge records.

(a) The organization responsible for the safety of a bridge should keep design, construction,

maintenance and repair records readily accessible to permit the determination of safe loads.

Having design or rating drawings and calculations that conform to the actual structure greatly

simplifies the process of making accurate determinations of safe bridge loads. This provision is

governed by § 237.33.

(b) Organizations acquiring railroad property should obtain original or usable copies of all

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

bridge records and drawings, and protect or maintain knowledge of the location of the original

records.

5. Specifications for design and rating of railroad bridges.

(a) The recommended specifications for the design and rating of bridges are those found in

the Manual for Railway Engineering published by the American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance of Way Association. These specifications incorporate recognized principles of

structural design and analysis to provide for the safe and economic utilization of railroad

bridges during their expected useful lives. These specifications are continually reviewed and

revised by committees of competent engineers. Other specifications for design and rating,

however, have been successfully used by some railroads and may continue to be suitable.

(b) A bridge can be rated for capacity according to current specifications regardless of the

specification to which it was originally designed.

6. Periodic inspections of railroad bridges.

(a) Periodic bridge inspections by competent inspectors are necessary to determine whether

a structure conforms to its design or rating condition and, if not, the degree of nonconformity.

See § 237.101. Section 237.101(a) calls for every railroad bridge to be inspected at least once in

each calendar year. Deterioration or damage may occur during the course of a year regardless

of the level of traffic that passes over a bridge. Inspections at more frequent intervals may be

required by the nature or condition of a structure or intensive traffic levels.

7. Underwater inspections of railroad bridges.

(a) Inspections of bridges should include measuring and recording the condition of

substructure support at locations subject to erosion from moving water.

(b) Stream beds often are not visible to the inspector. Indirect measurements by sounding,

probing, or any other appropriate means are necessary in these cases. A series of records of

these readings will provide the best information in the event unexpected changes suddenly occur.

Where such indirect measurements do not provide the necessary assurance of foundation

integrity, diving inspections should be performed as prescribed by a competent engineer.

8. Seismic considerations.

(a) Owners of bridges should be aware of the risks posed by earthquakes in the areas in

which their bridges are located. Precautions should be taken to protect the safety of trains and

the public following an earthquake.

(b) Contingency plans for seismic events should be prepared in advance, taking into account

the potential for seismic activity in an area.

Local ground motion attenuation values and the magnitude of an earthquake both influence the

extent of the area affected by an earthquake. Regions with low frequency of seismic events

produce less data from which to predict attenuation factors. That uncertainty should be

considered when designating the area in which precautions should be taken following the first

notice of an earthquake. In fact, earthquakes in such regions might propagate their effects over

much wider areas than earthquakes of the same magnitude occurring in regions with frequent

seismic activity.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

9. Special inspections of railroad bridges.

Requirements for special inspections of railroad bridges are found in § 237.105.

10. Railroad bridge inspection records.

(a) The requirements for recording and reporting bridge inspections are found in § 237.109.

(b) Information from bridge inspection reports should be incorporated into a bridge

management program to ensure that exceptions on the reports are corrected or accounted for. A

series of inspection reports prepared over time should be maintained so as to provide a valuable

record of trends and rates of degradation of bridge components. The reports should be

structured to promote comprehensive inspections and effective communication between an

inspector and an engineer who performs an analysis of a bridge.

interpretation by the reporting inspector.

11. Railroad bridge inspectors and engineers.

(a) Bridge inspections should be performed by technicians whose training and experience

enable them to detect and record indications of distress on a bridge. Inspectors should provide

accurate measurements and other information about the condition of the bridge in enough detail

so that an engineer can make a proper evaluation of the safety of the bridge. Qualifications of

personnel are addressed in Subpart C to Part 237.

(b) Accurate information about the condition of a bridge should be evaluated by an engineer

who is competent to determine the capacity of the bridge. The inspector and the evaluator often

are not the same individual; therefore, the quality of the bridge evaluation depends on the

quality of the communication between them. Review of inspection reports is addressed in

§ 237.111.

12. Scheduling inspections.

(a) A bridge management program should include a means to ensure that each bridge under

the program is inspected at the frequency prescribed for that bridge by a competent engineer.

Scheduling of bridge inspections is addressed in § 237.101.

(b) Bridge inspections should be scheduled from an accurate bridge inventory list that

includes the due date of the next inspection.

13. Special considerations for railroad bridges.

Railroad bridges differ from other types of bridges in the types of loads they carry, in their

modes of failure and indications of distress, and in their construction details and components.

Proper inspection and analysis of railroad bridges require familiarity with the loads, details and

indications of distress that are unique to this class of structure. Particular care should be taken

that modifications to railroad bridges, including retrofits for protection against the effects of

earthquakes, are suitable for the structure to which they are to be applied. Modifications should

not adversely affect the serviceability of neither the bridge nor its accessibility for periodic or

special inspection.

14. Railroad implementation of bridge safety programs.

FRA recommends that each track owner or other entity which is responsible for the integrity

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

100

of bridges which support its track should comply with the intent of this regulation by adopting

and implementing an effective and comprehensive program to ensure the safety of its bridges.

The bridge safety program should incorporate the following essential elements, applied

according to the configuration of the railroad and its bridges. The basis of the program should

be in one comprehensive and coherent document which is available to all railroad personnel and

other persons who are responsible for the application of any portion of the program. The

program should include:

(a) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all persons who are designated or

authorized to make determinations regarding the integrity of the track owner’s bridges. The

designations may be made by position or by individual;

Guidance. Designations must be made by individual. Designation by position is not

permitted as this is in direct conflict with § 237.57.

(b) Provisions for a complete inventory of bridges that carry the owner’s track, to include

the following information on each bridge:

(1) A unique identifier, such as milepost location and a subdivision code;

(2) The location of the bridge by nearest town or station, and geographic coordinates;

(3) The name of the geographic features crossed by the bridge;

(4) The number of tracks on the bridge;

(5) The number of spans in the bridge;

(6) The lengths of the spans;

(7) Types of construction of:

(i) Substructure;

(ii) Superstructure; and

(iii) Deck;

(8) Overall length of the bridge;

(9) Dates of:

(i) Construction;

(ii) Major renovation; and

(iii) Strengthening; and

(10) Identification of entities responsible for maintenance of the bridge or its different

components.

engineer or by design documents;

(d) Procedures for the control of movement of high, wide or heavy loads exceeding the

nominal capacity of bridges;

(e) Instructions for the maintenance of permanent records of design, construction,

modification, and repair;

(f) Railroad-specific procedures and standards for design and rating of bridges;

(g) Detailed bridge inspection policy, including:

(1) Inspector qualifications; including:

(i) Bridge experience or appropriate educational training;

(ii) Training on bridge inspection procedures; and

(iii) Training on Railroad Workplace Safety; and

(2) Type and frequency of inspection; including:

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

101

(i) Periodic (at least annually);

(ii) Underwater;

(iii) Special;

(iv) Seismic; and

(v) Cursory inspections of overhead bridges that are not the responsibility of the railroad;

(3) Inspection schedule for each bridge;

(4) Documentation of inspections; including:

(i) Date;

(ii) Name of inspector;

(iii) Reporting Format; and

(iv) Coherence of information;

(5) Inspection Report Review Process;

(6) Record retention; and

(7) Tracking of critical deficiencies to resolution; and

(h) Provide for the protection of train operations following an inspection, noting a critical

deficiency, repair, modification or adverse event and should include:

(1) A listing of qualifications of personnel permitted to authorize train operations following

an adverse event; and

(2) Detailed internal program audit procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of

the program.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

102

Appendix B – Schedule of Civil Penalties

Defect Description (sorted by paragraph) Code

(unsorted)

Violation Willful

Violation

Subpart B

– Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance

237.31 Adoption of bridge management program

$9,500

$17,000

237.33 Content of bridge management program

(a) Inventory of railroad bridges

2,500

5,000

(b) Record of safe load capacity

5,500

10,000

(i) Design documents

5,500

10,000

(ii) Documentation of repairs and modifications

2,500

5,000

(iii) Inspection reports

2,500

5,000

(d) Bridge inspection program content

2,500

5,000

Subpart C

– Qualifications and Designations of Responsible Persons

237.51 Railroad bridge engineers

(a) Competency

5,500

10,000

(b) Educational qualification

2,500

5,000

237.53 Railroad bridge inspectors

5,500

10,000

237.55 Railroad bridge supervisors

5,500

10,000

237.57 Designation of individuals

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

103

2,500

5,000

Subpart D

– Capacity of Bridges

237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities

(a) Safe load capacity

5,500

10,000

(b) Load capacity documented

5,500

10,000

5,500

10,000

(d) Method of load capacity determination

2,500

5,000

(e) Prioritization of load capacity determination

2,500

5,000

(f) New load capacity determined due to change in condition

2,500

5,000

(g) Load capacity stated in terms of weight and length of equipment

2,500

5,000

(h) Restriction on operations by railroad bridge engineer

5,500

10,000

237.73 Protection of bridges from over

-weight and over-dimension equipment

(a) Instructions issued

5,500

10,000

(b) Weight instructions

2,500

5,000

2,500

5,000

(d) Incorrect instructions issued

2,500

5,000

Subpart E

– Bridge Inspection

237.101 Scheduling of bridge inspections

(a) Scheduling

(i) Failure to inspect

9,500

17,000

(ii) Inspection within calendar year

2,500

5,000

(iii) Inspection frequency exceeding 540 days

2,500

5,000

(b) Increased inspection frequency

5,500

10,000

2,500

5,000

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

104

(d) Resumption of railroad operations prior to inspection and review

9,500

17,000

237.103 Bridge inspection procedures

2,500

5,000

237.105 Special inspections

(a) Procedures to protect train operations and requiring special inspections

2,500

5,000

(b) Provision for the detection of scour or underwater deterioration

2,500

5,000

237.107 Conduct of bridge inspections

5,500

10,000

237.109 Bridge inspection records

(a) Record of inspection

2,500

5,000

(b) Inspection record

(i) Certification and date

2,500

5,000

(ii) Falsification

17,000

2,500

5,000

(d) Initial report within 30 days

2,500

5,000

(e) Final inspection report within 120 calendar days

2,500

5,000

(f) Retention

2,500

5,000

(g) Prompt reporting of dangerous conditions

5,500

10,000

237.111 Review of bridge inspection

reports

(a) Review by railroad bridge engineers and supervisors

2,500

5,000

(b) Appropriate action concerning present or potential safety hazards

5,500

10,000

2,500

5,000

(d) Scheduling remedial action

2,500

5,000

(e) Higher-level review

2,500

5,000

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

105

Subpart F

– Repair and Modification of Bridges

237.131 Design

5,500

10,000

237.133 Supervision of repairs and modifications

5,500

10,000

Subpart G

– Documentation, Records, and Audits of Bridge Management Programs

237.151 Audits; general

2,500

5,000

237.153 Audits of inspections

2,500

5,000

237.155 Documents and records

(a) Electronic recordkeeping, general

2,500

5,000

(b) System security

2,500

5,000

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

106

CHAPTER 4 – Exceptions to the Standards

Introduction

Part 237 contains the minimum requirements for railroad bridge inspection and safety

management. Railroads must comply with many separate requirements contained in the BSS. If

a railroad fails to meet these requirements and train operations continue without appropriate

mitigation, enforcement action should be taken.

Every situation involves many factors. As such, each bridge specialist must exercise

professional judgment, guided by the enforcement discretion criteria set forth in Part 209,

Appendix A (Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad

Safety Laws), when deciding whether to recommend legal action for noncompliance with

the BSS. Among those criteria are “the inherent seriousness of the condition or action,”

the “kind and degree of potential safety hazard the condition or action poses in light of the

immediate factual situation,” “the general level of current compliance,” and the “recent

history of compliance.” This chapter will assist the bridge specialist in making

enforcement determinations by providing guidelines for assessing the seriousness of any

defect in the specific context of the BSS and the conditions observed during a particular

inspection. This promotes FRA’s policy of focused enforcement (i.e., the use of FRA’s

limited enforcement resources to attack the most serious and persistent compliance

problems).

FRA’s primary goal is “to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce

railroad-related accidents and incidents.” (See 49 U.S.C. § 20101.) It may be necessary to

improve compliance to reduce the risk of accidents in a particular situation; this should be a

primary factor in determining enforcement action, such as the imposition of civil penalties.

A bridge specialist can initiate enforcement action of various types (used individually or in

combination). The enforcement tools available (in order of increasing severity) are:

1. Defect report (Form FRA F6180.96)

2. Violation report recommending a civil penalty (Form FRA F6180.111)

3. Compliance order recommendation

4. Emergency order recommendation

Each bridge specialist must remember that the purpose of the safety laws, the BSS, and

enforcement activity is to reduce train accidents, casualties, and property damage resulting from

deficient bridge safety management practices and undetected or unprotected defective conditions

in railroad bridges. Whereas adherence to each requirement of the BSS will help lessen the risk

of bridge-caused accidents, the bridge specialist must be able to distinguish the varying levels of

safety risk presented by violations of different standards. Each condition identified in the BSS

has a different effect on the effectiveness of a track owner’s BMP and practices and, accordingly,

different conditions have widely varying effects on the immediate hazard to train operations. For

example, in most cases, an undetected or unrecorded fracture in a bridge member or connection

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

107

presents a greater immediate hazard to trains than failing to include the date an inspection report

was prepared.

When determining which of the four enforcement actions to pursue, a bridge specialist must

consider the risk of an accident presented by the defect itself. In addition, the bridge specialist

must consider the possible consequences of an accident caused by the condition, whether the

railroad representative knew the defective condition existed, and the railroad’s BSS compliance

history. Train speed at the particular location, type of traffic handled on the line (hazardous

materials, passengers), population proximity, and terrain all can influence the consequences of an

accident.

Defect Reports

All enforcement activity begins with an inspection, during which the bridge specialist must

record all occurrences of regulatory noncompliance as defects on a Form FRA F6180.96.

(See Chapter 2 of this manual for instructions). Defect reporting constitutes the most frequently

used enforcement action and may lay the groundwork for more severe enforcement action, if

necessary. Exercise care to conduct a thorough inspection, recording the location, type, and

extent of each defect discovered. While defect reporting is usually sufficient to achieve

compliance, the bridge specialist must remember that every defect report may become part of a

violation report if defects remain. It is imperative that these reports are legible, accurate, and

complete. The description and location of each defect should be concise enough that persons

not present during the inspection could locate the defects. Sound performance during

inspections and reporting ensures sound legal action in the future, if needed.

Violation Reports

A defect is a condition not in compliance with the BSS. Defects noted on inspection reports

serve as notification to the railroad of FRA’s awareness of the defect’s existence. Defects may

also serve as evidence of the railroad’s knowledge of the defect (see the discussion below of

the Knowledge Standard). An FRA bridge specialist may choose to also recommend a civil

penalty (violation) for a defect, and so note the decision on the inspection form. A violation

serves two purposes: 1) It notifies the railroad that FRA has concluded a condition does not

comply with the BSS; and 2) it notifies the railroad that the bridge specialist has reviewed the

circumstances associated with the condition of noncompliance and recommends a civil penalty.

Once the bridge specialist has determined that a civil penalty should be recommended, all facets

of the conditions and circumstances must be carefully considered to make a judgment as to the

degree of the violation. Any person who violates, or causes the violation of, any requirement of

Part 237 is subject to a civil penalty of at least $853, and up to $27,904—the ordinary maximum

(maximum penalty for any ordinary violation under Federal railroad safety laws)—per

violation. See 49 CFR § 237.7(a). The aggravated maximum penalty for violations of railroad

safety laws “when a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has caused an

imminent hazard of death or injury to individuals or has caused death or injury” is soon to be

adjusted to $111,616. The bridge specialist must present the facts of the situation in the

narrative report and a recommendation for prosecution must leave no doubt as to the degree of

seriousness of the violation.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

108

The bridge specialist should be familiar with the penalty amount normally assessed for a

particular violation under the penalty schedule for Part 237 (See Chapter 3, Appendix B –

Schedule of Civil Penalties). If the circumstances seem to warrant a higher penalty and/or

the assessment of penalties for multiple days that a violation continued, the bridge

specialist must discuss these factors with the Chief Engineer–Structures. If both agree that

the extraordinary penalties are appropriate, they must prepare a cover memorandum for the

Chief Engineer–Structures to send to RCC. The memorandum must explain the factors that

warrant higher-than-normal penalties and/or an assessment for multiple days, note what the

amount of the recommended assessment would be, and explain why such an extraordinary

assessment is needed in this situation. This memorandum must provide the information

and justification required by the “Enhanced Penalties” memo dated August 31, 2016 (See

General Manual, Appendix D).

Knowledge Standard

In submitting a violation report recommending the issuance of a civil penalty, the bridge

specialist must fully support the conclusion that the track owner had actual or constructive

knowledge of the defect at a time when operations occurred over the track, including bridges.

One way to establish actual knowledge is for the bridge specialist to record and notify the track

owner when the defect is found, then re-inspect later to see if the track owner has taken

appropriate remedial action. If the track owner has not taken appropriate action, the bridge

specialist should cite the track owner for a violation of the BSS. In demonstrating actual

knowledge, the violation report must clearly trace each defect to a specific item in an FRA

inspection report and/or in railroad inspection records. Additionally, a citizen complaint or

concern directed to a railroad would fulfill the knowledge standard.

In some situations, the defect has not been noted on a previous FRA inspection report or the

railroad’s own inspection records. Citing such a defect as a violation requires that the bridge

specialist demonstrate the track owner’s constructive knowledge. Establishing constructive

knowledge of a defect requires proof that the track owner would have known of the defect if the

owner had conducted its previous inspection with reasonable care. The track owner’s duty to

inspect and manage its bridges gives it notice of any defect that such a required inspection

would reveal, whether or not the railroad detected it. With demonstrated constructive

knowledge and a civil penalty recommended, the bridge specialist should attach a copy of the

railroad’s last required report of inspection. The bridge specialist must explain why the defect

is of such a nature that it would have had to exist at the time of the last inspection.

Criteria Affecting the Seriousness of a Noncomplying Condition

A noncomplying condition under one set of circumstances may warrant a defect, while the same

condition under a different set of circumstances may warrant a violation. The enforcement

discretion considerations in Part 209, Appendix A, require the bridge specialist to consider the

inherent seriousness of the condition. For example, in the BSS context, does the nature of this

particular defect substantially increase the risk of an accident? Application of these criteria

requires that the bridge specialist be generally familiar with the key components of the BSS

regulation and critical aspects of bridge safety management. Among these critical aspects are

comprehensive bridge inspections with accurate documentation, protection from overweight or

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

109

over-dimension loads, and taking appropriate protective measures once a deficient bridge

condition becomes known.

In addition to the inherent hazard posed by the defect, the enforcement discretion

considerations also require the bridge specialist to consider factors present in the immediate

factual situation that may exacerbate or lessen the risk of serious consequences should an

accident occur due to the inherent hazard posed by the defect. The bridge specialist must

also consider the track owner’s compliance history as a whole or in a particular territory;

repeated noncompliance generally warrants enforcement action more than a rare

noncomplying condition. Some examples of criteria for consideration when making a

decision whether or not to recommend a civil penalty include:

•

Passenger trains operating on railroad’s tracks

•

Hazardous materials (hazmat) transported on railroad’s tracks

•

Critical energy routes

•

Population density (urban or residential areas) near railroad’s track network

•

Speed authorized for trains on tracks

•

Annual tonnage traveling over railroad’s tracks

•

Proximity to schools and highway-rail grade crossings

•

Compliance history of a railroad

•

Accident history of a railroad

•

Potential for negative environmental impact near a railroad’s track system

•

Operational size of a railroad

•

Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) Route within a railroad’s track system

A violation report should stress the importance of the violation in light of the immediate

circumstances, as well as the inherent hazard posed by the condition.

As discussed above, each bridge specialist must exercise good professional judgment and weigh

the enforcement discretion criteria when deciding whether to recommend a violation. The

bridge specialist’s exercise of discretion is subject to supervisory review. Moreover, as an

Agency, FRA has the duty to guide the exercise of that discretion to ensure properly focused

enforcement on important compliance problems.

In determining which instances of noncompliance merit penalty recommendations, the bridge

specialist considers (Part 209, Appendix A):

1. The inherent seriousness of the condition or action.

2. The kind and degree of potential safety hazard the condition or action poses in light of

the immediate factual situation.

3. Any actual harm to persons or property already caused by the condition or action.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

110

4. The offending person’s (i.e., a railroad or an individual) general level of current

compliance as revealed by the inspection as a whole.

5. The person’s recent history of compliance with the relevant set of regulations, especially

at the specific location or division of the railroad involved.

6. Whether a remedy other than a civil penalty (ranging from a warning on up to an

emergency order) is more appropriate under all of the facts.

7. Other factors that the immediate circumstances make relevant.

Certain circumstances concerning the BSS most likely warrant recommendation for civil penalty.

These criteria (listed below) are a general application of the enforcement discretion applied to

common factual patterns involving critical aspects of bridge safety management, extremely

persistent noncompliance, and/or willful noncompliance. Although it is not possible to list all

circumstances that most likely warrant a civil penalty, these conditions should result in a

violation unless the bridge specialist determines special circumstances are present that indicate

otherwise. Such special circumstances may include immediate and comprehensive remedial

action or factors that lessen the severity of the defects (e.g., dramatic reductions in traffic volume

or changes in the railroad’s management). Unless the bridge specialist and Chief Engineer–

Structures agree that circumstances dictate otherwise, a civil penalty is recommended for the

following situations:

• Follow-up inspections disclose that unsatisfactory remedial action (or no action) was

taken for conditions of noncompliance previously noted during bridge safety oversight

inspections.

• Systemic defects (should have been known to the track owner) are part of a pattern of

repeated, similar substandard conditions as a whole or on a particular territory.

• Failing to adopt a BMP once knowledge of the requirement has been established.

• Failing to ensure that repairs or modifications are properly supervised by a designated

railroad bridge supervisor.

• Failing to determine safe bridge load capacity.

• Failing to inspect one or more bridges after considering whether the defect is isolated or

demonstrates a pattern of noncompliance.

• A pattern of inaccurate bridge inspection reports.

• Failing to take appropriate corrective action following the identification of a seriously

deficient bridge condition.

The list above does not constitute an all-inclusive list of items that should result in a violation.

However, if bridge specialists consistently address these situations through enforcement action,

FRA will effectively focus enforcement where it counts the most. This will be an important

catalyst in helping the industry reduce bridge-caused accidents. If a bridge specialist believes a

civil penalty should not be recommended for any situation described above, the specialist must

discuss the special circumstances with the Chief Engineer–Structures. This review is necessary

to achieve a reasonably uniform and consistent enforcement policy. Refer to Chapter 2 of this

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

111

manual for instructions on preparing a violation report (Form FRA F6180.111).

A regular cycle of inspection, notification by Form FRA F 6180.96, and re-inspection, is the best

and most desirable means of promoting compliance and acquiring evidence of deliberate

noncompliance. Make sure to cite the same defects in the original report and the report

recommending a civil penalty. The original report must be included as background information

supporting the material forwarded for legal action. In addition, individually reference each item

number in the original report.

Complaint and Accident Investigations

If allegations of noncompliance with FRA’s BSS are substantiated during a complaint

investigation, and if consideration of the criteria discussed above indicates that it is the

appropriate course, a violation report should be submitted.

During an accident investigation in which bridge safety management practices not in

compliance with FRA’s BSS are determined to be a causal factor and the knowledge standard

can be satisfied, a violation report must be submitted. In such a situation, explain the causal

relationship in detail, and a cover memorandum noting the causal relationship and

recommended aggravated penalties must be submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel (RCC)

with the violation report.

Compliance Orders and Compliance Agreements

General Instructions

Under 49 U.S.C. 20111, FRA has the authority to issue compliance orders when the agency has

reason to believe that the respondent is engaging in a continuing pattern of conduct that involves

violations of the BSS. Procedures for issuing a compliance order are found in Part 209,

Subpart C.

A compliance order normally will require remedial actions necessary to assure compliance with

the regulations, and may impose restrictions until compliance is achieved. A compliance order

involving the BSS may include a requirement that the track owner perform inspections,

undertake engineering evaluations, or make specified repairs by a specific deadline. The

compliance order does not necessarily remove bridges from service. If the railroad does not

comply with the terms of the order, FRA may seek penalties for violation of the order or seek

enforcement of the order in Federal court.

Procedures

If, during a bridge safety oversight inspection, a bridge specialist determines that a railroad is

engaging in a continuing pattern of conduct that involves repeated violations of the BSS, the

Chief Engineer–Structures, must be notified. General guidelines for determining this continuing

conduct or pattern are as follows:

• A number of inspections have been made.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

112

• These inspections continue to reveal defects and repeated noncompliance.

• The track owner refuses to bring their BMP and bridge safety management practices into

compliance with the standards.

• The bridge specialist has made every attempt to have the track owner take remedial

action through actions such as:

o Repeated inspections.

o Submission of violation reports.

o Meetings with carrier officials explaining the seriousness of the existing conditions.

If it is determined by the Chief Engineer–Structures after discussion with the bridge specialist

that there is a pattern of repeated noncompliance and conditions present a threat to safety,

consideration should be given to recommending the issuance of a compliance order. The Deputy

Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety (RRS-2) and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety

(RCC-10) must be notified and consulted at this time. The recommendation containing the

information noted below under “documentation” must be forwarded to both offices.

Documentation

Complete documentation must be developed and included with the recommendation of the Chief

Engineer–Structures. This documentation must include the following:

• Location of all defects, including measurements, where required. This is to be recorded

on Form FRA F6180.96.

• Copies of Form FRA F6180.96 for relevant previous inspections at this location.

• Copies of all relevant violation reports concerning the area in question.

• List of all bridge-caused accidents, reportable and non-reportable, that occurred during

the previous 12 months.

• Copies of railroad inspection reports for the previous 24 months.

• A written narrative must be prepared detailing all relevant facts, including, but not

limited to, the following:

o Amount and type of rail traffic.

o Proximity of tracks to homes, schools, stores, etc.

o The railroad’s inspection and maintenance programs and procedures.

o The seriousness of the defects.

o The basis for the determination that a pattern of noncompliance exists.

o Details of each meeting held with railroad officials including dates, names, and titles

of those in attendance and items discussed.

Based on the information submitted, the Office of Railroad Safety and RCC will decide

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

113

whether to recommend to the Administrator that a compliance order proceeding be initiated.

With the Administrator’s approval, RCC would then issue a notice of investigation based on

the documentation submitted. If the railroad requests a hearing, FRA’s hearing officer would

preside over a trial-type hearing where FRA would have the burden of proving its factual

allegations and the reasonableness of the remedial action sought. The hearing officer’s

decision could be appealed to the Administrator, and the Administrator’s decision could be

challenged in court. At any time during this process, FRA and the railroad could agree to a

consent order and present it to the Administrator for signature. A consent order would

impose requirements on the railroad and preclude further litigation of the issues.

In recent years, FRA has developed a simpler way of using the compliance order authority.

Under a compliance agreement, the railroad agrees to take certain remedial actions; should

those actions not occur to FRA’s satisfaction, the railroad agrees not to oppose issuance of a

compliance order or an emergency order imposing those conditions. Whereas the preparatory

work necessary for a compliance agreement is substantially the same as for a compliance order

(outlined above), the agreement presents FRA and the railroad with certain advantages. FRA

can obtain remedial action quickly and informally, and if the terms of the agreement are not met,

FRA can issue a compliance order or an emergency order without the time, expense, and

litigation risk of a formal proceeding. Therefore, the railroad achieves improved compliance

without being subject to an actual order unless it fails to meet its obligations under the

agreement. In some agreements, FRA waives its right to pursue civil penalties for specified

violations if the railroad meets all conditions of the agreement. In other agreements, the railroad

will pay civil penalties on certain extremely serious violations that FRA may find while the

agreement is in effect. If a compliance problem appears to be an appropriate situation for such

an agreement, regional managers should contact RRS-10 and RCC-10.

Emergency Orders

Under 49 U.S.C. 20104, FRA has authority to take special remedial action to handle emergency

situations. If, through testing, inspection, investigation, or research, FRA decides that “an unsafe

condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, causes an emergency

situation involving a hazard of death or personal injury,” FRA may immediately issue an

emergency order. The order may impose restrictions or prohibitions necessary to bring about the

abatement of the emergency situation. The authority to issue such an order rests with the FRA

Administrator.

Unlike a compliance order, FRA may issue an emergency order without first providing the

opportunity for a hearing. Accordingly, FRA has used the authority sparingly, and issued

only 31 orders from 1970 through 2017, of which 3 pertained to railroad bridges. Although

the statute does not define the emergency situation that must be present for FRA to issue such

an order, FRA believes it refers to conditions and/or practices that present an imminent

hazard of death or injury. The authority can be used to address conditions that are not in

compliance with FRA’s rules and conditions that are not addressed by those rules.

General Procedures

A bridge specialist who discovers or is informed of conditions that may constitute an emergency

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

114

situation must immediately contact the Chief Engineer–Structures. During an inspection, if an

apparent emergency situation is brought to the bridge specialist’s attention, the bridge specialist

must immediately inspect the alleged condition or practice to determine whether an emergency

situation exists. If, during an inspection, the bridge specialist discovers an emergency situation,

or determines after an inspection that an emergency situation exists, then the bridge specialist

must immediately follow the procedures outlined in this chapter. If the bridge specialist has any

doubt as to whether a condition or practice constitutes an emergency, the bridge specialist must

consult the Chief Engineer–Structures.

• The Chief Engineer–Structures must immediately ascertain if there is a reasonable basis

for the allegation and alert FRA headquarters to the situation.

• The Chief Engineer–Structures must make a preliminary determination as to whether

further inspection is necessary.

• If the allegation of an emergency situation appears to have merit, the Chief Engineer–

Structures must contact the track owner immediately, ascertain as many pertinent details

as possible concerning the situation, and attempt to obtain immediate voluntary

abatement prior to the inspection. The Chief Engineer–Structures should ascertain and

evaluate the steps, if any, that the track owner indicates should be used to abate the

danger. An investigation must then be conducted in accordance with the procedures

outlined in this chapter.

Technical Considerations

After the determination to investigate has been made, the inspection should be thoroughly

planned to the extent time permits. The Chief Engineer–Structures and bridge specialist should

review the known facts and decide what technical equipment and personnel may be necessary to

conduct the inspection.

Scheduling

Any allegation of an emergency situation received by a regional office or FRA headquarters,

whether written or oral, must be handled as a high priority. Other commitments, weekends,

holidays, leave, and other considerations must not interfere with the expeditious and thorough

handling of these cases.

If it is determined that an inspection should be made, it must be scheduled and conducted at the

earliest possible time. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the inspection should be

conducted within 24 hours of the receipt and preliminary evaluation of the alleged emergency

situation.

Inspection

In an inspection conducted because of an allegation of an emergency situation, the alleged

situation must be inspected first.

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

115

Any additional inspection activity should take place only after resolution of the emergency

situation. After the emergency situation has been resolved, a complete inspection of the facility

may be conducted.

Voluntary Corrective Action

As soon as it is concluded that conditions exist that constitute an emergency situation, the bridge

specialist must attempt to have the situation immediately corrected through voluntary corrective

action by the railroad. The track owner or a representative of the owner must be promptly

advised that such a situation exists.

The track owner is ultimately responsible for determining the manner in which they will correct

the dangerous condition. Before leaving the premises, FRA personnel must determine that the

emergency situation has been resolved and will not recur. The track owner has resolved an

emergency situation if they eliminate exposure to the situation, or eliminate the condition or

practice that resulted in the situation.

If corrective action is taken voluntarily, the bridge specialist must make the appropriate notation

on the Form FRA F6180.96.

Refusal to Correct

If conditions that are of a serious nature are not corrected, the bridge specialist must immediately

notify the Chief Engineer–Structures. Depending on the degree of urgency, the Chief Engineer–

Structures will decide whether to proceed directly to recommend to FRA headquarters that an

emergency order be issued. Regardless of the route chosen, the bridge specialist must issue

Form FRA F6180.96.

The bridge specialist has no authority to order the closing down of an operation or to direct

employees to leave an area in the case of imminent danger. His or her only authority is to inform

the Chief Engineer–Structures of the conditions observed and provide the basis on which the

Chief Engineer–Structures can make a recommendation to the FRA Administrator through the

Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer.

Information Needed to Support Issuance of an Emergency Order

The Chief Engineer–Structures considers the bridge specialist’s report and any material

submitted by the railroad in developing a recommendation to the FRA Administrator. If the

Chief Engineer–Structures decides that emergency action is necessary, the recommendation must

be supported by ample documentation of the imminent safety hazard and previous attempts to

address related safety issues on the particular railroad. Time permitting, the supporting

documentation should include all of the following information.

General information required:

• Form FRA F6180.96 for the infrastructure recommended for the emergency order,

showing each defect found during the inspection. (Repetitive entries may be summarized

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

116

if a significant number of specific conditions are itemized and portray an accurate view of

overall conditions.)

• Previous inspection reports served on the carrier for the particular territory, including

returned reports (if any) showing corrective action.

• Relevant violation reports filed with the Office of Chief Counsel (by report number and

date of transmittal, and including FRA case number if known) and waiver investigation

reports, if any.

• Description of method of operation.

• Operating speeds—both temporary and permanent, bridge weight and dimension capacity

(copies of timetable, special instructions, slow orders).

Facts demonstrating that the defect poses an imminent hazard of death or injury to

persons:

• Narrative report of discussions with railroad representatives in chronological sequence,

providing dates, locations, names, and titles.

• Number of trains (passenger, through freight, local, by category) and annual tonnage.

• Motive power employed on line, maximum train lengths, and railroad-imposed

limitations on axle loads or particular equipment.

Hazardous materials information:

• Volume of hazardous material traffic over the line, based on review of waybills or

consists for a period of 2 to 4 weeks prior to the date of the investigation.

• Type of hazardous material traffic (illustrative listing of recent hazardous material data

identifying number of cars carrying explosives, poison gas, flammable gas, chlorine,

anhydrous ammonia, etc.).

• Hazardous material violation history on line as related to derailment risks (train

placement, etc.).

Demographic information:

• Towns and cities along the line by name, referenced by railroad milepost and

approximate population.

• Illustrative description of the area (including homes, schools, businesses, hospitals, etc.),

indicating proximity to rights-of-way, railroad mileposts, and estimated number of

persons affected. Include major highway-rail grade crossings and railroad bridges over

public streets. Provide photographs showing track in foreground and areas potentially at

risk in background and street maps, if readily available.

Topographic information:

• General description of curves and grades. (Provide track charts, if available).

• Railroad bridges and sharp drop-offs adjacent to rights-of-way. (Include photographs, as

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

117

appropriate).

• Clearances with reference to other active track and structures along rights-of-way.

(Include photographs, as appropriate).

Accident history:

• Rail equipment accident/incident reports for the past 24 months, regardless of railroad-

identified cause.

• FRA accident investigation reports, if any.

• Internal railroad reports of accidents not reported to FRA.

Special factors:

• Abandonment plans and status, if applicable.

• State agency interest in rail service continuation, if applicable.

• Planned rehabilitation efforts, if any.

• Involvement of State in inspections and investigations, if any.

• Press reports, complaints from public officials and/or union officers, etc.

• Economic impact of proposed order (only readily available information).

• List of major industries on line (with indication of hazardous material traffic, if known),

obtained from the railroad, and the likely effect that order will have on their business.

Railroad response:

Current information on planned remedial action, adequacy of response, projected completion

dates, resources actually committed, progress of work to date of recommendation.

FRA actions needed to support issuance of an emergency order:

• Bridge specialist notifies railroad representative of deficient conditions. (Note: The

Chief Engineer–Structures can choose to bypass this step and instead simply inform the

railroad that he or she intends to recommend issuance of an emergency order based on

the inspection results). The Chief Engineer–Structures assigns responsibilities to

complete field investigation.

• Chief Engineer–Structures alerts Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety.

• Railroad Safety Information Management Division (RRS-22) assists in the development

of accident history information.

• RCC and Office of Technical Oversight, Bridge and Structures Division, work together to

draft emergency order.

• Administrator issues order.

Wherever an emergency order has been issued by FRA, the bridge specialist must arrange to

immediately make a follow-up investigation to determine if the track owner is complying with

Bridge Safety Standards Compliance Manual

118

the terms of the order. The Chief Engineer–Structures arranges follow-up inspections, as

requested by the railroad, to determine whether conditions for lifting the order have been fully

met on all, or a portion, of the infrastructure affected.

Where follow-up inspections indicate that relief from the order is fully or partially warranted, the

Chief Engineer–Structures notifies RRS-10 and RCC-10. Those offices draft Federal Register

notices necessary to grant relief from the order.

These procedures are intended to provide general guidance. Additional information may be

required in some instances. If there is any delay in the development of any elements pertaining

to an emergency order, such as typing field reports, the Office of Technical Oversight, Bridge

and Structures Division, should be consulted.

Violation of FRA Emergency Order

When a bridge specialist’s investigation, inspection, or surveillance activity discloses that a

railroad has violated a provision of an FRA emergency order, the bridge specialist must

immediately report the circumstances of the violation to the Chief Engineer–Structures. The

Chief Engineer–Structures must promptly transmit this information to the Associate

Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer and RCC for advice as to what action

should be taken and what information will be required to support that action.

An emergency order violation report must be made in memorandum form. The subject at the

heading of the memorandum should read, “Violation Report Concerning Emergency Order No.

(fill in number of order) Issued Against (fill in name of railroad).” The first paragraph of the

memorandum report should refer to the order involved, and provide a brief summary relative to

the circumstances and evidence to support the violation report in accordance with the advice

and instructions provided by RCC.

Enforcement of the Safety Laws and Regulations Against Individuals

For further discussion of individual liability, in addition to this chapter, bridge specialists should

reference the General Manual, Chapter 3, for guidance.

Under 49 U.S.C. 21311, substantial criminal penalties may apply to individuals or companies

who “knowingly and willfully” falsify records or reports required to be kept or submitted under

the railroad safety laws. The BSS contains specific recordkeeping requirements (e.g., § 237.109)

and a specific reference to the criminal provision (§ 237.7(b)). The “knowingly and willfully”

standard essentially requires that the Government be able to demonstrate that the person knew

what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway with criminal intent. The Government

would need to be able to prove all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of

the high standard for knowledge and difficult burden of proof in such cases, these are not easy to

prosecute. Moreover, failure to record bridge defects on a railroad’s inspection records is most

often the result of incompetence, negligence, or haste, rather than willful conduct. Nevertheless,

if a bridge specialist has reason to believe that a railroad might purposely be falsifying its

inspection records, the bridge specialist should contact DOT’s Office of Inspector General.