DOCSLIB.ORG

REMOTE BRIDGE SCOUR MONITORING: May 1999 a PRIORITIZATION and IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REMOTE BRIDGE SCOUR MONITORING: May 1999 a PRIORITIZATION and IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. TX-00/0-3970-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date REMOTE BRIDGE SCOUR MONITORING: May 1999 A PRIORITIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE 7. Author(s) 6. Performing Organization Code Carl Haas, José Weissmann, and Tom Groll 8. Performing Organization Report No. Research Report 7-3970-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research Department of Civil Engineering The University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at San Antonio 11. Contract or Grant No. 3208 Red River, Suite 200 6900 N. Loop 1604 West Research Study 7-3970 Austin, TX 78705-2650 San Antonio, TX 78249 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Report Research and Technology Transfer Section/Construction Division September 1997 – May 1999 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, TX 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project conducted in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Having the largest bridge population in the nation, the state of Texas stands to gain much through the development of bridge scour-monitoring and evaluation practices. Because it has such a large bridge population to manage, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) needs a logical and low-cost method of prioritizing and monitoring bridges for scour damage. An algorithm based on code contained in the BRINSAP database can be used effectively to prioritize bridge sites for further consideration of scour countermeasure implementation. Remote mechanical monitoring is an emerging method for detecting and tracking bridge scour. Mechanical scour monitors equipped with data telemetry equipment can provide a safe and effective means of tracking scour at bridge piers and abutments. Because remote mechanical scour monitoring is a relatively new approach, TxDOT should support extensive research and planning regarding methods of system development and implementation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through Bridge scour, monitoring systems, prioritization the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 19. Security Classif. (of report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 194 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized REMOTE BRIDGE SCOUR MONITORING: A PRIORITIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE by Carl Haas José Weissmann Tom Groll Research Report Number 3970-1 Research Project 7-3970 Project title: Develop a Remote Automatic Monitoring and Public Information System for Hazardous Conditions Conducted for the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION by the CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Bureau of Engineering Research THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN and the Department of Civil Engineering THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO May 1999 iv ABSTRACT Having the largest bridge population in the nation, the state of Texas stands to gain much through the development of bridge scour-monitoring and evaluation practices. Because it has such a large bridge population to manage, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) needs a logical and low-cost method of prioritizing and monitoring bridges for scour damage. An algorithm based on code contained in the BRINSAP database can be used effectively to prioritize bridge sites for further consideration of scour countermeasure implementation. Remote mechanical monitoring is an emerging method for detecting and tracking bridge scour. Mechanical scour monitors equipped with data telemetry equipment can provide a safe and effective means of tracking scour at bridge piers and abutments. Because remote mechanical scour monitoring is a relatively new approach, TxDOT should support extensive research and planning regarding methods of system development and implementation. DISCLAIMERS The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. There was no invention or discovery conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the course of or under this contract, including any art, method, process, machine, manufacture, design or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be patentable under the patent laws of the United States of America or any foreign country. NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES Carl Haas, P.E. (Texas No. 018753) Research Supervisor v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researchers thank Mr. Anthony Schneider (DES), TxDOT project director, and T. D. Ellis (PAR), TxDOT program coordinator, for their assistance with this project. Special thanks also go to Mr. Gerald Freytag of TxDOT’s Yoakum District for taking the time to provide thoughtful and meaningful responses to the many questions imposed on him during the course of this project. Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Remote Monitoring of Bridge Scour........................................................ 1 1.1.2 Motivation for Study................................................................................ 2 1.1.3 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................ 3 1.1.4 Description of the Scour Process ............................................................. 4 1.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 SCOPE .................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 2. BRIDGE SCOUR EVALUATION AND MONITORING PRACTICES ........ 9 2.1 COMPONENTS OF A SCOUR EVALUATION PROGRAM.............................. 9 2.2 BRIDGE SCOUR EVALUATION PRACTICES IN TEXAS............................... 9 2.2.1 The BRINSAP Database ........................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Inspection Procedures and Data Transmission....................................... 13 2.2.3 Initial Screening Method for Scour Evaluation (SVEAR)..................... 15 2.2.4 Texas Secondary Evaluation and Analysis for Scour ............................ 16 2.3 SCOUR MONITORING AND SITE PRIORITIZATION................................... 17 2.3.1 Estimation of the Number of Bridges to be Prioritized.......................... 20 2.3.2 Selection of Prioritization Parameters.................................................... 22 2.3.3 The Role of Monitoring in a Bridge Management System .................... 23 CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIORITIZATION MODEL ............................. 27 3.1 COMPONENTS OF THE PRIORITIZATION MODEL..................................... 27 3.1.1 Rank Ordering of the Prioritization Parameters..................................... 27 3.1.2 Assignment of Weights to the Parameters ............................................. 28 3.1.3 Assignment of Scores to the Parameters................................................ 30 3.2 PRIORITIZATION MODEL PERFORMANCE AND CALIBRATION ........... 35 3.2.1 The Initial Model Output........................................................................ 36 3.2.2 Bridge Lists Prioritized by District Engineers ....................................... 37 3.2.3 Prioritization Model Performance.......................................................... 38 3.2.4 Prioritization Model Calibration ............................................................ 39 3.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PRIORITIZATION METHODS ........................... 40 3.3.1 The CAESAR Scour Evaluation for Prioritization Method................... 40 3.3.2 The HYRISK Prioritization Method ...................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4. REMOTE SCOUR-MONITORING SYSTEMS............................................. 45 4.1 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE SCOUR-MONITORING SYSTEMS..................... 45 4.1.1 Magnetic Sliding Collar Monitoring Systems........................................ 45 4.1.2 Low-Cost Sonic Fathometer Monitoring Systems................................. 46 4.1.3 Sounding Rod Scour-Monitoring Systems............................................. 47 4.1.4 Other Buried Devices for Scour Monitoring.......................................... 48 vii 4.1.5 Capabilities and Limitations of Scour-Monitoring Equipment.............. 49 4.2 SURVEY OF OTHER STATES' EXPERIENCE WITH SCOUR MONITORING.................................................................................... 52 4.3 DOCUMENTATION OF SCOUR-MONITORING INSTALLATIONS IN TEXAS......................................................................................................... 53 4.3.1 Magnetic Sliding Collar System Installation in the Abilene District..... 54 4.3.2 Sonar System Installation in the Houston
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4-Year Work Plan by District for Fys 2015-2018
    4 Year Work Plan by District for FYs 2015 - 2018 Overview Section §201.998 of the Transportation code requires that a Department Work Program report be provided to the Legislature. Under this law, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides the following information within this report. Consistently-formatted work program for each of TxDOT's 25 districts based on Unified Transportation Program. Covers four-year period and contains all projects that the district proposes to implement during that period. Includes progress report on major transportation projects and other district projects. Per 43 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 16 Subchapter C rule §16.106, a major transportation project is the planning, engineering, right of way acquisition, expansion, improvement, addition, or contract maintenance, other than the routine or contracted routine maintenance, of a bridge, highway, toll road, or toll road system on the state highway system that fulfills or satisfies a particular need, concern, or strategy of the department in meeting the transportation goals established under §16.105 of this subchapter (relating to Unified Transportation Program (UTP)). A project may be designated by the department as a major transportation project if it meets one or more of the criteria specified below: 1) The project has a total estimated cost of $500 million or more. All costs associated with the project from the environmental phase through final construction, including adequate contingencies and reserves for all cost elements, will be included in computing the total estimated cost regardless of the source of funding. The costs will be expressed in year of expenditure dollars. 2) There is a high level of public or legislative interest in the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission Records
    University of Texas at El Paso ScholarWorks@UTEP Finding Aids Special Collections Department 12-9-1975 Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission records Raymond Daguerre Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.utep.edu/finding_aid This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections Department at ScholarWorks@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Finding Aids by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission records Span dates, 1850 – 1997 Bulk dates, 1953 – 1974 3 feet, 5 inches (linear) Processed by Raymond P. Daguerre December 9, 1975 Donated by Joseph Friedkin, International Boundary and Water Commission. Citation: International Boundary and Water Commission, 1975, MS042, C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department. The University of Texas at El Paso Library. C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department University of Texas at El Paso IBWC Biography or Historical Sketch Established in 1889, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has responsibility for applying the boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and settling differences that may arise in their application. The IBWC is an international body composed of the United States Section and the Mexican Section, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by his/her respective president. Each Section is administered independently of the other. The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is a federal government agency and is headquartered in El Paso, Texas. The IBWC operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface Water Stations in Texas
    1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I AUSTIN, TEXAS INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS Operated by the Water Resources Division of the Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal Agencies Gaging Station 08065000. Trinity River near Oakwood , October 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey - Water Resources Division INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 Copies of this report may be obtained from District Chief. Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building Austin. Texas 78701 1970 CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................... ................•.......•...•..... Location of offices .........................................•..•.......... Description of stations................................................... 2 Definition of tenns........... • . 2 ILLUSTRATIONS Location of active gaging stations in Texas, October 1970 .•.•.•.••..•••••..•.. 1n pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, and reservoir-content stations •.•.•... ~........ 3 2. Low-fla.o~ partial-record stations.................................... 18 3. Crest-stage partial-record stations................................. 22 4. Miscellaneous sites................................................. 27 5. Tide-level stations........................ ........................ 28 ii INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are con­ ducted in cooperation with the Texas Water Development
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Project
    Rio Grande Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents Rio Grande Project.............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Post-Construction History................................................15 Settlement of the Project .................................................19 Uses of Project Water ...................................................22 Conclusion............................................................25 Suggested Readings ...........................................................25 About the Author .............................................................25 Bibliography ................................................................27 Manuscript and Archival Collections .......................................27 Government Documents .................................................27 Articles...............................................................27 Books ................................................................29 Newspapers ...........................................................29 Other Sources..........................................................29 Index ......................................................................30 1 Rio Grande Project At the twentieth
    [Show full text]
  • Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, with Emphasis on Gains from and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers
    DistrictCover.fm Page 1 Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:33 PM In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, With Emphasis on Gains From and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers Open-File Report 02–068 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, With Emphasis on Gains From and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers By Raymond M. Slade, Jr., J. Taylor Bentley, and Dana Michaud U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 02–068 In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Austin, Texas 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8027 Exchange Dr. Austin, TX 78754–4733 E-mail: [email protected] Copies of this report can be purchased from U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225–0286 E-mail: [email protected] ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • December 2014 Congressional Report (PDF)
    EPA Review under Clean Water Act Section 404 Congressional Request: 113 HR 3547 – Water: Ecosystems Fiscal Year 2015– December Section I. of the following table lists the Corps of Engineers Individual Standard Permit public notices received by EPA in December 2014 and all comment letters on individual standard permit public notices issued by EPA in December 2014. Section II. of the following table lists all comment letters on Corps of Engineers Individual Standard Permit public notices issued by EPA between October 1, 2013 and November 31, 2014. Where the Corps has made a final permit decision, it is documented below and will not appear in subsequent reports. During this reporting period, EPA received 136 Individual standard permit public notices, performed a detailed review of 89%, and subsequently provided comment letters on 10% of them. EPA is not the only commenter on Corps public notices. Other federal and state agencies and the public routinely provide comments to the Corps. Of the new public notices in Section I, the Corps has issued 14 permits, 0 permit were denied, 8 applications were withdrawn, 108 are still being processed, and 1 was verified as General Permit. Days Date(s) Date of Final Corps DA under Project Name Tracked by EPA County State EPA Review Received by Comment Decision by Decision Number review by EPA2 Letter(s)2 the Corps Date4 EPA2,3 Section I. New Actions (Public Notices and Comment Letters) SAJ-2009- Detailed Review – Municipality of Caguas Caguas Puerto Rico N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD 02331 general comments SAJ-2014-
    [Show full text]
  • Refinery MACT Summary Report: Evaluating Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Data
    Refinery MACT Summary Report: Evaluating Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Data Established March 2020 Updated: 2021Q2 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................II LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... III BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1 AIR MONITORING FOR BENZENE ............................................................................................ 1 BENZENE FENCELINE MONITORING ................................................................................................................... 1 TCEQ STATIONARY AMBIENT AIR MONITORING ................................................................................................. 1 EVALUATION OF AMBIENT AIR MONITORING DATA ............................................................... 2 EPA DELTA C CALCULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 2 TCEQ LONG-TERM AMCV COMPARISON ......................................................................................................... 2 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL SAMPLERS OF INTEREST .................................................................. 3 FACILITIES WITH SOIS ABOVE THE LONG-TERM AMCV FOR BENZENE .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Installation of Fencing, Lights, Cameras, Guardrails, and Sensors Along the American Canal Extension El Paso District Elpaso, Texas
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INSTALLATION OF FENCING, LIGHTS, CAMERAS, GUARDRAILS, AND SENSORS ALONG THE AMERICAN CANAL EXTENSION EL PASO DISTRICT ELPASO, TEXAS Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Washington, D.C. Prepared in Conjunction with: HDR Engineering, Inc. Alexandria, VA. Apri11999 Environmental Assessment - Fencing & Lighting Along American Canal Extension El Paso Border Patrol/INS SUMMARY PROJECT SPONSOR: U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) COMMENTS DUE TO: Manuel M. Rodriguez Chief, Policy & Planning Facilities & Engineering Immigration & Naturalization Service U.S. Department of Justice 425 Eye Street, N.W. Room 2060 Washington, D.C. 20536 Phone.: (202) 353-0383 Fax: (202) 353-8551 TIERING: This Environmental Assessment is tiered from the "Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S./Mexico Border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California)", dated August 1994, prepared for the INS. PROPOSED ACTION: TheEl Paso Sector of the United States Border Patrol, the law enforcement arm of the INS, proposes to install fencing, lights, cameras, guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension in El Paso, TX. The Proposed Action directly supports the mission of the Border Patrol (BP), and will provide considerable added safety to the field personnel. The project is located near the Rio Grande River in northwestern Texas. All of the project is within the city limits of El Paso. The majority of the Project Location is along a man­ made canal and levee system. Portions of the canal are at times adjacent to industrial areas, downtown El Paso, and mixed commercial with limited residential development.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army on Civil
    ANNUAL REPORT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1964 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY. ON CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES 1964 IN TWO VOLUMES Vol. 1 Z-2 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1965 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 45 cents CONTENTS Volume 1 Page Letter of Transmittal ---------------------------------- - v Highlights---------------------- ------------------------_ _ vi Feature Articles-Reaction of an Engineering Agency of the Federal Government to the Civil Engineering Graduate..... Ix Water Management of the Columbia River--------_ -- xv Sediment Investigations Program of the Corps of Engineers ----------------------------------- xIx Water Resource Development-San Francisco Bay ... xxv The Fisheries-Engineering Research Program of the North Pacific Division-------- _----------------- xxx CHAPTER I. A PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCE DEVELOP- MENT----------------------------------------- 1 1. Scope and status--------------------------------- 1 2. Organization------------------------------------ 2 II. BENEFITS--------------------------------------- 3 1. Navigation-------------------------------------- 3 2. Flood control----------------------------------- 4 3. Hydroelectric power------------------------------ 4 4. Water supply------------------------------------ 5 5. Public recreation use------------------------------ 5 6. Fish and wildlife-------------------------------- 7 III. PLANNING--------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–99 Edition) § 116.55
    § 116.55 33 CFR Ch. I (7±1±99 Edition) Expired service life of old bridge llll PART 117ÐDRAWBRIDGE $llll Subtotal llll $llll OPERATION REGULATIONS Share to be borne by the bridge owner llll $llll Subpart AÐGeneral Requirements Contingencies llll $llll Sec. Total llll $llll 117.1 Purpose. Share to be borne by the United States 117.3 Applicability. llll $llll 117.4 Definitions. Contingencies llll $llll 117.5 When the draw shall open. Total llll $llll 117.7 General duties of drawbridge owners and tenders. (d) The Order of Apportionment of 117.9 Delaying opening of a draw. Costs will include the guaranty of 117.11 Unnecessary opening of the draw. costs. 117.15 Signals. 117.17 Signalling for contiguous draw- § 116.55 Appeals. bridges. 117.19 Signalling when two or more vessels (a) Except for the decision to issue an are approaching a drawbridge. Order to Alter, if a complainant dis- 117.21 Signalling for an opened drawbridge. agrees with a recommendation regard- 117.23 Installation of radiotelephones. ing obstruction or eligibility made by a 117.24 Radiotelephone installation identi- fication. District Commander, or the Chief, Of- 117.31 Operation of draw for emergency situ- fice of Bridge Administration, the com- ations. plainant may appeal that decision to 117.33 Closure of draw for natural disasters the Assistant Commandant for Oper- or civil disorders. ations. 117.35 Operations during repair or mainte- (b) The appeal must be submitted in nance. writing to the Assistant Commandant 117.37 Opening or closure of draw for public interest concerns. for Operations, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • El Paso Del Norte: a Cultural Landscape History of the Oñate Crossing on the Camino Real De Tierra Adentro 1598 –1983, Ciudad Juárez and El Paso , Texas, U.S.A
    El Paso del Norte: A Cultural Landscape History of the Oñate Crossing on the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 1598 –1983, Ciudad Juárez and El Paso , Texas, U.S.A. By Rachel Feit, Heather Stettler and Cherise Bell Principal Investigators: Deborah Dobson-Brown and Rachel Feit Prepared for the National Park Service- National Trails Intermountain Region Contract GS10F0326N August 2018 EL PASO DEL NORTE: A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE HISTORY OF THE OÑATE CROSSING ON THE CAMINO REAL DE TIERRA ADENTRO 1598–1893, CIUDAD JUÁREZ, MEXICO AND EL PASO, TEXAS U.S.A. by Rachel Feit, Heather Stettler, and Cherise Bell Principal Investigators: Deborah Dobson-Brown and Rachel Feit Draft by Austin, Texas AUGUST 2018 © 2018 by AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 4009 Banister Lane, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78704 Technical Report No. 247 AmaTerra Project No. 064-009 Cover photo: Hart’s Mill ca. 1854 (source: El Paso Community Foundation) and Leon Trousset Painting of Ciudad Juárez looking toward El Paso (source: The Trousset Family Online 2017) Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Oñate Crossing in Context .............................................................................................................. 1 .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 536 Part 117—Drawbridge Operation Regulations
    Pt. 117 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition) (c) Any Order of Apportionment 117.47 Clearance gages. made or issued under section 6 of the 117.49 Process of violations. Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. 516, may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for Subpart B—Specific Requirements any judicial circuit in which the bridge 117.51 General in question is wholly or partly located, 117.55 Posting of requirements. if a petition for review is filed within 90 117.59 Special requirements due to hazards. days after the date of issuance of the ALABAMA order. The review is described in sec- tion 10 of the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 117.101 Alabama River. U.S.C. 520. The review proceedings do 117.103 Bayou La Batre. 117.105 Bayou Sara. not operate as a stay of any order 117.107 Chattahoochee River. issued under the Truman-Hobbs Act, 117.109 Coosa River. other than an order of apportionment, 117.113 Tensaw River. nor relieve any bridge owner of any li- 117.115 Three Mile Creek. ability or penalty under other provi- sions of that act. ARKANSAS 117.121 Arkansas River. [CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as 117.123 Arkansas Waterway-Automated amended by CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, Railroad Bridges. 1996; CGD 97–023, 62 FR 33363, June 19, 1997; 117.125 Black River. USCG–2008–0179, 73 FR 35013, June 19, 2008; 117.127 Current River. USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 36283, June 25, 2010] 117.129 Little Red River.
    [Show full text]