[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42643-42659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17787]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 650
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2008-0038]
RIN 2125-AF24
National Tunnel Inspection Standards
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA solicits comments concerning the establishment of
National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS). The NTIS would set minimum
tunnel inspection standards that apply to all tunnels constructed or
renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public roads
and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The agency proposes modeling the
NTIS after the existing National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) as
applicable. The NTIS would include requirements for inspection
procedures for structural elements and functional systems, including
mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and ventilation systems;
qualifications for inspectors; inspection frequencies; and a National
Tunnel Inventory (NTI).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2010. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70,
Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jesus M. Rohena, P.E., Office of
Bridge Technology, HIBT-10, (202) 366-4593, or Mr. Robert Black, Office
of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1359, Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal
Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov. It is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of
the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may also be
downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page
at http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web
page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.
Background
The safety and security of our Nation's tunnels are of paramount
importance to the FHWA. Recognizing that tunnel owners are not mandated
to inspect tunnels routinely and that inspection methods vary among
entities that inspect tunnels, the FHWA and the Federal Transit
Administration developed guidelines for the inspection of tunnels in
2003. The guidelines, known as the ``Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel
Inspection Manual,'' (HRTTIM) were updated in 2005.\1\ In addition, the
FHWA developed Tunnel Management Software to help tunnel owners manage
their tunnel inventory. However, tunnel owners have not adopted the
software uniformly, and the FHWA recognizes the limitations of the
software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit
Administration ``Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection
Manual,'' 2005 edition, is available in electronic format at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/management/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After investigating the fatal July 2006 suspended ceiling collapse
in the Central Artery Tunnel in Boston,
[[Page 42644]]
Massachusetts, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated
in its report that, ``had the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, at
regular intervals between November 2003 and July 2006, inspected the
area above the suspended ceilings in the D Street portal tunnels, the
anchor creep that led to this accident would likely have been detected,
and action could have been taken that would have prevented this
accident.'' Among its recommendations, the NTSB suggested that the FHWA
seek legislative authority to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection
program similar to the NBIS that would identify critical inspection
elements and specify an appropriate inspection frequency. Additionally,
the DOT Inspector General (IG), in testimony before Congress in October
2007, highlighted the need for a tunnel inspection and reporting system
to ensure the safety of the Nation's tunnels, stating that the FHWA
``should develop and implement a system to ensure that States inspect
and report on tunnel conditions.'' Additionally, the IG stated that
``FHWA should move aggressively on this rulemaking and establish
rigorous inspection standards as soon as possible.''
The NTIS would implement these NTSB and IG recommendations. The
FHWA proposes modeling the NTIS after the existing NBIS, located at 23
CFR 650, Subpart C. The agency proposes adding the NTIS under Subpart E
of 23 CFR Part 650--Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics.
The NTIS would require the proper safety inspection and evaluation
of tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that
are located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The
NTIS are needed to ensure that all structural, mechanical, electrical,
hydraulic and ventilation systems, and other major elements of our
Nation's tunnels are inspected and tested on a regular basis. The NTIS
would also ensure safety for the surface transportation users of our
Nation's highway tunnels, and would make tunnel inspection standards
consistent across the Nation. Additionally, tunnel inspections would
help protect Federal investment in such key infrastructure.
Timely tunnel inspection is vital to uncovering safety problems and
preventing failures. When corrosion or leakage occur, electrical or
mechanical systems malfunction, or concrete cracking and spalling signs
appear, they may be symptomatic of dire problems. The importance of
tunnel inspection was demonstrated in the summer of 2007 in the I-70
Hanging Lake tunnel in Colorado when a ceiling and roof inspection
uncovered a crack in the roof that was compromising the structural
integrity of the tunnel. This discovery prompted the closure of the
tunnel for several months for needed repairs. The repairs included
removal of more than 30 feet of soil fill material from the top of the
tunnel roof, temporary support of the roof from the inside of the
tunnel, removal of the suspended ceiling, and the design and
construction of a new slab cast on top of the existing roof to
reinforce and add extra structural capacity. To accomplish the repair,
the eastbound tube under the cracked roof was closed to traffic, and
the adjacent westbound tube was converted to a tube with bi-directional
traffic. Even though the eastbound tunnel was closed for 7 months, and
the repair cost approximately $6 million, the repairs helped prevent a
potential safety incident.
A preliminary tunnel survey conducted in 2003 suggests that there
are approximately 350 highway tunnels in the Nation, although no
comprehensive national inventory for tunnels currently exists. The FHWA
additionally estimates that tunnels represent nearly 100 linear miles--
approximately 517,000 linear feet--of Interstates, State routes, and
local routes. Most of these tunnels range in age from 51 to 100 years,
and some tunnels were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s. The FHWA
anticipates that the NTIS would help create a national inventory of
tunnels that would lead to a more accurate assessment of the number and
condition of tunnels in the Nation.
Tunnels like the Central Artery tunnel in Massachusetts, the
Lincoln Tunnel in New York, the Fort McHenry and the Baltimore Harbor
tunnels in Maryland, just to mention a few, are a vital part of the
national transportation infrastructure. These tunnels handle a huge
volume of daily traffic. For example, according to the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, the Lincoln Tunnel carries approximately
120,000 vehicles per day, making it the busiest vehicular tunnel in the
world. The Fort McHenry Tunnel handles a daily traffic volume of more
than 115,000 vehicles. Any disruption of traffic in these or other
highly traveled tunnels would result in lost productivity. Because
tunnels are vital to the local, regional, and national economies, and
to our national defense, it is imperative that these facilities are
properly maintained and inspected to ensure the safe passage of the
traveling public and goods.
Currently, there is no uniformity with respect to how frequently
tunnels are inspected. The frequency of tunnel inspections varies from
daily to every 10 years. Some inspectors in colder climates walk
through air ducts on a daily basis to identify potential icing problems
due to water leakage. Some inspectors examine mechanical and electrical
equipment on a daily basis, while others perform such inspections on a
monthly basis. Under the proposed NTIS, State departments of
transportation (State DOTs) and Federal agencies owning tunnels would
be responsible for ensuring compliance with the NTIS for tunnels
constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located
on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The proposed NTIS
would require that these tunnels are inspected routinely, that the
findings of such inspections are reported to the FHWA, and that
deficiencies are corrected in a timely manner.
Summary of Comments Received to the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM)
The FHWA issued an ANPRM on November 18, 2008, at 73 FR 68365, to
solicit public comments regarding 14 categories of information related
to tunnel inspections to help FHWA develop the NTIS. The FHWA received
comments on the docket from 20 commenters, including: 9 State DOTs
(Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Florida, and Washington); 1 metropolitan transit authority
(Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority/Metropolitan Transit Authority
Bridges and Tunnels (TBTA/MTA); 3 engineering consulting firms (United
Technologies Corporation (UTC), Jacobs Associates, and PB Americas); 2
private citizens; and 4 organizations (American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC),
and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)). Additionally, in a
letter to Secretary LaHood, Congressman Joseph Capuano of Massachusetts
expressed support for the development of NTIS. Commenters
overwhelmingly supported the development of NTIS and agree that FHWA
should model the NTIS after the NBIS.
Discussion of ANPRM Comments Concerning NTIS
Applicability
In the ANPRM, the FHWA proposed that the NTIS apply to all Federal-
aid
[[Page 42645]]
funded highway tunnels on public roads in the 50 States, District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In his letter to Secretary LaHood,
Congressman Capuano asserted that the NTIS should apply to all highway
tunnels, but recognized that current law may limit FHWA's authority to
only Federal-aid highway tunnels.
Definition of a Tunnel
In the ANPRM, FHWA asked several questions related to the
definition of a ``tunnel,'' including what requirements the FHWA should
incorporate into the definition of a ``tunnel,'' whether there should
be a minimum length or other criteria required before a tunnel is
subject to the NTIS, and whether the FHWA should adopt the AASHTO or
NFPA tunnel definition. In general, most commenters expressed support
for adoption of the AASHTO tunnel definition with modifications. Ohio
DOT, PB Americas, TBTA/MTA, Jacobs Associates, ACEC, and ASCE commented
that the tunnel definition should include a minimum length. PB Americas
commented that the NTIS should adopt the AASHTO definition and add a
length requirement of 800 feet. Jacobs Associates indicated that the
agency should consider a minimum structure length-to-height ratio of
three to define a tunnel. The ASCE expressed support for a minimum
length of 20 feet. Ohio DOT and ACEC commented the NTIS should have a
length requirement; however, they did not suggest a length. The NFPA
commented that the definition of tunnel need not contain a minimum
length; however, tunnels should be categorized by tunnel length. The
AASHTO, New Jersey DOT, TBTA/MTA, Washington State DOT, and
Pennsylvania DOT commented the NTIS should adopt the AASHTO definition
of a tunnel. The ACEC asserted that the tunnel definition should
include tunnels that have been created by a group of bridges, airtight
structures, parking, or other facilities built close to each other.
Inspection Procedures
In the ANPRM, FHWA asked if the proposed NTIS should adopt the
inspection techniques and standards described in the HRTTIM. Most
commenters agreed that the NTIS should either adopt or utilize the
HRTTIM with respect to inspections and ratings. The ACEC asserted that
the HRTTIM should be adopted, but with modifications. California DOT
(Caltrans) commented that the HRTTIM needed significant modifications
and, in particular, noted that the HRTTIM lacked guidance relative to
the inspection of electrical and mechanical components and other
functional systems. Accordingly, Caltrans proposed that the NTIS should
consider States' existing inspection guidelines. Ohio DOT objected to
the use of the HRTTIM, but offered no alternative suggestions.
The FHWA also asked whether additional sources of inspection
standards should be considered. A number of commenters, including the
ACEC, PB Americas, ASCE, AASHTO and others, recommended that the NTIS
develop and require a more element-level-based rating system.
Additionally, ASCE and Pennsylvania DOT recommended that the NTIS
incorporate a tunnel sufficiency rating. The New Jersey DOT stated that
for functional systems, owners should have the discretion to determine
or establish the type of inspection and frequency. The AASHTO asserted
that inspections should be routinely conducted at frequencies based on
need, whereas in-depth inspections should be conducted as determined by
the owner. Several commenters noted that risk-based inspection types
and frequencies should be considered. The ASCE commented that a risk-
based approach would address the inspection needs of geotechnical
aspects of a tunnel. The Massachusetts Highway Department
(MassHighways) and the ACEC noted that special inspections should be
triggered based on findings from the routine inspection. MassHighways
further noted that the actual type of inspection should be left to the
owner's discretion, while the ACEC recommended yearly visual
inspections and in-depth inspections on a 2-year cycle.
In the ANPRM, FHWA asked if tunnel inspections should include
evaluation of emergency response and non-emergency operational
procedures. Oregon DOT noted the importance of reviewing inspector
safety issues such as confined space and traffic safety requirements. A
number of commenters also indicated that some review or assessment of
tunnel security and emergency response procedures or measures might be
appropriate, although the New Jersey DOT asserted that actual tracking
and evaluation of these security systems could be problematic.
Regarding whether there are any special inspection procedures for
new tunnels that should be included in inspector manuals, some
commenters recommended that FHWA review and incorporate into the NTIS
inspection procedures or guidelines developed by other agencies or in
other countries. In particular, commenters pointed to the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-07 Task 261 report and
the AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation and Maintenance
Manual.
Frequency and Type of Inspections
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what tunnel elements and systems
should be inspected routinely. Oregon DOT indicated that drainage
systems should be inspected twice per year, and liner; portal slopes;
geotechnical elements; and lighting, ventilation, electrical, and fire
control systems should be inspected at a frequency determined by the
owner based on risk factors. New Jersey DOT commented that drainage
systems, tunnel structural supports (rock bolts, etc.), liner, portals,
portal slopes, lighting system and shut-off, ventilation, fire
suppression system, traffic visibility provisions, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities should be inspected. Ohio DOT recommended that
structural items, mechanical, electrical, and emergency systems should
be included in inspections. The TBTA/MTA suggested that roadways,
suspended ceiling, ventilation system, drainage, geometrical alignment,
signal, emergency telephone lines, and call boxes should be inspected.
The AASHTO asserted that all tunnel systems should be part of an
inspection program, including emergency response elements and
operational procedures. The AASHTO also indicated that inspections
should include structural, mechanical, electrical, emergency response,
and fire protection systems; geotechnical elements; wall tiles, water
pumps; emergency gates; evacuation tunnels; communication devices;
traffic signals; and lighting. The AASHTO further suggested that
inspectors should look for evidence of excessive seepage, settlement,
or instability impacting the tunnel walls, roof, floor, portals,
ceiling, or air shafts.
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what inspection frequency the NTIS
should establish for tunnel elements and systems. In general, most
commenters recommended that the NTIS should require inspections every
24 months. The AASHTO and Oregon DOT suggested that the NTIS should
require tunnel owners to establish a frequency for inspection based on
a list of risk factors because some tunnels may require more frequent
inspections than others. Ohio DOT and New Jersey DOT recommended that
emergency systems should be inspected more frequently depending on the
tunnel. The TBTA/MTA commented that elements directly affecting public
safety and traffic
[[Page 42646]]
continuity must be inspected on a routine basis. The AASHTO commented
that frequency should be determined based on need. MassHighways
asserted that inspection frequencies should be established for each
component based on risk and vulnerability to the tunnel operating
environment and mean time to failure. The ACEC commented that
inspection frequency could be based on the function of the inspected
item or system, the age of the structure, and the overall condition,
and that certain, more fragile safety-related systems might require an
inspection in close intervals, possibly on a monthly variable schedule,
even in new facilities. Jacobs Associates suggested that tunnel
inspections should be reviewed by an outside qualified reviewer every 5
years. The ASCE commented that the inspection frequencies may need to
vary depending on the complexity of the systems, the age of the
systems, and the operational characteristics of the tunnel facility.
The ASCE further proposed that the FHWA should consider European
practices identified in NCHRP 20-07 Task 261, the European Scan Tour,
and other related sources. PB Americas advised that routine inspections
should occur every 2 years, while inspections of critical elements must
be performed after any emergency event. Caltrans stated that the NTIS
should be flexible to allow States to establish their own inspection
frequencies, with the exception of structural components, which could
be inspected at intervals similar to inspection under the NBIS.
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked whether a minimum frequency for tunnel
inspection should be established. The majority of commenters stated
that there should be a minimum frequency, and most commenters favoring
a specific interval suggested a 2-year interval. Most commenters stated
that more frequent inspections should be required in many cases to
account for the wide variety of tunnel type and complexity, but that
owners should determine inspection frequency. Jacobs Associates, ACEC,
and PB Americas thought that the maximum interval of 12 months for
visual inspections is appropriate for most tunnels, with a hands-on
inspection completed at 2-year or longer intervals. The AASHTO, Oregon
DOT, and ACEC stated that a longer interval of 4 to 6 years should be
granted for new tunnels or tunnels with no advanced or unique
structural elements and systems. The AASHTO indicated that intervals up
to 6 years could be established for mechanical and electrical systems,
but most commenters thought that these systems should be inspected or
tested more frequently than tunnel structures.
In the ANPRM, we asked whether the NTIS should identify various
types of inspections, and if so, what types of inspections should be
defined. The majority of commenters noted that routine or visual
inspections should be conducted at a more frequent interval than in-
depth inspections, and that functional systems should receive
inspections at different frequencies depending on risk and the
complexity and condition of the systems.
In the ANPRM, we asked whether the frequency of each type of
inspection should vary according to the type of inspection. All
commenters agreed that inspection frequency should vary by type of
inspection and that owners should determine the frequencies of routine
and special inspections based on tunnel condition, age, and risk
factors. Commenters noted that systems that owners actively operate may
not need to be inspected as frequently as mechanical and electrical
systems that are operated only in an emergency mode. The majority of
commenters further suggested that structural systems of a tunnel should
be inspected with the same frequency as a bridge (at a minimum every 2
years). The ASCE asserted that for non-seismic zones, inspections of
geotechnical related items initially should be established on a minimum
schedule, but may be adjusted to a longer frequency if historic
inspection data indicate low risk of problems. For seismic zones, the
ASCE recommended inspections should occur immediately following an
earthquake.
The FHWA asked in the ANPRM whether the NTIS should include a risk-
based frequency to account for the complexity of each tunnel. All
commenters agreed that the NTIS should include a risk-based approach to
establish the inspection frequency. Caltrans recommended that risk-
based inspection frequencies should only apply to structural
components. PB Americas indicated that a risk-based frequency should be
established based on tunnel age, condition, and maintenance. The ACEC
recommended that a minimum visual inspection be conducted every year
and more extensive, hands-on inspections be conducted every 2 years.
The ACEC also suggested that the NTIS should include a default
inspection frequency for use in the absence of a structured risk-based
assessment.
In the ANPRM, we asked what factors (e.g., age, traffic, length,
ventilation, urban or rural location) should be included in a risk-
based frequency inspection system. Commenters generally included the
following as key risk factors to consider during inspections: Average
Daily Traffic, Average Daily Truck Traffic, length, age, condition,
detour length, presence of mechanical or ventilation systems, design
and construction type, submerged (or above water level), presence of
security systems, geotechnical environments through which the tunnel is
built (such as faults, aggressive or corrosive soils), tunnel location
importance, strategic values, seismic risk or vulnerability, and
traffic accident frequency. The ASCE commented that not all factors
should carry the same weight, and the weighting of individual factors
could vary from one structure to another.
Equipment and System Inspection
In the ANPRM, the FHWA indicated the NTIS likely would include
requirements for inspection procedures for structural, mechanical,
electrical, hydraulic or ventilation systems, and other major tunnel
elements. In general, all commenters agreed the NTIS should require
inspection of all systems in a tunnel. Oregon DOT remarked that the
NTIS should not contain arbitrary frequency or type of inspections, but
general guidelines with a requirement that the owner establish an
appropriate inspection process for each tunnel. The AASHTO recommended
inspecting portals, drainage systems, roadway surfaces, and air shafts.
The NFPA recommended that security systems should be installed,
inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 731, Standard
for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems.
Qualifications of Personnel
The FHWA also asked in the ANPRM whether inspector qualification
requirements should be the same as those established in the HRTTIM and
what should be required in terms of tunnel inspector training,
education, and experience. In general, the commenters observed that the
HRTTIM provides for minimum inspector qualification requirements, but
commented that the HRTTIM needs to be expanded to specifically include
all pertinent disciplines, including electrical, mechanical,
structural, geotechnical, geological, lighting, ventilation, and
communications. Most commenters suggested that there should be a
distinction between qualification requirements for Team Leaders and for
other team members. Those commenters further proposed that Team Leaders
should be professional engineers (PEs) licensed in the discipline
specific to the tunnel inspection requirements and that
[[Page 42647]]
tunnel inspection team members qualifications should parallel NBIS
qualification requirements. The ACEC advised that FHWA should also
consider the AASHTO T-20 document in determining inspector
requirements. The ASCE noted that tunnel inspectors should be familiar
with tunnel design and construction. Ohio DOT asserted that the HRTTIM
should not be adopted because a PE is not necessary for tunnel
inspections. The AASHTO proposed that States should establish tunnel
inspector qualifications based on the needs of the tunnels in each
State's inventory. Washington State DOT contended that it is not
necessary to require a tunnel inspection Team Leader to have tunnel
design experience. Oregon DOT stated that tunnel inspection team
members should be registered PEs.
Most commenters recommended that the National Highway Institute
(NHI) provide training in tunnel design and inspection, similar to what
it provides for bridge inspectors (i.e., comprehensive initial training
with periodic refresher training), and that other discipline-specific
inspection training should be required for team members performing
certain aspects of tunnel inspections. Florida DOT maintained that
comprehensive training should be required for the Team Leader with
discipline specific training required for other specialists on the
team. Many commenters advocated for tunnel inspector training under the
NTIS that parallels bridge inspector training under the NBIS. The
AASHTO stated that training should be required that would allow States
to certify tunnel inspectors, while MassHighways commented that a
nationally established training program would help foster consistency
of tunnel inspections across the States. The ASCE suggested inspectors
should complete refresher training every 3 to 5 years. The ACEC
commented that training should include an inspector safety component.
The commenters that addressed education requirements recommended that
an inspection Team Leader should be a licensed PE with a 4-year degree
and that other team members should have at least a high school diploma
unless their specialty requires a college degree. Pennsylvania DOT
suggested that inspection teams should be structured with qualified
individuals certified through education and experience.
Most commenters recommended that the NTIS specify separate
experience requirements for Team Leaders and team members, and
discipline-specific experience requirements for inspectors. Many
commenters asserted that tunnel inspector experience requirements
should parallel requirements under the NBIS. New Jersey DOT stated its
concern that if the NTIS make specific training in tunnel design
mandatory, the pool of potential inspectors with this particular
expertise would result in higher costs than necessary. The TBTA/MTA
suggested that any ``rating'' given for a tunnel component or overall
tunnel, would be much more experience-based than ratings generated in a
bridge inspection. The ACEC recommended that the Team Leader have a
minimum of 5 years of experience. Jacobs Associates recommended that
the Team Leader have a minimum of 15 years of experience. The ASCE
commented that inspector experience requirements should be tied to the
complexity of the tunnel and the level of inspection (e.g., initial,
in-depth, and periodic). Caltrans suggested that inspector experience
requirements should be based on the feature(s) being inspected and the
expertise required.
Record Keeping
The ANPRM also requested comments about who should be required to
keep records of highway tunnel inspections performed within the State,
whether the record keeping requirements contained in the HRTTIM are
sufficient, and how long tunnel inspection records should be
maintained.
In general, commenters stated that State DOTs should retain a
centralized database for their tunnels and that other tunnel owners
should retain these records themselves and also send the records to the
State DOTs. Additionally, the commenters recommended that all records
be reported to the FHWA similar to the requirements of the NBIS.
Commenters further suggested that the record keeping requirements in
the HRTTIM provide a good starting point, but consideration should be
given to developing tunnel-specific core elements and condition codes
(or ratings) for those elements that would lend themselves to an asset
management system. Washington State DOT asserted that the HRTTIM should
be modified to be less specific about repair priorities and more
specific about inventory data retention. Many of the commenters
recommended that the NTIS record keeping requirements mirror the NBIS.
Oregon DOT commented that the tunnel condition assessment should be
incorporated into the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) submittal. The
AASHTO suggested that tunnel inspection records for local streets and
roads should be separate and the responsibility of the owner. The ACEC
indicated that site-specific or other special conditions might be
required for new tunnels and should be specified by the tunnel
designer. The ASCE pointed out that the HRTTIM does not currently
provide condition codes (or ratings) for individual elements in a
tunnel and that a new system should be considered that would encompass
the full spectrum of structural, mechanical and electrical components
to be inspected. Pennsylvania DOT asserted that commonly recognized
element-level recording should be followed to provide the basis for
maintenance needs.
Most commenters recommended that tunnel inspection records be kept
for the life of the structure similar to the NBIS. However, AASHTO
suggested that inspection records should be kept for several years
after the tunnel is replaced. The NFPA recommended records retention
for four inspection cycles for at least 10 years. The ACEC asserted
that tunnel inspection records should be retained for seven inspection
cycles, and PB Americas suggested that tunnel inspection records should
be retained for a period of at least 7 years.
The ACEC commented that the FHWA should consider homeland security
concerns in establishing the NTIS. For example, ACEC noted that
detailed tunnel records should not be released without proper
authorization and identification. The ACEC also suggested that the FHWA
should consult with other relevant Federal agencies on the security
risks for the disclosure of potentially sensitive information.
Rating
In the ANPRM, the agency requested comments regarding whether a
condition-based rating system should be used for rating tunnel
elements. The Florida, Oregon and Ohio DOTs, along with the TBTA/MTA
and Jacob Associates, agreed that a condition rating system similar to
that in the NBIS should be used to rate tunnel elements. However, a
number of commenters, including the ASCE, ACEC, Caltrans and others,
commented that some sort of rating system should be used, but generally
agreed that a system similar to that used in the NBIS is too subjective
and that a more element-level rating system should be developed and
incorporated in the NTIS. Some commenters also noted that a tunnel
sufficiency rating similar to that used under the NBIS should be
developed and incorporated into the NTIS.
The FHWA also asked if the ratings should be used for funding
decisions. The New Jersey DOT suggested that a prioritization system
tied to element ratings would be appropriate. However,
[[Page 42648]]
Caltrans indicated that the rating and prioritization of electrical and
mechanical components would not be appropriate because repairs to these
systems are needs-based. The ACEC and the Oregon DOT disagreed. The
ACEC commented that a prioritization system could create the potential
for owners to neglect maintenance of their tunnels.
MassHighways and AASHTO recommended that a rating matrix be
developed wherein various elements would be rated and their condition
tracked. The AASHTO recommended that such a matrix could include items
such as costs, risk, consequence, and time to repair.
National Tunnel Inventory Database
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked what tunnel data elements should be
collected (name, age, length, width, height, number of lanes, etc.) and
included in the tunnel inventory database. The ASCE suggested
collecting data on geometric information, lane clearances, overburden
characteristics and complete description of the mechanical systems,
water and ground water, temporary ground support, type and number of
geotechnical instrumentation, documentation of performance during an
earthquake, and structural modifications. The ACEC commented that the
data collected should be comprehensive and address as many main and
subsystems as possible.
The AASHTO, Caltrans, MassHighways, and the Washington State,
Oregon, and Florida DOTs commented that the data collected should be
similar to data collected under the NBIS. The AASHTO also commented
that inventory data should include special elements such as
ventilation, lighting, type of ceilings, type of design, structural
elements, and conditions and appraisal ratings. The AASHTO recommended
that core elements should be developed and applied. New Jersey DOT
recommended that the NTIS should use the NBI as a starting point and
add information specific to tunnels.
The ANPRM included a question regarding how often data should be
collected and reported. The ASCE suggested that there should be an
initial inventory entered after the NTIS is implemented and then
updated at each inspection. The ACEC recommended that the data be
collected and reported at a minimum of 5 years and as changes occur to
tunnel condition, repairs completed, system replaced or updated. The
AASHTO, MassHighways, and the Washington State and Florida DOTs
commented that the data should be collected in conjunction with
inspection cycles and reported annually. Ohio DOT advocated for
reporting inspection data every 2 years, but reporting inventory data
(e.g., tunnel location, geometrics) only once unless information
changes. PB Americas proposed that the data be reported to the FHWA
every 2 years.
In the ANPRM, the FHWA requested comments about whether data should
be collected and reported to FHWA. In general, all responders expressed
general support for data collection and reporting. Additionally, most
commenters believed that the data should be reported to FHWA. Caltrans
recommended that the data should be reported to FHWA if the intent is
to determine funding needs. New Jersey State DOT also suggested that
the data should not be reported to FHWA unless a Federal-aid program
(similar to the Highway Bridge Program) is created to fund improvement
projects for identified needs.
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked whether tunnel identification numbers
should be used. Most commenters responded that a system should be used
to identify the tunnel.
The FHWA also asked what criteria should be used to assign an
identification number. The ACEC advocated for criteria similar to the
NBIS criteria. Caltrans suggested that the identification number should
be similar to the NBI to simplify creating a numbering system.
Washington State DOT commented the system should not allow duplicated
identifiers between bridge and tunnel identification numbers. AASHTO
recommended a system similar to the bridge inventory numbering system
would be adequate.
Organization of Inspection Teams
The ANPRM included questions about how inspection teams should be
organized, whether inspection teams should be established with
differing levels of responsibility, and whether one person on the team
should have overall responsibility for the program. In general,
commenters recommended that the NTIS should provide guidance regarding
inspection team organization, training, and certification.
MassHighways, the Oregon and California DOTs, and AASHTO stated that
while guidance within the NTIS on this matter is appropriate, tunnel
owners should determine the composition and organization of the
inspection teams to best address various tunnel types, complexities,
construction, and related systems. Conversely, the ASCE commented that
rather than a tunnel owner determining inspection team organization,
the NTIS should provide guidelines on the organization and composition
of inspection teams per category of tunnel.
Most commenters advocated for the formation of multidisciplinary
inspection teams to encompass the various systems encountered in
complex tunnels, incorporating areas of expertise in structural,
geotechnical, geological, mechanical, electrical, ventilation, and
operational systems. The ASCE noted that teams should be developed by
category of tunnel and should be comprised of a Team Leader and
inspection members specializing in the aforementioned tunnel systems.
Conversely, the NFPA noted that while inspection teams should include
all needed specialized expertise for thorough tunnel inspection, team
members would not need to have a specialization in any one area. PB
Americas commented that the team should be, at a minimum, comprised of
two inspectors and a data recorder to provide for expedited
inspections, limited lane shutdowns, and team safety. The ACEC
recommended that inspection teams include two inspectors--an engineer
and a recorder, but added that additional team members may be required
to expedite inspections of complex tunnels and to improve team safety.
The ACEC also noted that for mechanical and electrical system
inspections, inspectors typically should not be responsible for the
maintenance of these functions within the tunnel. The Florida and New
Jersey DOTs commented that separate teams should be organized for each
tunnel system (e.g., electrical, mechanical, structural), and should
operate independently instead of part of a larger multidisciplinary
team, thereby providing for variable inspection cycles per system. For
example, maintenance items may be inspected on a weekly basis, whereas
the structure may be inspected on a less frequent annual basis.
Caltrans, the New York and Washington State DOTs, and the TBTA/MTA
commented that tunnel inspection teams should be organized similarly to
the bridge inspection teams, as described by the NBIS. Jacobs
Associates recommended organizing inspection teams per the guidelines
in the HRTTIM.
Most commenters favored training and certification requirements for
tunnel inspectors. In general, commenters asserted that the NTIS should
provide guidance on minimum training, certification and licensing of
inspectors, but States should determine final certification. The
Pennsylvania and Ohio DOTs and the NFPA commented that teams should be
[[Page 42649]]
comprised of qualified individuals certified through both training and
demonstrated experience. Oregon DOT additionally noted that all team
members should be professionally licensed engineers. The AASHTO
commented that certification level guidelines similar to those in the
NBIS be followed for Team Leaders and support staff, and that PE
licensing requirements be limited to those individuals responsible for
reviewing team reports. PB Americas and the ACEC noted that training
and certification should also encompass Occupational Safety and Health
Administration standards for confined space inspections. The NFPA
commented that the more experienced personnel on the teams could serve
as training officers for on-the-job training and team audits.
In general, commenters recommended that the NTIS provide guidance
on the levels of responsibility involved in conducting tunnel
inspections, but States should determine the final distribution of
responsibility among inspection teams and program administrators. The
TBTA/MTA, Jacobs Associates, Caltrans, and the New Jersey DOT commented
that teams should have differing levels of responsibility with regard
to system inspection, Team Leadership, and reporting. Whether teams are
organized as multidisciplinary units or by system specialty, as
previously discussed, commenters generally agreed that Team Leadership
should be responsible for initiating and reporting tunnel inspections.
The New Jersey DOT added that a Program Manager should be tasked with
overall inspection program responsibility. The ASCE indicated that a PE
should lead multidisciplinary teams and be responsible for reporting
from all disciplines. Conversely, the ACEC commented that each team
member should be responsible for their respective disciplines, rather
than a Program Manager.
Although commenters overwhelmingly agreed that teams should include
a person responsible for the inspection, comments varied as to what
position this person should hold. The ASCE, Caltrans, and the
Washington State DOT commented that a Chief Inspector or Program
Manager, at a level higher than that of the inspection Team Leader,
should have overall responsibility for the tunnel inspection.
MassHighways and the Oregon and New Jersey DOTs noted that Program
Manager responsibilities should be limited to program administration
and oversight. The NFPA added that the person in charge of the program
should be superior to and separate from the inspectors to ensure
independent program oversight and accountability. Several commenters
asserted that Team Leaders, whether overseeing a multidisciplinary team
or discipline-specific team, ultimately should be responsible for
inspections. Jacobs Associates, MassHighways, and the Ohio and New
Jersey DOTs indicated that the leader of each discipline, component, or
system inspected should have responsibility for that aspect of the
overall inspection. Ohio DOT added that members should sign off on
their area of inspection. The AASHTO, ACEC, and the Florida DOT stated
that the Team Leader should be a licensed PE, and the ACEC added that
the Team Leader should have a minimum of 5 years experience and be
certified by the State to perform and lead tunnel inspections.
Technical References
The FHWA also asked about what technical publications, if any,
should be incorporated by reference into the NTIS. In response,
commenters cited several publications for consideration as primary
references for inclusion in the NTIS. Six State DOTs, and the ASCE and
ACEC, recommended incorporating the HRTTIM. MassHighways, Oregon DOT,
AASHTO, ASCE, and PB Americas recommended incorporating the ``FHWA Road
Tunnel Design Manual.'' Caltrans, AASHTO, ASCE, and NFPA recommended
incorporating ``NFPA 502--Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other
Limited Access Highways.'' Ohio and Pennsylvania DOTs, AASHTO, and ASCE
recommended incorporating the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of
Bridges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FHWA notes this manual has been superseded by the AASHTO
Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these publications, commenters representing several
State DOTs, industry organizations, and commercial companies also cited
the following references for possible incorporation within the NTIS:
NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 261, Best Practices for
Implementing Quality Control and Quality Assurance for Tunnel
Inspection (currently under development);
NHI Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual;
23 CFR 650, Subpart C, National Highway Bridge Inspection
Standards;
American National Standards Institute/American Welding
Society (ANSI/AWS) D1.1 Structural Welding Code--Steel;
ANSI/AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code;
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association (AREMA) Fatigue Standards;
AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 9, Part 1,
Subsections 1.2 and 1.5;
29 CFR, OSHA Standards;
FHWA Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members;
FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation and
Maintenance Manual;
AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges; and
NFPA 731 Standard for the Installation of Electronic
Premises Systems.
The UTC recommended two publications from the International
Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Stockholm, Sweden, March 2008:
(1) Full-Scale Fire Testing for Road Tunnel Applications--Evaluation of
Acceptable Fire Protection Performance, Maarti Tuomisaari, Marioff
Corporation Oy, Vantaa, Finland, and (2) Implementation of Water Mist
Systems in Road Tunnels, Project Case Studies, Markku Vuorisalo,
Marioff Corporation Oy, Vantaa, Finland. One individual also
recommended contacting the New York Port Authority for information
regarding tunnel inspection guidelines developed in the 1980s.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
Most commenters did not suggest any particular QC/QA procedures. Of
those commenting on the issue, eight agreed with QC/QA requirements
similar to the NBIS, while six stated that such requirements should be
general and not arbitrary.
Cost of Inspections
In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked for information related to tunnel
inspection costs. Several commenters had no comment or indicated no
data was available. Of those commenting on cost of inspections, several
suggested a cost per lane foot as opposed to linear foot of tunnel
length as the most accurate way to itemize the actual inspection costs.
The TBTA/MTA commented that its recent inspection of the Queens-
Midtown Tunnel cost $631,500, which translates to approximately $24.89
per linear foot of each roadway lane. Because this cost could change
depending on the number of traffic lanes and tunnel tubes, TBTA/MTA
[[Page 42650]]
suggested that a unit such as cost per lane-foot would more accurately
predict tunnel inspection costs. Washington State DOT reported a cost
of $5 per linear foot for civil and structural component inspections.
PB Americas suggested that tunnel inspection costs for structural,
mechanical electrical lighting, and traffic controls ranges between $65
and $75 per lane foot. PB Americas suggested that these costs can be 20
to 40 percent higher if the work window is less than 4 hours per shift.
Additionally, PB Americas noted that costs associated with traffic
diversions and single lane closures range from $100 to $150 per linear
foot of tunnel per day or shift.
The FHWA requests that commenters provide additional information
regarding estimated or actual costs associated with tunnel inspections,
particularly the typical inspection costs per linear foot of tunnel. In
addition, the FHWA asks for comments regarding the anticipated
increased costs the proposed NTIS would impose on tunnel owners.
Research
In the ANPRM, the FHWA provided summary information on completed
and ongoing research related to tunnel design, construction,
rehabilitation, and inspection. The FHWA solicited feedback on other
existing or completed tunnel research, and any ideas for additional
needed research.
Numerous commenters indicated the need for additional tunnel-
related research. The AASHTO and the Oregon and Florida DOTs listed as
a research priority identifying hidden deficiencies with structural
elements such as tunnel liners and portals, including non-destructive
methods. Several commenters recommended as research priorities the
needs identified in the research roadmap by the AASHTO Bridge
Subcommittee's T-20 Technical Committee. The ACEC and PB Americas
recommended FHWA develop a new, more detailed tunnel inspection manual
addressing ventilation testing and mechanical and electrical
inspection. They also recommended updates to the tunnel asset
management database. PB Americas further suggested research to test the
performance in fires of various materials used, or proposed for use in
tunnels. The AASHTO commented that tunnel safety during construction,
rehabilitation, inspection, and maintenance needs to be addressed
through research. The AASHTO also requested research to develop
guidance on improving vertical clearance in bored tunnels. Further,
AASHTO indicated urban and rural highway tunnels have different issues
of concern. One consultant recommended that the FHWA continue to work
with European and Asian highway and rail management agencies. One
consultant commented that newer research is available from European
associations like the World Road Association and the European Thematic
Network on Fire in Tunnels on tunnel fire protection and fixed fire
suppression. The NFPA provided a summary of the ``International Road
Tunnel Fire Detection'' research project published by the Fire
Protection Research Foundation.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals
The proposed NTIS are based, in part, on comments received in
response to the ANPRM published on November 18, 2008. Giving due
consideration to the comments received and summarized in the preceding
section, this section presents the basis for the FHWA's proposed
rulemaking. The FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR Part 650 (Bridges,
Structures, and Hydraulics), by adding Subpart E--National Tunnel
Inspection Standards. The proposed NTIS would apply to all tunnels
constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located
on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The NTIS would
establish a tunnel definition, frequency of inspections, technical
references, inventory database, and QC/QA requirements. The proposed
rule also discusses procedures for follow-up on critical findings.
Lastly, this action proposes to establish inventory and reporting
requirements, including timeframes for submission of data by both the
State and Federal agencies.
Proposed Section 650.501 Purpose
The majority of commenters on the ANPRM supported the establishment
of NTIS. Section 650.501 would identify the NTIS purpose to establish
the proper safety inspection and evaluation for tunnels constructed or
renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public roads
and tunnels on Federal-aid highways.
Proposed Section 650.503 Applicability
The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would apply to tunnels constructed
or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are located on public
roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways.
The proposed NTIS would apply to inspection of life safety systems
installed on a highway tunnel-like-structure space made by a group of
bridges, or airtight structures. The NTIS would not apply to culverts
or other types of non-highway tunnels. The FHWA would encourage owners
of tunnels not subject to the NTIS to inspect their tunnels according
to the NTIS. However, FHWA does not have jurisdiction to require
inspection of tunnels that are not linked to title 23 Federal funds.
Proposed Section 650.505 Definitions
Proposed section 650.505 would include several definitions related
to tunnel inspection.
Because the NTIS would be modeled after the NBIS and in order to
ensure consistency in definitions, the agency proposes that the terms
``American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Manual,'' ``bridge inspection experience,'' ``critical
finding,'' ``damage inspection,'' ``hands-on inspection,'' and
``operating rating'' would have the same meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
The FHWA proposes to define a ``complex tunnel'' as one
characterized by advanced or unique structural elements and functional
systems because the inspection of these tunnels requires a
multidisciplinary inspection team approach. For example, a tunnel with
a suspended ceiling would be considered a complex tunnel requiring a
multidisciplinary inspection, as suspended ceilings are structural
elements that contribute to a functional system (ventilation plenum).
The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would include a number of
definitions largely modeled after definitions used in the NBIS. For
example, the proposed definitions of ``professional engineer'' and
``routine permit load'' would be substantially similar to the
definitions for those terms in the NBIS. The FHWA also proposes to use
the same definition for ``tunnel inspection experience'' as the NBIS
definition for ``bridge inspection experience,'' replacing the word
``bridge'' with the word ``tunnel'' as applicable. Similarly, the FHWA
proposes that the terms ``legal load,'' ``quality assurance,''
``quality control,'' ``routine inspection,'' ``special inspection,''
and ``team leader'' would be modeled after the definitions in the NBIS,
except that the word ``tunnel'' would replace the word ``bridge'' in
each definition. The definitions of ``in-depth inspection,'' ``initial
inspection,'' and ``load rating'' would largely mirror the definitions
found in the NBIS, with changes made to account for the differences
between bridges and tunnels. The FHWA notes that under the proposed
definition of ``load rating,'' for roadways carried within a tunnel,
any internal structural support systems,
[[Page 42651]]
even multilevel, would be evaluated according to AASHTO load rating
procedures. For roadways crossing over the tunnel, the tunnel's ability
to support the route's vehicular live loads would also be calculated.
Both of these capacities would be evaluated for tunnels, which is
different from bridges where load carrying capacities are only
calculated for vehicles carried on the roadway deck.
In order to maintain consistency with established terms, the FHWA
proposes that a number of terms in the NTIS would have the same meaning
as terms that appear in title 23 of the United States Code. For
example, the term ``Federal-aid highway'' would have the same meaning
as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5), and the term ``highway'' would have the same
meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(11). The term ``public road'' would have
the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(27). The term ``State
transportation department'' would have the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(34).
The FHWA proposes a definition of ``functional systems'' that would
include non-structural systems, such as electrical, mechanical, fire
suppression, ventilation, lighting, communications, monitoring,
drainage, traffic signals, emergency egress, refuge room spacing,
carbon monoxide, or traffic safety components. The agency believes this
definition would be broad enough to encompass any functional systems
that might be present in tunnels.
The FHWA proposes that the NTIS would include a definition of
``portal'' to refer to the entrance and exit of a tunnel exposed to the
environment, including bare rock, constructed tunnel entrance
structures, and buildings. This definition would convey that portals
exist on all tunnels, but may vary in structure and complexity.
The proposed definition of ``Program Manager'' would refer to the
individual in charge of the program who has been assigned or delegated
the duties and responsibilities for tunnel inspection, reporting, and
inventory. Under this definition, the Program Manager would provide
overall leadership and guidance to inspection Team Leaders. The agency
believes that a Program Manager should not only have a strong
background in the technical nature of tunnels, but a thorough
understanding of the NTIS program requirements.
Regarding the definition of ``tunnel,'' FHWA agrees with most of
the commenters that the AASHTO tunnel definition, with some
modification, should be used in the NTIS. Accordingly, the proposed
definition of tunnel is a modified AASHTO definition without
establishing a minimum length under the proposed NTIS. In order to
ensure that tunnels and bridges are only inspected under either the
NTIS or the NBIS, the proposed definition modifies the AASHTO
definition to clarify that a tunnel does not include a bridge which is
inspected under the NBIS. The agency recognizes many structures exist
where the distinction between tunnel or bridge could be difficult to
determine. In cases where a tunnel or bridge may overlap, FHWA
recommends that States determine whether the NTIS or NBIS is most
appropriate for a particular structure. When a tunnel is comprised of
several abutted, dissimilar structures, the NTIS would apply to the
entire tunnel. Additionally, the proposed definition of ``tunnel''
specifies that a tunnel is a structure that requires special design
considerations that may include lighting, ventilation, fire protection
systems, and emergency egress capacity based on the owner's
determination.
Proposed Section 650.507 Tunnel Inspection Organization
Section 650.507 would specify which tunnels must be inspected under
the NTIS, inspection program responsibilities, organizational
requirements and general deliverables of an inspection program, and
program delegation requirements.
In general, ANPRM commenters suggested that tunnel owners should
determine the organization and composition of tunnel inspection
programs to best address various tunnel types, complexities,
structures, and related systems. The ANPRM commenters also indicated
that the NTIS should provide guidance on the levels and delegation of
responsibility involved in conducting tunnel inspections, reporting
findings, ensuring quality assurance, and maintaining tunnel
inventories, but that States should determine the final distribution of
responsibility among program administrators and inspection teams. The
FHWA agrees that the NTIS should provide general guidance on the
organization and composition of tunnel inspection programs, leaving the
specifics of program administration and delegation to the States and
Federal agencies involved.
In section 650.507(a), the FHWA proposes requiring that each State
inspect or cause to be inspected all tunnels constructed or renovated
with title 23 Federal funds located on public roads that are within the
State's boundaries, except for tunnels owned by Federal agencies.
Therefore, State inspection responsibilities would be limited to
tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds that are
located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. The FHWA
also proposes to exclude States from inspection responsibilities for
tunnels owned by Federal agencies.
Proposed section 650.507(b) describes the tunnel inspection
responsibilities of Federal agencies that own tunnels. The proposed
rule would require Federal agencies to ensure inspection of all highway
tunnels within their respective jurisdiction.
Under section 650.507(c), the FHWA proposes that where a tunnel is
jointly owned, all bordering States and Federal agencies with ownership
interests should determine through a joint agreement the inspection
responsibilities of each State and Federal agency.
Proposed section 650.507(d) describes basic tunnel inspection
program organization requirements. The proposed rule would require
State transportation departments and Federal agencies to be organized
with a unit or units that are responsible for setting statewide or
Federal agency-wide tunnel inspection program policies and procedures,
assuring regularly scheduled quality inspections are performed
throughout the State or agency, and maintaining the State or Federal
tunnel inventory. In order to ensure tunnel inspection program
consistency and uniformity, the FHWA proposes to require that all of
these activities be performed at a statewide or Federal agency-wide
organizational level of the State DOT or the Federal agency. This
section would not preclude, however, the specific tunnel inspection
activities, as noted in section 650.507(d)(2), from being assigned to a
qualified authority or consulting engineering firm.
The FHWA recognizes the broad range of tunnel structure complexity
that exists along State and Federal highways, and therefore, proposes
under section 650.507(d)(1) that, in addition to the development of
general program policies and procedures, State and Federal agencies
would prepare tunnel-specific policies and procedures guiding tunnel
inspections.
Proposed section 650.507(d)(2) refers to a requirement for a State
or Federal agency tunnel owner to establish load ratings for the
tunnel. As presented, ``load ratings'' refers to allowable vehicular
live loads on suspended or spanning roadways within the tunnel or
roadways above the tunnel. Load ratings may be directly related to the
structural capacity of the tunnel lining and
[[Page 42652]]
support system in cases where tunnels or overlying roadways bear on the
tunnel structural elements. The tunnel structural system condition
would be assessed during inspection which, in turn, may lead to an in-
depth structural capacity appraisal of the lining and support system if
conditions warrant.
Proposed section 650.507(e) would allow State and Federal agencies
to delegate certain tunnel inspection functions, as generally described
or referred to in sections 650.507(d)(1) and (d)(2), to qualified
individuals; however, the overall program responsibility could not be
delegated. This section is intended to ensure that State and Federal
agencies choosing to delegate tunnel inspection activities do so under
formal written agreement that clearly states the roles and
responsibilities of all agencies and entities involved. As with other
State-administered Federal-aid programs under title 23, United States
Code, delegation of tunnel inspections, reports, load ratings and other
requirements of the NTIS must be accompanied by appropriate State
transportation department oversight.
Proposed section 650.507(f) would require that each State or
Federal agency owning a tunnel requiring inspection under the NTIS have
a tunnel inspection organization that includes a Program Manager
meeting the qualifications proposed in 650.509(a). This requirement
would also apply to organizational units that have been delegated
program management functions by the overall agency Program Manager,
such as local public agencies or qualified consulting engineering
firms.
Proposed Section 650.509 Qualifications of Personnel
This section would outline the minimum qualifications for tunnel
inspection team members, including qualification requirements for
Program Managers, Team Leaders, and individuals responsible for load
rating of tunnels in terms of professional registration, certification,
experience, and education. Under the proposed rule, minimum
qualifications for team members other than the Program Manager and the
Team Leader would be established by each Program Manager in accordance
with the nature and complexity of the tunnels in their inventory. Team
members may include individuals with specialized professional
registration, certification, experience, and education in areas such as
structural, mechanical, electrical, geotechnical, ventilation,
lighting, operations, or communications, as required depending on the
nature and complexity of the tunnel being inspected.
Commenters responding to the ANPRM generally expressed that the
personnel responsible for the management, planning, and execution of
tunnel inspections should be registered PEs with a minimum amount of
applicable experience of 5 to 15 years. The FHWA believes that, for the
tunnel inspection Program Manager, experience with inspection of
transportation structures is as valuable as professional registration.
Therefore, the proposed rule would require a tunnel inspection Program
Manager to be either a registered PE, or have at least 10 years of
tunnel inspection experience.
Three commenters to the ANPRM believed that a Team Leader should be
a registered PE, and several commenters pointed to the FHWA tunnel
inspection manual which recommends that the Team Leader be a PE. The
FHWA agrees that a Team Leader should be a registered PE due to the
range of systems complexity existing within the current inventory of
tunnels.
Proposed section 650.509(c) would require that a person with
overall responsibility for load rating tunnels be a registered PE. The
agency notes that there are two situations under which load rating of
tunnels could be necessary: (1) When a structure supporting traffic
lanes within the tunnel is not directly supported by the ground and
spans some unsupported distance, and (2) when traffic loads above the
tunnel impose a live load on the tunnel lining. In either case, the
individual charged with the overall responsibility for load rating the
tunnels must be a registered PE because assessment of the adequacy of
the tunnel lanes or lining to carry live traffic loads requires
engineering calculations.
Commenters generally suggested that tunnel inspectors should attend
a comprehensive training course with periodic refresher training,
similar to what is required by the NBIS. The FHWA agrees the NTIS
should require that tunnel inspection Program Managers and Team Leaders
successfully complete a comprehensive tunnel inspection training course
and tunnel inspection refresher training courses at regular intervals.
The FHWA plans to develop such training courses consistent with
industry recommendations and may incorporate training requirements into
the NTIS in the future.
The ANPRM did not address the subject of tunnel inspector
certification, and commenters responding to the ANPRM did not offer any
suggestions concerning inspector certification. The FHWA believes that
for tunnel inspector certification, States and Federal agencies should
have discretion whether and how to implement such a program. The FHWA
may consider incorporating training requirements into the NTIS in the
future. The training requirements could serve as an integral part of a
State or Federal agency certification process. If tunnel owners follow
the tunnel inspection qualification requirements proposed in this NPRM,
the FHWA believes further certification would not be required.
Proposed Section 650.511 Inspection Frequency
In order to ensure that all tunnels are inspected soon after
publication of the final rule, the FHWA proposes under section
650.511(a) that within 12 months of the effective date of the rule,
tunnel owners must inspect each tunnel according to the inspection
guidance provided in the HRTTIM.
This section also considers tunnel inspection frequencies for
routine inspections, and for in-depth, damage, and special inspections.
For routine inspections, most commenters thought that a maximum
interval should be established, and preferred an interval of 24 months
or less, with a lesser interval (greater frequency) to be determined by
the tunnel owner based on risk and other factors. The FHWA concurs with
this approach. Based on experience with existing tunnel inspection
programs, the FHWA believes that intervals greater than 24 months would
introduce too much risk, even for tunnels with no advanced or unique
structural elements and systems in good condition, as there is
significant likelihood that tunnel conditions can change during an
interval greater than 24 months.
The FHWA believes there is considerable data and experience with
tunnel inspections by many States and other agencies to support
inspection frequency decisions unique to individual tunnels. Based on
this experience, and considering the limited number of tunnels in the
Nation's inventory and the wide variety of type and complexity of those
tunnels, the agency proposes under section 650.511(b) to establish a
maximum interval of 24 months for routine inspections, with more
frequent inspections for certain tunnels and many functional systems.
The FHWA agrees that these increased frequencies for certain structural
elements and functional systems should be determined by the Program
Manager because unique characteristics are best understood by the
Program Manager and
[[Page 42653]]
tunnel owners and should be documented in the inspection procedures for
each individual tunnel.
Recognizing that individual tunnel types and conditions vary
widely, and that the contributing factors (i.e., structural,
geotechnical, geologic, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical) for each
tunnel are best understood by the Program Manager and owner, FHWA
proposes that the Program Manager would have discretion to establish
criteria for more frequent inspection intervals. In establishing
criteria for more frequent inspections, the rule proposes that the
Program Manager conduct a risk analysis and consider factors such as
age, traffic characteristics, geotechnical conditions, and known
deficiencies. The Program Manager should consider conditions or factors
that could jeopardize the safety of the tunnel. Certain structural
elements or functional systems should be inspected and tested more
frequently than a 24-month interval, even for systems in good
condition. If a tunnel has suffered damage or has known deficiencies,
more frequent inspections may also be necessary.
Regarding inspection frequencies for damage, in-depth, and special
inspections, section 650.511(c) of the proposed rule would require that
Program Managers establish criteria to determine the level and
frequency of these inspections. Damage, in-depth, and special
inspections could include non-destructive testing or other methods not
used during routine inspections at an interval established by the
Program Manager. In-depth inspections would be required for complex
tunnels and for certain structural elements and functional systems when
necessary to ascertain fully the condition of the element or system.
Proposed Section 650.513 Tunnel Inspection Procedures
Most State DOTs commenting on the ANPRM agreed that the HRTTIM
should be used as the basis for inspection and rating of tunnel
structural elements and functional systems. The FHWA agrees and
proposes in section 650.513(a) that tunnel owners inspect tunnel
structural elements and functional systems in accordance with the
inspection guidance provided in the HRTTIM, which would be incorporated
by reference into the NTIS. Caltrans noted that the HRTTIM lacked
guidance relative to the inspection and rating of functional systems,
including electrical, and mechanical components. The FHWA recognizes
that some modifications and updating of the HRTTIM, such as developing
specifications for a rating system, will be necessary. The FHWA
currently is working on revising the manual to incorporate many of the
suggestions of the commenters to the ANPRM. The agency hopes to
complete the revised manual prior to publication of the final rule for
the NTIS. The FHWA solicits comments on needed revisions to the HRTTIM.
Until the new manual is completed, the existing HRTTIM would provide
general guidance for inspection requirements under the NTIS. In the
event of any discrepancies between the HRTTIM and the final rule, the
inspection requirements and procedures in the final rule would apply.
The FHWA proposes in section 650.513(b) that tunnel owners should
provide at least one Team Leader, who meets the minimum qualifications
stated in section 650.509, at the tunnel at all times during each
initial, routine, and in-depth inspection.
Additionally, functional systems testing for inspection and
reporting purposes should be distinguished from inspections for
maintenance purposes. To that end, and to specify the levels of
inspection required for various components, we propose in section
650.513(c) that Program Managers prepare and document tunnel-specific
inspection procedures for each tunnel inspected and inventoried
commensurate with tunnel complexity and identify tunnel structural
elements and functional systems to be inspected and tested. The Program
Manager also could stipulate unique inspector qualifications,
specialties, certifications, and frequencies and equipment necessary in
these written procedures.
A number of commenters agreed that functional systems, including
electrical and mechanical components, should be inspected and rated as
part of the requirements of the NTIS. The FHWA agrees and proposes in
section 650.513(d) that Program Managers establish functional system
testing requirements, including spot testing where appropriate,
requirements for direct observation of critical system checks, and
testing documentation.
The FHWA believes it is important to distinguish between different
types of tunnels and define and highlight the unique needs of complex
tunnels. This view is consistent with comments received. Therefore, for
complex tunnels, section 650.513(e) proposes that tunnel owners
identify specialized inspection procedures, and additional inspector
training and experience required to inspect complex tunnels. The rule
further proposes that tunnel owners inspect complex tunnels according
to those procedures.
Additionally, AASHTO, Florida DOT, and the TBTA/MTA suggested that
discipline-specific inspectors should be utilized to inspect components
commensurate with the inspector training and experience. The FHWA
agrees and proposes in section 650.513(f) that the NTIS require tunnel
owners to conduct tunnel inspections with qualified staff not
associated with the operation or maintenance of the tunnel structure or
functional systems. The FHWA believes it is important that critical
tunnel components receive independent inspections.
A tunnel may contain certain structural components that when
subjected to deterioration could impact the structural capacity of
those components, including structural framing systems for tunnels
carrying two levels of vehicular traffic or carrying vehicular traffic
on top of the tunnel. In consideration of this, the proposed NTIS would
require under section 650.513(g) that tunnel owners rate each tunnel as
to its safe vehicular load-carrying capacity in accordance with the
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation. Additionally, tunnel owners would
be required to post or restrict the highways in or over a tunnel in
accordance with this AASHTO manual, unless otherwise specified in State
law, when the maximum unrestricted legal loads or State routine permit
loads exceed that allowed under the operating rating or equivalent
rating factor.
As with the NBIS, the FHWA proposes in section 650.513(h) that the
NTIS would require tunnel owners to prepare tunnel documentation
(consistent with the HRTTIM) and maintain written reports on the
results of tunnel inspections together with notations of any action
taken to address the findings of such inspections. The proposed NTIS
would require that tunnel owners maintain relevant maintenance and
inspection data to allow assessment of current tunnel condition and
record the findings and results of tunnel inspections. At a minimum,
FHWA proposes that tunnel owners would maintain files and reports with
data regarding basic tunnel information (e.g., tunnel location, speed,
inspections, repair and rehabilitation), tunnel and roadway geometrics,
interior tunnel structural features, portal structure features, and
tunnel systems information. The agency also proposes that tunnel data
collected would include diagrams, photos, condition of each structural
and functional system component, and notations of any action taken to
address the findings of such inspections. The FHWA invites comments
regarding what the tunnel
[[Page 42654]]
files and reports should include and what information tunnel owners
should submit to the FHWA.
The FHWA plans to use a standard reporting form for submitting
tunnel data to the agency and solicits public comments on the standard
form posted in the docket. The FHWA also plans to develop a database
for a national inventory of tunnels similar to the NBI. The standard
reporting form would serve as the basis for the tunnel inventory, with
the information collected on the form entered into the database. The
FHWA expects to ask in the standard reporting form for an assessment of
tunnel conditions.
Section 650.513(i) would require systematic QC/QA oversight of the
inspection program, following procedures that maintain a high degree of
accuracy and consistency in the inspection program. The QC/QA program
would also include periodic field review of inspection teams and
independent review of inspection reports and computations. The FHWA
will consider including in the NTIS a requirement for periodic
refresher training in the future.
Additionally, proposed section 650.513(j) would require tunnel
owners to follow-up on critical findings according to established
statewide or Federal agency-wide procedures. Critical findings should
be addressed in a timely manner, with FHWA notified of any critical
finding within 30 days and the actions taken to resolve or monitor the
critical finding.
The FHWA plans to establish procedures for conducting reviews of
State and Federal agency compliance with the NTIS. Accordingly,
proposed section 650.513(k) would specify that States and Federal
agencies provide information as required in cooperation with any FHWA
review of State and Federal agency compliance with the NTIS.
Proposed Section 650.515 Inventory
The majority of commenters expressed support for the establishment
of a national tunnel inventory database with data reported to the FHWA.
The FHWA agrees that a NTI is necessary to ensure accurate records are
kept on the condition of the national inventory of highway tunnels.
Because tunnels could be more complex than bridges, and could have many
other systems not included on bridges, the FHWA also proposes to create
the tunnel inventory separate from the NBI.
For the purposes of establishing an initial inventory, section
650.515(a) would require States and Federal agencies with tunnels
subject to the NTIS to report basic information about each tunnel
within 30 days of the effective date of the rule. The information
requested in subsection (a) should not require an inspection but is
intended to be gleaned from existing inspection records for each
tunnel. States and Federal agencies would assign unique tunnel numbers
following the approach currently used in the NBIS coding guide.
Section 650.515(b) would require States and Federal agencies with
tunnels to make a preliminary assessment of tunnel condition and rate
the structural and functional systems in each tunnel on a 0 to 9 scale
and send the information to FHWA within 90 days of the effective date
of this rule. The scale is described in the HRTTIM at page 4-12. The
rating of the systems of each tunnel would be based upon the files of
the most recent inspection of the tunnel. The FHWA needs this data for
the national inventory so that there is an initial appraisal of the
condition of the Nation's highway tunnels. If a system in a tunnel were
rated 3 or less, the State or Federal agency would be required to file
with the FHWA within 30 days of identification of the critical finding
a plan to address the critical finding.
Proposed section 650.515(c) would require that upon performing an
initial inspection as proposed under section 650.511(a), States and
Federal agencies notify the FHWA of any updates to the information
provided under sections 650.515(a) and (b).
After this initial effort to obtain data on the tunnels subject to
the NTIS, the FHWA proposes in section 650.515(d) that each State or
Federal agency owning a tunnel would prepare, maintain, and make
available to FHWA upon request an inventory of all its tunnels subject
to the NTIS reflecting the findings of the tunnel inspections.
Under proposed section 650.515(e), for all inspections, tunnel
owners would enter the tunnel data into the State or Federal agency
inventory within 90 days of the date of inspection. For modifications
to existing tunnels that alter previously recorded data and for new
tunnels, proposed section 650.515(f) would require tunnel owners to
enter the data into the State or Federal agency inventory within 90
days after the completion of the work. For changes in traffic load
restriction or closure status, proposed section 650.515(g) would
require tunnel owners to enter the data into the State or Federal
agency inventory within 90 days after the change in status of the
structure.
Proposed Section 650.517 Reference Manuals
Commenters cited several tunnel resources. Those references
included the HRTTIM; NFPA 502 Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and
other limited Access Highways; FHWA Technical Highway Tunnel Design
Manual (the portion dealing with inspection); AASHTO Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges; and AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection,
Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual. The FHWA recognizes value can be
gained from portions of these references for those involved in the
inspection of tunnels. In addition, the FHWA recognizes the value to
the tunnel inspection community of other references, including the
Study of 70MW Fires in Representative Highway Tunnel Models. However,
only one, the HRTTIM, is solely focused on the inspection of tunnels.
The FHWA proposes that section 650.517 would incorporate the HRTTIM by
reference.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the
FHWA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final
rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule would constitute a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and would be significant within the meaning of the U.S.
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This
action would be considered significant because of widespread public
interest in the safety of highway tunnels. It is also anticipated that
the economic impact of this rulemaking could be substantial, although
not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order
12866.
Tunnel inspection costs can vary greatly from tunnel to tunnel.
However, comments suggest that inspection costs
[[Page 42655]]
range from $5 to $75 per linear foot depending on the complexity of the
tunnel. Although no comprehensive national inventory for tunnels
currently exists, a preliminary tunnel survey conducted in 2003
suggests that there are approximately 350 highway tunnels in the
Nation, comprising about 517,000 linear feet. Therefore, if each
highway tunnel included four lanes, the FHWA estimates that that the
total cost associated with current tunnel inspections could range
between $10,340,000 and $155,100,000 (or an average of between $29,542
and $443,142 per tunnel) every 24 months. Accordingly, the FHWA
estimates the total annual inspection cost for tunnel owners could
range between $5,170,000 and $77,550,000 (or an average of between
$14,771 and $221,571 per tunnel). Most tunnels currently are inspected
to some degree, and the estimates above do not account for current
tunnel inspection expenditures. Therefore, the FHWA anticipates that
the additional costs associated with implementing the requirements in
this proposed rule would be much less than the upper range estimate of
$77.5 million. The FHWA solicits comments regarding current and
anticipated inspection costs under this proposed rule, and whether such
costs anticipated to be incurred are of a reasonable nature. The FHWA
also requests comments on the number of tunnels in each State that are
constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds and are located on
public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid highways. Additionally, the
FHWA requests comments regarding the estimated linear feet of each
tunnel.
Although the NTIS could impose additional costs on tunnel owners,
the FHWA anticipates that the potential benefits associated with this
rulemaking would outweigh the resulting costs. Timely tunnel inspection
is vital to uncovering safety problems and preventing catastrophic
collapses like that occurring in the Central Artery Tunnel. The FHWA
does not have data that would permit precise quantification of the
benefits of the proposed rule, and seeks comments on what the benefits
are from requiring national tunnel inspection standards. The agency is
taking this action because it believes that any repairs or changes that
take place because of problems identified in the inspections could lead
to substantial economic savings. These benefits might not be a direct
result of inspection standards, but indirect benefits from changes made
to tunnels because of inspections. We seek public comment on any other
types of direct or indirect benefits of this rule.
Ensuring timely inspections of highway tunnels not only would
enhance the safe passage of the traveling public, it would also
contribute to the efficient movement of goods and people and to
millions of dollars in fuel savings. For example, the Eisenhower/
Johnson Memorial Tunnels, located west of Denver on I-70, facilitate
the movement of people and goods from the eastern slope of the Rocky
Mountains to the western slope. The Colorado Department of
Transportation estimates that traveling through these tunnels, the
public saves 9.1 miles by not having to travel over U.S. Highway 6,
Loveland Pass. In the year 2000, approximately 28,000 vehicles traveled
through the tunnels per day, which equates to 10.3 million vehicles for
the year.\3\ Accordingly, we estimate that by traveling through the
Eisenhower/Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the public saved approximately
90.7 million miles of travel in the year 2000 and millions of dollars
in associated fuel costs. Traveling through these tunnels, goods and
people reached their destinations more quickly, prevented congestion
along the alternative route, and achieved savings in dollars and fuel
along the way. If these tunnels were closed unnecessarily due to a
collapse or other safety hazard, the economic effects would be
considerable. Because many highway tunnels are located in mountainous
areas without short or simple alternative routes, the FHWA expects
similar indirect benefits to timely tunnel inspections would accrue
throughout the Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.coloradodot.info/travel/eisenhower-tunnel/eisenhower-tunnel-interesting-facts.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the NTIS would protect investments in key
infrastructure, as early detection of problems in tunnels could
increase the longevity of these assets and create savings in
maintenance and repair costs over time. Because tunnels are vital to
the local, regional, and national economies, and to our national
defense, it is imperative that these facilities are properly maintained
and inspected.
The FHWA understands that the proposed NTIS regulations could
increase present tunnel inspection costs to account for more frequent
inspection of special elements and systems and for collection and
reporting requirements. The FHWA solicits comments regarding the
anticipated additional tunnel inspection costs that would be imposed by
the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would not adversely affect, in a material way,
any sector of the economy. In addition, the proposed rule would not
interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would
not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
rule on small entities and anticipates that this action would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Because the proposed regulations are primarily intended for
States and Federal agencies, the FHWA has determined that the proposed
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. States and Federal agencies are not included
in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and the FHWA certifies
that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule would
not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The NTIS are
needed to ensure safety for the users of our Nation's tunnels and to
help protect Federal infrastructure investment. As discussed above, the
FHWA finds that this regulatory action would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $141,300,000 or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be
proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects
on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which
State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.
[[Page 42656]]
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA
has determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed action
would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities would apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. Any action that might
be contemplated in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be
analyzed for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act for its impact
to this current information collection. The FHWA will submit the
proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at
the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, seeks public comments.
The FHWA invites comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary
for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens;
(3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity
of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing
the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize
and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.
The FHWA plans to collect data for the NTI related to basic tunnel
information, tunnel and roadway geometrics, interior tunnel structural
features, portal structural features, and preliminary assessment of
tunnel condition on the form included in the docket. The anticipated
respondents include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. The FHWA expects the frequency of collection would be the first
year after the NTIS are established and every twenty-four months
thereafter. The FHWA estimates that the estimated average burden per
response would be approximately 54 hours per participant every twenty-
four months. The estimated total annual burden hours would be 2,800
hours every twenty-four months.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and has
determined that this proposed action would not have an effect on the
quality of the environment.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposal would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule does not concern an environmental risk to
health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA believes that this proposal would not
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments; and would not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that the proposed rule
would not constitute a significant energy action under that order
because, although it is considered a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 650
Bridges, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued on: July 14, 2010.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title
23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 650, by adding Subpart E, as set
forth below:
PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS
Subpart E--National Tunnel Inspection Standards
Sec.
650.501 Purpose.
650.503 Applicability.
650.505 Definitions.
650.507 Tunnel Inspection Organization.
650.509 Qualifications of personnel.
650.511 Inspection frequency.
650.513 Inspection procedures.
650.515 Inventory.
650.517 Reference Manual.
Authority: Title 23, United States Code, Section 315; 23 CFR
1.27; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Subpart E--National Tunnel Inspection Standards
Sec. 650.501 Purpose.
This subpart sets the national standards for the proper safety
inspection and evaluation for tunnels constructed or renovated with
title 23 Federal funds that are located on public roads and tunnels on
Federal-aid highways.
[[Page 42657]]
Sec. 650.503 Applicability.
The National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) in this subpart
apply to all tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal
funds that are located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid
highways.
Sec. 650.505 Definitions.
The following terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Manual for Bridge Evaluation. The term ``AASHTO Manual for
Bridge Evaluation'' has the same meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Bridge inspection experience. The term ``bridge inspection
experience'' has the same meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Complex tunnel. A tunnel characterized by advanced or unique
structural elements or functional systems.
Critical finding. The term ``critical finding'' has the same
meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Damage inspection. The term ``damage inspection'' has the same
meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Federal-aid highway. The term ``Federal-aid highway'' has the same
meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5).
Functional systems. Non-structural systems, such as electrical,
mechanical, fire suppression, ventilation, lighting, communications,
monitoring, drainage, traffic signals, emergency response (including
egress, refuge room spacing, or carbon monoxide detection), or traffic
safety components.
Hands-on inspection. The term ``hands-on inspection'' has the same
meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Highway. The term ``highway'' has the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(11).
Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual. The ``Highway
and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual,'' 2005 edition, published by
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration.
In-depth inspection. A close-up inspection of one, several, or all
tunnel structural elements or functional systems to identify any
deficiencies not readily detectable using routine inspection
procedures; hands-on inspection may be necessary at some locations. In-
depth inspections may occur more or less frequently than routine
inspections, as outlined in the tunnel-specific inspection procedures.
Initial inspection. The first inspection of a tunnel to provide all
inventory and appraisal data and to determine the condition baseline of
the structural elements and functional systems.
Legal load. The maximum legal load for each vehicle configuration
permitted by law for the State in which the tunnel is located.
Load rating. The determination of the vehicular live load carrying
capacity within or above the tunnel using structural plans and
supplemented by information gathered from a field inspection.
Operating rating. The term ``operating rating'' has the same
meaning as in 23 CFR 650.305.
Portal. The entrance and exit of the tunnel exposed to the
environment; portals may include bare rock, constructed tunnel entrance
structures, or buildings.
Professional engineer (PE). An individual, who has fulfilled
education and experience requirements and passed rigorous exams that,
under State licensure laws, permits them to offer engineering services
directly to the public. Engineering licensure laws vary from State to
State. In general, to become a PE, an individual must be a graduate of
an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam,
gain 4 years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles
of Practice of Engineering exam.
Program manager. The individual in charge of the inspection program
who has been assigned or delegated the duties and responsibilities for
tunnel inspection, reporting, and inventory. The Program Manager
provides overall leadership and guidance to inspection Team Leaders.
Public road. The term ``public road'' has the same meaning as in 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(27).
Quality assurance. The use of sampling and other measures to assure
the adequacy of quality control procedures in order to verify or
measure the quality level of the entire tunnel inspection and load
rating program.
Quality control. Procedures that are intended to maintain the
quality of a tunnel inspection and load rating at or above a specified
level.
Routine inspection. A regularly scheduled comprehensive inspection
encompassing all tunnel structural elements and functional systems and
consisting of observations and measurements needed to determine the
physical and functional condition of the tunnel, to identify any
changes from initial or previously recorded conditions, and to ensure
that tunnel components continue to satisfy present service
requirements.
Routine permit load. A vehicular load that has a gross weight, axle
weight, or distance between axles not conforming with State laws for
legally configured vehicles authorized for unlimited trips over an
extended period of time to move alongside other heavy vehicles on a
regular basis.
Special inspection. An inspection, scheduled at the discretion of
the tunnel owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected
deficiency.
State transportation department. The term ``State transportation
department'' has the same meaning as in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
Team leader. The on-site individual in charge of an inspection team
responsible for planning, preparing, performing, and reporting on
tunnel inspections.
Tunnel. An enclosed roadway for motor vehicle traffic with vehicle
access limited to portals regardless of type of structure or method of
construction. Tunnels do not include bridges or culverts inspected
under the NBIS (23 CFR 650 Subpart C--National Bridge Inspection
Standards). Tunnels are structures that require special design
considerations that may include lighting, ventilation, fire protection
systems, and emergency egress capacity based on the owner's
determination.
Tunnel inspection experience. Active participation in the
performance of tunnel inspections in accordance with the National
Tunnel Inspection Standards, in either a field inspection, supervisory,
or management role. A combination of tunnel design, tunnel maintenance,
tunnel construction, and tunnel inspection experience, with the
predominant amount in tunnel inspection, is acceptable.
Sec. 650.507 Tunnel Inspection Organization.
(a) Each State transportation department must inspect, or cause to
be inspected, all tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23
Federal funds located on public roads and tunnels on Federal-aid
highways that are fully or partially located within the State's
boundaries, except for tunnels that are owned by Federal agencies.
(b) Each Federal agency must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all
highway tunnels constructed or renovated with title 23 Federal funds
located on public roads that are fully or partially located within the
respective agency's responsibility or jurisdiction.
(c) Where a tunnel is jointly-owned, all bordering States and
Federal agencies with ownership interests should determine through a
joint formal written agreement the inspection responsibilities of each
State and Federal agency.
[[Page 42658]]
(d) Each State transportation department in a State that contains
one or more tunnels subject to these regulations, or Federal agency
with a tunnel under its jurisdiction, must include a tunnel inspection
organization that is responsible for the following:
(1) Statewide or Federal agency-wide tunnel inspection policies and
procedures (both general and tunnel-specific), quality control and
quality assurance procedures, and preparation and maintenance of a
tunnel inventory.
(2) Tunnel inspections, reports, load ratings, and other
requirements of these standards.
(e) Functions identified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section may be delegated through a formal written agreement, but such
delegation does not relieve the State transportation department or
Federal agency of any of its responsibilities under this subpart.
(f) The State transportation department or Federal agency tunnel
inspection organization must have a Program Manager with the
qualifications listed in Sec. 650.509(a), who has been delegated
responsibility for paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
Sec. 650.509 Qualifications of personnel.
(a) A Program Manager must, at a minimum, be a registered PE, or
have 10 years tunnel inspection experience.
(b) A Team Leader must, at a minimum, be a registered PE.
(c) The individual charged with the overall responsibility for load
rating tunnels must be a registered PE.
Sec. 650.511 Inspection frequency.
Each State transportation department or Federal agency tunnel
inspection organization must conduct or cause the following to be
conducted for each tunnel under its responsibility or jurisdiction:
(a) Initial inspection. Within 12 months of the effective date of
this rule, inspect each tunnel according to the inspection guidance
provided in the Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 650.517).
(b) Routine inspections. (1) Inspect each tunnel at regular
intervals not to exceed twenty-four months to ensure tunnel structural
elements and functional systems are performing as designed.
(2) For tunnels needing inspection more frequently than at twenty-
four-month intervals, establish criteria to determine the level and
frequency to which these tunnels are inspected based on a risk analysis
approach that considers such factors as tunnel age, traffic
characteristics, geotechnical conditions, and known deficiencies.
(c) Damage, in-depth, and special inspections. The Program Manager
shall establish criteria to determine the level and frequency of these
inspections. Damage, in-depth, and special inspections may use non-
destructive testing or other methods not used during routine
inspections at an interval established by the Program Manager. In-depth
inspections should be scheduled for complex tunnels and for certain
structural elements and functional systems when necessary to fully
ascertain the condition of the element or system.
Sec. 650.513 Inspection procedures.
Each State transportation department or Federal agency tunnel
inspection organization, to carry out its inspection responsibilities,
must perform or cause to be performed the following:
(a) Inspect tunnel structural elements and functional systems in
accordance with the inspection guidance provided in the Highway and
Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 650.517).
(b) Provide at least one Team Leader, who meets the minimum
qualifications stated in Sec. 650.509, at the tunnel at all times
during each initial, routine, and in-depth inspection.
(c) Prepare and document tunnel-specific inspection procedures for
each tunnel inspected and inventoried, commensurate with tunnel
complexity, identifying tunnel structural elements and functional
systems to be inspected.
(d) Establish functional system testing requirements, requirements
for direct observation of critical system checks, and testing
documentation.
(e) For complex tunnels, identify specialized inspection
procedures, and additional inspector training and experience required
to inspect complex tunnels. Inspect complex tunnels according to the
specialized inspection procedures.
(f) Conduct tunnel inspections with qualified staff not associated
with the operation or maintenance of the tunnel structure or functional
systems.
(g) Rate each tunnel as to its safe vehicular load-carrying
capacity in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
Post or restrict the highways in or over the tunnel in accordance with
this same manual unless otherwise specified in State law, when the
maximum unrestricted legal loads or State routine permit loads exceed
that allowed under the operating rating or equivalent rating factor.
(h) Prepare tunnel inspection documentation as described in the
Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 650.517), and maintain written reports on the
results of tunnel inspections together with notations of any action
taken to address the findings of such inspections. Maintain relevant
maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of current tunnel
condition. At a minimum, information collected must include data
regarding basic tunnel information (e.g., tunnel location, speed,
inspections, repair, and rehabilitation), tunnel and roadway
geometrics, interior tunnel structural features, portal structure
features, and tunnel systems information. Tunnel data collected must
also include diagrams, photos, condition of each structural and
functional system component, and notations of any action taken to
address the findings of such inspections.
(i) Assure systematic quality control and quality assurance
procedures are used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and
consistency in the inspection program. Include periodic field review of
inspection teams and independent review of inspection reports and
computations.
(j) Establish a statewide or Federal agency-wide procedure to
assure that critical findings are addressed in a timely manner. Notify
the FHWA within 30 days of any critical finding and the actions taken
to resolve or monitor the critical finding.
(k) Provide information annually, or as required in cooperation
with any FHWA review of State and Federal agency compliance with the
NTIS.
Sec. 650.515 Inventory.
(a) Preliminary inventory. Each State or Federal agency must
collect and submit the following inventory data information for all
tunnels subject to the NTIS within 30 days of the effective date of
this rule:
(1) Basic tunnel information. Tunnel name; tunnel number (based on
the National Bridge Inspection Standards coding guide); owner;
operator; tunnel location, including State, county, or political
subdivision, route designation, Strategic Highway Network designation,
portals milepost, portals latitude and longitude; year tunnel
construction completed; traffic data, including posted speed, design
speed, current average daily traffic, and percentage of truck traffic;
and date of last inspection.
(2) Tunnel and roadway geometrics. Number of bores; total number of
lanes; direction of traffic (e.g., uni-directional, bi-directional,
variable); portal-to-portal tunnel length; maximum open tunnel height
within travelway; minimum
[[Page 42659]]
posted vertical clearance; minimum cross-sectional width; lane
width(s); shoulder width(s); and pavement type.
(3) Interior tunnel structural features. Tunnel shape (e.g.,
circular, rectangular, horseshoe, oval); ground conditions (e.g., soft
ground, soft rock, hard rock, mixed face); ceiling type (e.g.,
structural lining, integral box, suspended panel); finish lining type
(e.g., tiles, metal panels, precast panels, masonry block, shotcrete or
gunite, coating or paint); and primary tunnel support lining.
(4) Portal structural features. Portal types (e.g., cast-in place
or precast concrete, stone masonry, bare rock); and portal shapes
(e.g., circular, rectangular, horseshoe, oval).
(b) Preliminary assessment of tunnel condition. (1) Using data from
the most recent inspection, each State or Federal agency must rate the
structural and functional systems in its tunnels, where applicable,
from 0 to 9 in accordance with the chart on page 4-12 of the Highway
and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual and submit the data to FHWA
within 90 days of the effective date of this rule.
(2) A system rated 3 or below is considered a critical finding. The
State or Federal agency must file a follow-up plan with the FHWA within
30 days of identification of a critical finding and the actions taken
to address all critical findings.
(c) Updates to preliminary findings. Upon performing an initial
inspection of a tunnel under Sec. 650.511(a), each State or Federal
agency shall notify the FHWA of any updates to the information provided
under subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Tunnel inventory. Each State or Federal agency must prepare,
maintain, and make available to the FHWA upon request, an inventory of
all tunnels subject to the NTIS reflecting the findings of the tunnel
inspections.
(e) Data entry for inspections. For all inspections, enter the
tunnel data into the State or Federal agency inventory within 90 days
of the date of inspection.
(f) Data entry for tunnel modifications and new tunnels. For
modifications to existing tunnels that alter previously recorded data
and for new tunnels, enter the data into the State or Federal agency
inventory within 90 days after the completion of the work.
(g) Data entry for tunnel load restriction and closure changes. For
changes in traffic load restriction or closure status, enter the data
into the State or Federal agency inventory within 90 days after the
change in status of the tunnel.
Sec. 650.517 Reference Manual.
``The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual,''
2005 edition, available in electronic format at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/management/, is incorporated by
reference herein.
[FR Doc. 2010-17787 Filed 7-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P