[House Report 110-750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-750
======================================================================
NATIONAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION ACT OF 2007
_______
July 10, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3999]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 3999) to amend title 23, United
States Code, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway
bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and
processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of
structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 3999, the ``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and
Inspection Act of 2007,'' amends the Highway Bridge Program and
the National Bridge Inspection Program to improve the safety of
Federal-aid highway bridges, strengthen bridge inspection
standards and processes, and increase investment in the
reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the
National Highway System.
Background and Need for Legislation
I-35W BRIDGE COLLAPSE
On August 1, 2007, at 6:05 p.m., the I-35W Bridge in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, collapsed into the Mississippi River,
killing 13 people. The eight-lane, steel truss bridge span,
which was constructed in 1967, carried approximately 140,000
vehicles daily. The National Transportation Safety Board
(``NTSB'') is conducting an investigation into the cause of the
collapse. The NTSB's investigation may take up to 18 months to
complete.
The I-35W Bridge had been rated as structurally deficient
since 1990, and had undergone annual inspections by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (``MnDOT'') since 1993.
The most recent inspection, completed in June 2006, found
cracking and fatigue problems, and gave the bridge a
sufficiency rating of 50 percent on a scale of 0 to 100
percent. A rating of 50 percent or lower means the bridge is
eligible for replacement under the Federal Highway Bridge
Program.
In the aftermath of the collapse, MnDOT and the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development conducted a
study of the impact to regional mobility and economic activity
due to the loss of this facility. The study estimated that road
user costs total $400,000 per day in travel time delays and
increased operational expenses costs because of the increased
travel time resulting from the loss of the bridge. The report
also estimated that the impact of the collapse to Minnesota's
economy is $18 million in 2007 and $43 million in 2008.
HIGHWAY BRIDGE CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation
(``DOT''), one of every eight bridges in the nation is
structurally deficient. Of the 597,340 bridges in the United
States, 154,101 bridges are deficient, including 73,784
structurally deficient bridges and 80,317 functionally obsolete
bridges.
A bridge is considered structurally deficient if
significant load-carrying elements are found to be in poor or
worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage. The fact
that a bridge is ``deficient'' does not immediately imply that
it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe. With in-depth
inspection, unsafe conditions may be identified and, if the
bridge is determined to be unsafe, the structure must be
closed. A deficient bridge, when left open to traffic,
typically requires significant maintenance and repair to remain
in service and eventual rehabilitation or replacement to
address deficiencies.
The Department of Transportation's (``DOT'') Conditions and
Performance Report, entitled the 2006 Status of the Nation's
Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance
(``Conditions and Performance Report''), found that more than
$65 billion could be invested immediately in a cost-beneficial
way, by all levels of government, to replace or otherwise
address existing bridge deficiencies.
The high percentage of deficient bridges and the backlog of
necessary bridge repairs are, in part, due to the age of the
network. One-half of all bridges in the United States were
built before 1964. Interstate System bridges, which were
primarily constructed in the 1960s, pose a special challenge
because a large percentage of these bridges are in the same
period of their service lives (e.g., 44 percent of these
bridges were constructed in the 1960s). Concrete and steel
superstructures on the Interstate Highway System are, on
average, 35 to 40 years old.
The Committee is particularly concerned with the condition
of bridges on the National Highway System (``NHS''). The NHS is
a 162,000-mile highway network that consists of the 46,747-mile
Interstate System, the Strategic Highway Network for military
mobilizations, and other major highways. While the NHS makes up
only 4.1 percent of total U.S. mileage, it carries 45 percent
of vehicle miles traveled. NHS bridges carry more than 70
percent of all traffic on bridges. Of the 116,172 bridges on
the NHS (including more than 55,000 Interstate System bridges),
6,175 NHS bridges are structurally deficient. Almost one-half
of these structurally deficient NHS bridges are bridges on the
Interstate Highway System (2,830 structurally deficient
Interstate System bridges). The Condition and Performance
Report estimates the current NHS bridge investment backlog to
be $32.1 billion (including $19.1 billion for the Interstate
Highway System bridge backlog).
BRIDGE INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT IN THE
U.S.
As is the case with other U.S. surface transportation
infrastructure programs, inspection, maintenance, repair,
reconstruction and replacement of highway bridges are conducted
through a Federal-State partnership. The vast majority of all
bridges in the U.S. are owned by States and local governments.
The Federal Government establishes bridge inspection policies,
guidelines, and requirements. Inspections and management of
bridge inventories and repair, reconstruction, and replacement
of bridges are carried out by States, subject to Federal
oversight. The Federal Government also provides funding for
States and local governments to invest in their bridge
inventory through the Highway Bridge Program.
Federal law requires States to inspect all bridges more
than 20 feet in length within the State, and report the
findings of inspections to the Federal Highway Administration
(``FHWA''). Federal law does not require States to take
additional actions to maintain, repair or reconstruct deficient
bridges. That is the responsibility of bridge owners. Bridge
engineers in the FHWA Division Offices are responsible for
overseeing States' operation and management of their bridge
program; however, States choose how and where to invest their
bridge program resources.
It should be noted that the Federal Government does own
approximately one percent of the nation's bridges, primarily
bridges on federally-owned land. In cases where the Federal
Government owns the facility, the Federal Government is
responsible for inspecting and maintaining the bridges.
FEDERAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS
Efforts to create Federal bridge inspection standards began
in 1968, as a result of the December 1967 collapse of the
Silver Bridge, a bridge between Point Pleasant, West Virginia,
and Gallipolis, Ohio. Forty-six people were killed in the
collapse. The following year, Congress passed the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968, which established the National Bridge
Inspection Program (``NBIP''), and directed DOT to work with
States to establish national bridge inspection standards
designed to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies to
ensure the safety of highway bridges. The Act required DOT to
establish inspection criteria and procedures, and inspector
training and qualification requirements. The Act also required
States to prepare and maintain an inventory of Federal-aid
highway system bridges.
In 1971, DOT published the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (``NBIS''), which established bridge inspection
policies, in the Federal Register. Under the NBIS, States are
required to conduct routine safety inspections on each bridge
at least once every 24 months to determine physical and
functional conditions of the bridge. The inspections are
carried out by either State employees or consultants, subject
to Federal oversight.
According to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials' (``AASHTO'') Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges, the minimum Federal requirement of
routine inspections consists of ``observations and measurements
needed to determine the physical and functional condition of
the bridge, to identify changes in `initial' or previously
recorded conditions, and to ensure that the structure continues
to satisfy present service requirements.'' Routine inspections
are generally visual. However, States do utilize additional
technology or mechanical techniques to carry out more in-depth
inspections, depending on the condition and nature of the
structure. During inspections, three major bridge elements are
examined: the bridge deck, superstructure, and substructure.
The AASHTO manual identified the following types of bridge
inspections:
Initial--A first inspection of a bridge, which
provides a structural inventory and a baseline of
structural conditions, including identification and
listing of existing problems or locations in the
structure that may require special attention.
Routine--A regularly scheduled inspection to
determine the physical and functional condition of the
bridge.
In-Depth--A close-up, hands-on inspection of one or
more bridge components to identify potential
deficiencies which are not detectable using routine
inspection procedures.
Special--A regular inspection to monitor a specific
known or suspected deficiency of a bridge.
Damage--An unscheduled emergency inspection to
determine structural damage resulting from accident or
other external incident.
Information is collected during inspection documenting the
conditions and composition of the bridge structures. The
periodic inspections determine the adequacy of the structure to
service the current demands for structural and functional
purposes. Information and data regarding the condition of the
bridges is submitted to the FHWA for inclusion in the National
Bridge Inventory (NBI).
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 expanded
the NBIS to include bridges on all public roads, including
bridges not on the Federal-aid highway system. With an expanded
inventory of bridges to be inspected, FHWA decided to lengthen
the time between inspections. In 1988, FHWA issued regulations
extending inspection intervals for certain bridges based on
findings and analysis from previous inspections. The inspection
interval for these bridges may not exceed once every 48 months.
However, States are still required to conduct routine
inspections on each bridge once every 24 months unless the
State receives approval from FHWA to extend the inspection
interval. According to FHWA, 83 percent of bridges are
inspected once every 24 months, 12 percent are inspected at
least annually, and 5 percent are inspected at least once every
48 months.
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987 required additional inspection
requirements for components that are critical to the safety of
the structure. These components include fracture-critical
members and underwater structures. Fracture-critical members
are bridge components ``whose failure will probably cause a
portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.'' Inspections for
underwater structures must occur at least once every 60 months.
Pursuant to FHWA's 1988 final rule implementing these
provisions, FHWA may extend the inspection interval for certain
underwater structures based on findings and analysis from
previous inspections. The inspection interval for underwater
structures may not exceed once every 72 months.
The Secretary uses funds made available for the DOT's
administrative expenses and the Surface Transportation Research
Program to implement the NBIS highway bridge inspection
program. States use Highway Bridge Program funds to carry
bridge inspection activities.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM
The Highway Bridge Program (``HBP'') provides funding to
enable States to improve the condition of their highway bridges
through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive
maintenance. The program is funded by contract authority, and
subject to an overall Federal-aid obligation limitation. The
apportioned funds are distributed according to a formula based
on each State's relative share of the total cost to repair or
replace deficient highway bridges.
Federal assistance for the replacement of bridges was
originally included in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970,
which contained the Special Bridge Replacement Program
(``SBRP''). The SBRP required DOT to inventory all bridges
located on the Federal-aid system over waterways and other
topographical barriers, classify these bridges, and prioritize
the bridges by need of replacement. DOT would approve State
applications for bridge replacement funds based on this
inventory and classification. Subsequent Federal-Aid Highway
Acts extended the SBRP.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 renamed
the program the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program, and made bridge repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement eligible to receive Federal funding.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (``SAFETEA-LU''), enacted in
2005, further expanded eligible uses of HBP funds to include
systematic maintenance.
Current eligible uses of Highway Bridge Program funds
include:
Replacement of a structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete highway bridge on any public road
with a new facility constructed in the same general
traffic corridor.
Rehabilitation to restore the structural integrity of
a bridge on any public road, as well as the
rehabilitation work necessary to correct major safety
(functional) defects.
Replacement of ferryboat operations in existence on
January 1, 1984, the replacement of bridges destroyed
before 1965, low-water crossings, and bridges made
obsolete by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control
or channelization projects and not rebuilt with Corps
funds.
Bridge painting, seismic retrofitting, systematic
preventive maintenance, calcium magnesium acetate
applications, sodium acetate/formate, or other
environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-
icing and de-icing compositions or installing scour
countermeasures.
Systematic maintenance.
HBP funds are apportioned to States according to a formula
that is based on each State's relative share of the total cost
to repair or replace deficient highway bridges. The Federal
share for the Highway Bridge Program is 80 percent, or 90
percent for bridges on the Interstate system. The program
includes a set-aside for off-system bridges of not less than 15
percent of the amount apportioned to each State in each of
fiscal year 2005 through 2009. These funds are to be used for
bridge projects that are not on a Federal-aid highway.
States can use HBP funds for the replacement of a bridge
with a sufficiency rating below 50 on a scale of 0-100. Bridges
with a sufficiency rating of between 50 and 80 are eligible for
repair and rehabilitation. States may not use HBP funds for
reconstruction of facilities with a sufficiency rating above
80. Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2005, States
invested Federal highway program funds as follows: 8 percent on
new bridge facilities, 60.5 percent on bridge replacement
projects, 5 percent on major bridge rehabilitation projects,
and 6.5 percent on minor bridge maintenance projects. The
percentage of Federal funds being invested in minor bridge
repairs has been increasing in recent years.
The Federal-Aid Highway program provides States with
considerable funding transferability among most Federal-Aid
Highway apportioned programs. Beginning with enactment of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'') in
1991, States were allowed to transfer up to 40 percent of HBP
funds to National Highway System (``NHS'') or Surface
Transportation Program (``STP'') apportionments. In 1998, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (``TEA 21'')
increased the percentage of HBP funds that may be transferred
to 50 percent. In addition, TEA 21 expanded the programs that
may receive HBP transfers to include NHS, STP, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (``CMAQ''), highway
safety and recreational trails apportionments. SAFETEA-LU
retained this authority. Between 1992 and 2006, States
transferred a total of $4.73 billion in Highway Bridge Program
funds to NHS and STP programs.
In addition, a State may transfer approximately 50 percent
of its NHS, STP, and Interstate Maintenance apportionments to
the Highway Bridge Program. A State may also transfer less than
50 percent of its CMAQ apportionment to the Highway Bridge
Program. Between fiscal years 2004 and 2007, of the 19 States
that transferred funding from the Highway Bridge Program to
other Federal-Aid Highway programs, 7 of those States also
transferred funding from other Federal-Aid Highway programs to
their Highway Bridge Programs. In addition, States often invest
funds from other Federal-Aid Highway programs on bridge
projects without transferring the funds to the HBP. For
instance, in fiscal year 2004, FHWA apportioned $5.1 billion to
the States for the HBP. However, in that year, States actually
invested a total of $6.6 billion in Federal-Aid Highway funding
on bridge projects.
Similarly, in implementing congressionally-mandated
rescissions of unobligated contract authority balances in
highway program funds, States have chosen to disproportionately
rescind contract authority from a few programs, including the
Highway Bridge Program. Although the Highway Bridge Program
represents approximately 11 percent of the overall program
funding level in SAFETEA-LU, rescissions of contract authority
available for this program have totaled approximately one-third
of total rescissions.
Finally, some States are very slow to obligate the
available Highway Bridge Program contract authority. For
instance, in the past five years (FY 2003-FY 2007), Minnesota
has obligated barely one-half (51 percent) of the available HPB
funds--the lowest obligation-to-apportionment ratio of any
State. However, the five-year average ratio for all States is
89 percent. Nineteen States have a five-year average ratio of
more than 99 percent. Tennessee has the highest Highway Bridge
Program obligation-to-apportionment ratio of any State (141
percent). The following table provides the State-by-State HBP
ratios.
BRIDGE INSPECTOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Federal regulation currently sets minimum qualifications of
the top two levels of personnel responsible for carrying out
bridge inspections. Specifically, the regulations set minimum
qualifications for a Program Manager and a Team Leader.
Underwater bridge inspectors and the individual responsible for
determining load ratings for bridges are also required to have
a minimum level of training.
Federal regulations do not require front-line bridge
inspectors to receive a minimum level of training. However,
some States do provide training for all levels of inspectors
through the National Highway Institute and/or other State-based
organizations offering FHWA-approved comprehensive training and
certification programs.
TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Visual observation and other traditional means of
observation, such as cleaning and scraping, dragging chains,
and using sounding rods and hammers, remain the primary methods
of conducting field tests of bridges elements. A study released
by the FHWA Destructive Evaluation Center in 2001 raised
significant concerns over the reliability of visual
inspections. The 2001 report found that trained bridge
inspectors rarely detected defects when they conducted visual
inspections of bridges with identified fatigue problems. In
fact, the study found that only eight percent of the inspectors
correctly identified a fatigue crack, and many of the
inspectors identified non-existent problems. Similarly, a 2004
study published in the Journal of Bridge Engineering found
similar problems with accuracy and reliability of viable
inspections and documentation. These findings raise significant
concerns, and highlight a serious flaw in the current program.
Although visual inspections remain the primary method used in
bridge inspections, they can be very unreliable. In addition,
Highway Bridge Program funds are distributed based on
subjective assessments which may be inaccurate.
To supplement and enhance traditional testing methods,
state-of-the-art techniques are increasingly being utilized to
augment and advance examination of critical and/or suspect
bridge elements. The types of methods being developed and
utilized by States include: impact echo, infrared thermography,
ground penetrating radar, strain gauges, ultrasonic, eddy
current, radiography, acoustic emissions, x-ray technology, and
other non-destructive evaluation techniques.
Some States utilize more extensive and sophisticated
technologies and techniques to provide real-time, in-service
performance information on bridge conditions. The use of real-
time technologies and monitoring processes, such as structural
health monitoring of critical bridge elements and underwater
sonar imaging for inspection of bridge substructures, can
provide detailed and continuous data and information regarding
the condition and performance of critical bridge members and
elements.
FHWA, industry, academia, the Transportation Research Board
(``TRB''), and State Departments of Transportation continue to
research, investigate, and develop bridge inspection
technologies. To assist in this effort, Congress authorized and
funded five bridge research program areas: long-term bridge
performance, innovative bridge delivery, high performance and
innovative materials, nondestructive inspection technology, and
seismic research.
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Most States have developed some form of computer-based
bridge management programs. These bridge management systems
(``BMS'') are utilized to assist States in managing bridge
programs to improve the bridge inspection process and the
quality of data collected and reported to the NBI. These
systems also assist States in prioritizing system-wide
investment decisions based on the needs of the bridges, and
tracking the deterioration rate of bridge elements. BMS include
four basic components: data storage, cost and deterioration
models, optimization models for analysis, and updating
functions. While many States use similar computer platforms for
their BMS, the software and systems being utilized vary in
complexity and capabilities. This lack of uniform BMS standards
has raised questions about the consistency of data submitted to
the NBI. The bridge data contained in the system reflects the
findings generated during field inspections. Therefore, the
quality of the data, and the analysis that the BMS provides, is
only as good as the information that is input into the system.
BRIDGE LOAD RATING
The deteriorating conditions of deficient bridges result in
facilities being ``load rated''. The load rating is an estimate
of the safe weight-carrying capacity of a bridge and is
performed separately from the bridge inspection. Bridge load
ratings are based on structural condition of the bridge as
identified in the most recent inspection, and take into account
bridge design, condition, usage, and potential of failure due
to overloads. Properly calculating the load rating of
structurally deficient bridges, and, if necessary, posting
signs to keep heavier vehicles from crossing them serves to
protect structurally deficient bridges from stresses caused by
loads that exceed a bridge's capacity. Load ratings are carried
out using ratings procedures established by AASHTO. Federal
regulations require that load rating calculations be carried
out by a licensed professional engineer.
In a 2006 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector
General (``DOT IG'') found that States erred in calculating the
load rating for structurally deficient bridges on the National
Highway System (``NHS''). According to the DOT IG, inaccurate
or outdated maximum weight limit calculations and posting
entries were recorded in bridge databases of the State
Departments of Transportation and the NBI. The DOT IG found
that among structurally deficient bridges on the NHS:
One in 10 structurally deficient NHS bridges had load
rating calculations that did not accurately reflect the
condition of the structure;
Signs were not posted on 7.8 percent of bridges that
were required to have maximum safe weight signs posted;
Procedures were not properly followed in the
calculation of load ratings for 10 percent of the
bridges; and
40.5 percent of State-level load ratings posted on
National Highway System bridges do not match the
information submitted to the National Bridge Inventory.
The DOT IG also found that FHWA Division Offices spend
limited time on oversight, and did not ensure that States'
bridge load ratings were properly calculated and corresponding
postings were performed. In addition, FHWA does not require its
Division Offices to analyze bridge inspection data to better
identify and target specific structurally deficient bridges
most in need of load limit recalculation and posting. The DOT
IG recommended that the FHWA utilize the objective data
generated from the computerized management systems, and
contained in the NBI and State databases to improve oversight
and risk assessments of State bridge programs.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 denotes the short title of the bill as the
``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of
2007''.
Section 2. Highway Bridge Program
Section 2 injects a new level of accountability into bridge
repair and replacement by ensuring that States are investing in
upgrading those bridges that are most critical to safety, as
well as freight and passenger mobility. This section requires
the Secretary of Transportation to develop a system to assign a
risk-based priority to repair, rehabilitate, or replace each
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridge on the
Federal-aid highway system. This prioritization will allow
States to target inspections and limited HBP resources on those
bridges most in need of repair, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction. In doing so, the overall safety and reliability
of State bridge inventories will be increased.
Subsection (a)(1) of section 2 amends section 144(b) of
title 23, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the States, to inventory
all bridges on Federal-aid highways, identify each bridge
inventoried that is either structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete, assign a risk-based priority for
replacement or rehabilitation of each such bridge after
consideration of safety, serviceability, and essentiality for
public use, and determine the cost of replacing each such
bridge with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such
bridge.
Subsection (a)(2) requires the Secretary to establish a
process for assigning risk-based priorities not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary
must submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report containing a description of the process for assigning
risk-based priorities.
This subsection also requires the National Academy of
Sciences to independently review the process for assigning
risk-based priorities for repair, reconstruction, or
replacement of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete
bridges to ensure that investment and resource decisions are
based on need.
Subsection (b) defines the term ``deficient bridge'' as a
bridge that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
Subsection (c) establishes the requirements for State
participation. States are required to inspect all highway
bridges every 24 months. The inspections must be in accordance
with bridge inspection standards established under section 151
of title 23, United States Code. After completing bridge
inspections, States must provide updated information on these
bridges to FHWA for inclusion in the NBI. The Committee intends
that these inspections will create a new baseline analysis of
bridge conditions, based on the updated inspection and training
requirements established pursuant to this Act.
This subsection also requires States to calculate, every 24
months, the load rating for structurally deficient bridges and
ensure that the safe load-carrying capacities for such bridges
are properly posted. The AASHTO manual encourages States to
establish standardized procedures for determining load ratings
of bridges, and to review and update as part of every
inspection cycle. However, current federal law does not specify
timeframes or requirements for load ratings of bridges.
Finally this provision requires States to establish a five-
year performance plan for the inspection of highway bridges and
the rehabilitation and replacement of any structurally
deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. States must submit
the performance plan to the Secretary and the Secretary must
approve or disapprove each State's performance plan. The
performance plans will detail the State's plans for addressing
bridge needs, and will ensure greater accountability in the
expenditure of HBP funds. Currently, State priorities and plans
are incorporated into the broad State transportation plan.
Requiring specific bridge performance plans will allow for
necessary prioritization and targeting of inspections and HBP
resources.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report containing a description of the
priority assigned, on a national basis and by State, for the
replacement and rehabilitation of each structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete bridge on a Federal-aid highway. The
report also must contain a description of any project or
activity carried out by a State that is inconsistent with the
priorities assigned by the Secretary.
Subsection (e) authorizes a State to transfer HBP funds to
another apportioned program only if the State is able to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the State
has no structurally deficient bridges on Federal-aid highways
located in the State. Between 1992 and 2006, States transferred
a total of $4.73 billion in Highway Bridge Program funds to NHS
and STP programs. This provision ensures that in implementing
the HBP, States are first utilizing the funds made available to
improve the condition and safety of highway bridges.
Subsection (f) defines ``functionally obsolete'',
``structurally deficient'', ``rehabilitation'', and
``replacement'' for purposes of the Highway Bridge Program.
Subsection (g) makes various technical and clarifying
changes to the Highway Bridge Program.
Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to ensure that
information in the National Bridge Inventory be more readily
available to the public. This provision ensures that FHWA will
provide data regarding each bridge in the inventory in a manner
that is accessible and understandable to the general public.
Section 3. National Bridge Inspection Program
Subsection (a) of section 3 provides that the standards
established under this Act are to be designed to ensure
uniformity among the States in the conduct of inspections and
evaluations. Bridges are a key component of the national
surface transportation network. As such, it is important that
these facilities are inspected in a consistent fashion, and the
information generated from the inspection is reliable and
accurate.
The 2006 DOT IG's report found significant problems with
FHWA's ability to oversee the greatly varied State bridge
inspection programs. This subsection requires FHWA and the
States to significantly improve their bridge inspection and
evaluation processes and develop consistent, uniform processes
and standards for the inspection of bridges and inspector
training. These improved, uniform standards will ensure that
the data collected during inspections and submitted to FHWA is
accurate and consistent.
The Committee recognizes that there is not a single
solution to this problem. Different States have different
levels of need, and different bridges have varying requirements
and weaknesses. These differences must be accounted for in the
new system. However, it is the Committee's intent to end the
piecemeal, patchwork approach to bridge inspection and data
collection that currently exists.
Subsection (b) provides that the minimum requirements for
inspection standards shall include procedures for conducting
annual compliance reviews of State inspections, quality control
and quality assurance procedures, load ratings, and weight
limit postings of structurally deficient bridges. The
inspection standards must also provide standards for State
bridge management systems to improve the bridge inspection
process and the quality of data collected and submitted to the
NBI.
The DOT IG's report found serious concerns with FHWA's
oversight of State bridge inspection programs, and the quality
and consistency of data being submitted to the NBI. This
section is designed to require FHWA to take a more active role
in overseeing State bridge programs, and ensuring State bridge
inspections conform to the NBIS. The Committee recognizes that
tools, such as BMS, are critical to prioritizations and
carrying out bridge inspections and the bridge programs. To
ensure greater compliance and consistency of data submitted,
FHWA must establish uniform standards for these systems.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to expand the scope
of the bridge inspector training program to ensure that all
persons conducting highway bridge inspections receive
appropriate training and certification under the program.
Federal regulation currently sets minimum qualifications of the
top two levels of personnel responsible for carrying out bridge
inspections, as well as underwater bridge inspectors and
individuals responsible for determining load ratings.
Specifically, the regulations establish minimum qualifications
for program managers and team leaders. Federal regulations do
not require front-line bridge inspectors to receive a minimum
level of training. This provision will make sure that those
inspecting bridges have the skills and knowledge to recognize
deficiencies and critical findings, and will ensure bridge
inspections across the nation are conducted in a consistent
fashion.
Subsection (d) requires annual inspections of structurally
deficient highway bridges using the best practicable
technologies and methods, annual in-depth inspections of
fracture critical members, and biennial inspections of highway
bridges that have not been determined to be structurally
deficient. Upon the request of a State, the Secretary may
extend the time between required bridge inspections for non-
structurally deficient bridges to a maximum period of 48 months
if the Secretary determines that the extension is appropriate
based on the age, design, traffic characteristics, and any
known deficiency of the bridge, the extension is consistent
with the five-year performance plan, and granting the extension
will increase the overall safety of the State's bridge
inventory.
This subsection requires that States inspect structurally
deficient bridges and bridges with fracture critical members
are inspected at least annually utilizing the most effective
technologies and inspection method. This provision will develop
a framework to allow States to target inspections and HBP
resources on bridges most in need of monitoring, repair,
reconstruction, or replacement. The provision also requires
States to utilize the best practicable technologies and
inspection methods and techniques in carrying out inspections
of structurally deficient bridges.
Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to revise regulations
relating to the qualifications of State highway bridge
inspection personnel to require that anyone serving as a
program manager be a professional engineer licensed under the
laws of that State, and that an individual serving as a team
leader be a professional engineer licensed under the laws of
that State or have at least 10 years of bridge inspection
experience. The subsection provides that the requirements in
this subsection only apply to an individual selected by a State
to serve as a program manager or a team leader after the date
of issuance of revised regulations.
Subsection (f) requires the Secretary, within one year
after the date of enactment of this Act, to modify national
bridge inspection standards and the training program for bridge
inspectors in accordance with this section.
Section 4. Surface transportation research
Section 4 expands the activities eligible to receive
funding under the highway research program to include research
into non-destructive inspection technologies. Many States
currently use these types of technologies to supplement
traditional bridge inspections. These technologies have
demonstrated value in assessing bridge conditions and extending
the life of bridges.
Section 5. Authorization of appropriations
Subsection (a) of section 5 authorizes $1 billion to be
appropriated in each of FY 2008 and FY 2009 to repair,
reconstruct, and replace structurally deficient bridges on the
NHS.
Subsection (b) distributes the funds authorized by this
legislation by formula pursuant to Federal-aid Highway
apportionments for Federal-aid highway bridges under the
Highway Bridge Program. This subsection also provides that
funds distributed under this program shall be used for the
replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient
National Highway System bridges. This provision prohibits the
transfer of funds provided under this act to other Federal-aid
highway programs.
Subsection(c) prohibits any Congressional or Administration
earmarks of funding provided under this program. The
legislation establishes a process for priority rating for
bridge repairs and reconstruction. This provision is designed
to remove political considerations from the decision-making
process, and ensure that the limited resources available under
the bridge program are targeted on those bridges most in need
of rehabilitation.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
On August 2, 2007, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced
H.R. 3311, in response to the August 1, 2007 collapse of the I-
35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that killed 13 people.
H.R. 3311 authorized $250 million of additional funds for
emergency repairs and reconstruction of the I-35W Bridge,
waived the $100 million on emergency relief funds for emergency
repairs and reconstruction, and provided emergency transit
funds. On August 2, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure ordered H.R. 3311 reported favorably to the
House. On August 3, the House passed the bill by a vote of 421-
0. On August 4, the House passed H.R. 3311, as amended by the
Senate, by unanimous consent. On August 8, the President signed
the bill (P.L. 110-56).
On September 5, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on structurally deficient bridges
on the National Highway System.
On October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit held a hearing on highway bridge inspections.
On October 30, 2007, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced
H.R. 3999, the ``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and
Inspection Act of 2007.''
On November 2, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 3999, and
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice vote
with a quorum present.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection
with consideration of H.R. 3999 or ordering the bill reported.
A motion to order H.R. 3999 reported favorably to the House was
agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget
Office included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, strengthen
bridge inspection standards and processes, and increase
investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient
bridges on the National Highway System.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3999
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, December 3, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3999, the National
Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Fontaine
(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3999--National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of
2007
Summary: H.R. 3999 would expand the national program to
inspect bridges and authorize appropriations for replacing and
rehabilitating highway bridges. The bill would also require the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to complete several reports
on the status of bridges nationwide and to increase training
for bridge inspectors. Assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would
cost nearly $1.9 billion over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting
H.R. 3999 would not affect revenues or direct spending.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3999 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400
(transportation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Expansion of the Bridge Program:
Authorization Level\1\...... 1,000 1,000 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........... 150 550 610 340 170
Increased Requirements on
Federal Agencies that Own
Bridges:
Estimated Authorization 15 15 0 0 0
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 2 8 9 5 3
Reports, Assessments, and
Guidance:
Estimated Authorization 7 5 5 5 5
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 3 5 5 5 5
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization 1,024 1,020 5 5 5
Level..................
Estimated Outlays....... 155 564 625 350 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\PubJic Law 109-59 provides contract authority, a mandatory form of
budget authority, for the Bridge Program codified in section 144,
title 23, U.S. Code, of$4.4 billion in 2008 and $4.5 billion in 2009.
Spending of those amounts is controlled by obligation limitations
contained in appropriation acts. A full-year 2008 appropriation for
DOT has not yet been enacted.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
3999 will be enacted near the start of calendar year 2008, that
the authorized amounts will be appropriated each year, and that
outlays will follow the historical rate of spending for similar
programs.
H.R. 3999 would add new requirements for inspecting bridges
by state inspectors and federal agencies that own bridges,
increase oversight of those inspections by DOT, and require DOT
to complete several reports on the status of bridges and bridge
safety nationwide. In total, the bill would authorize the
appropriation of just over $1 billion in each of fiscal years
2008 and 2009 and $5 million per year for 2010 through 2012.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost
nearly $1.9 billion over the 2008-2012 period.
Expansion of the bridge program
Under current law, states receive about $4 billion annually
in contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority)
for repairing, rehabilitating, and replacing bridges on public
roadways. Spending of those amounts, however, is typically
controlled by limits on annual obligations set in appropriation
acts (known as obligation limitations). H.R. 3999 would
authorize the appropriation of an additional $1 billion in each
of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for that program. CBO estimates
that implementing those provisions would cost about $1.8
billion over the 2008-2012 period.
The appropriation of additional funds for DOT's bridge
program could result in an increase in the contract authority
available to states because of DOT's equity bonus program. That
program adjusts the amount of contract authority available to a
state based on a variety of factors including that state's
contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund
and the amount it received under the previous authorization for
Highway programs. Any additional contract authority due to the
equity bonus program would result from a subsequent
appropriation act; thus, CBO has not estimated any increase in
contract authority as a result of implementing H.R. 3999.
Increased requirements on Federal agencies that own bridges
H.R. 3999 would increase the frequency of bridge
inspections and increase training requirements for inspectors
of those bridges. Current regulations require that federal
agencies that own and operate bridges on public roads comply
with all safety requirements established under the bridge
program. There are about 9,000 such bridges nationwide mostly
owned by the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the
Interior. Assuming appropriation of the amounts estimated to be
necessary, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would
cost $27 million over the 2008-2012 period.
Reports, assessments, and guidance
H.R. 3999 would authorize $2 million in 2008 for the
National Academy of Sciences to report on DOT's process for
assessing the. risk of bridge failure and how bridge
reconstruction and rehabilitation is prioritized. Other
provisions of the bill would require DOT to produce several
reports on the safety of the nation's bridges, make certain
data about bridges more accessible to the public, train more
state bridge inspectors, and increase DOT's oversight of state
plans to address bridge safety. Based on information from DOT
and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $23
million over the 2008-2012 period.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3999
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would require recipients of federal
highway funds to inspect and manage highway bridges. Any costs
to state local, or tribal governments would result from
complying with conditions of federal assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on
the Private Sector: Jacob Kuipers.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H.R. 3999 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 3999 does not
preempt any State, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
Sec.
101. Definitions and declaration of policy.
* * * * * * *
144. Highway bridge [replacement and rehabilitation] program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 104. Apportionment
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Metropolitan Planning.--
(1) Set-aside.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall set aside 1.25 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Interstate
maintenance, national highway system, surface
transportation, congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement, and highway bridge [replacement and
rehabilitation] programs authorized under this title to
carry out the requirements of section 134.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 105. Equity bonus program
(a) Program.--
(1) * * *
(2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in
subsection (a) are--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) the highway bridge [replacement and
rehabilitation] program under section 144;
* * * * * * *
(b) State Percentage.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in
paragraph (1)(B)(ii) are (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU)--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) the highway bridge [replacement and
rehabilitation] program under section 144;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 144. Highway bridge [replacement and rehabilitation] program
(a) * * *
[(b) The Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall
(1) inventory all those highway bridges on any Federal-aid
system which are bridges over waterways, other topographical
barriers, other highways, and railroads; (2) classify them
according to serviceability, safety, and essentiality for
public use; (3) based on that classification, assign each a
priority for replacement or rehabilitation; and (4) determine
the cost of replacing each such bridge with a comparable
facility or of rehabilitating such bridge.]
(b) Bridges on Federal-Aid Highways.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the States, shall--
(1) inventory all bridges on Federal-aid highways
that are bridges over waterways, other topographical
barriers, other highways, and railroads;
(2) identify each bridge inventoried under paragraph
(1) that is structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete;
(3) assign a risk-based priority for replacement or
rehabilitation of each such bridge after consideration
of safety, serviceability, and essentiality for public
use, including the potential impacts to regional and
national freight and passenger mobility if the
serviceability of the bridge is restricted or
diminished; and
(4) determine the cost of replacing each such bridge
with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such
bridge.
(c)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall
(1) inventory all those highway bridges on public roads, other
than those on any [Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highway,
which are bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers,
other highways, and railroads, (2) classify them according to
serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use, (3)
based on the classification, assign each a priority for
replacement or rehabilitation and (4) determine the cost of
replacing each such bridge with a comparable facility or of
rehabilitating such bridge.
(2) The Secretary may, at the request of a State, inventory
bridges, on and off [the Federal-aid system] Federal-aid
highways, for historic significance.
* * * * * * *
(d) Participation.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Special rule for systematic preventive
maintenance.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, a State may carry out a project under
paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (2)(D) for a highway
bridge without regard to whether the bridge is eligible
for replacement or rehabilitation under this section.
(5) Requirements for state participation.--
(A) In general.--As a condition for providing
assistance to a State under this section, the
Secretary shall require the State--
(i) not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this paragraph,
and at least once every 2 years
thereafter (except as otherwise
provided by section 151(d)), to inspect
all highway bridges described in
subsections (b) and (c) that are
located in the State in accordance with
the standards established under section
151 and provide updated information on
such bridges to the Secretary for
inclusion in the national bridge
inventory;
(ii) not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this paragraph,
and at least once every 2 years
thereafter, to calculate the load
rating for highway bridges located in
the State that have a structural
deficiency in a load-carrying member
and ensure that the safe load-carrying
capacities for such bridges are
properly posted;
(iii) to establish, not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of
this paragraph, and update annually, a
5-year performance plan for--
(I) the inspection of highway
bridges described in
subsections (b) and (c) that
are located in the State; and
(II) the rehabilitation and
replacement of any of such
bridges that are structurally
deficient or functionally
obsolete; and
(iv) to establish and implement a
bridge management system that complies
with the standards established for such
systems under section 151.
(B) Approval of performance plans.--
(i) Submission to the secretary.--A
State that establishes a 5-year
performance plan under subparagraph
(A)(iii) shall submit the plan and each
update of the plan to the Secretary for
approval.
(ii) Approval and disapproval.--The
Secretary shall approve or disapprove
each 5-year performance plan and update
submitted by a State under this
subparagraph. If the Secretary
disapproves a plan or update, the
Secretary shall inform the State of the
reasons for the disapproval and shall
require the State to resubmit the plan
or update with such modifications as
the Secretary determines necessary.
(e) Funds authorized to carry out this section shall be
apportioned among the several States on October 1 of the fiscal
year for which authorized in accordance with this subsection.
Each deficient bridge shall be placed into one of the following
categories: (1) [Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highway
bridges eligible for replacement, (2) [Federal-aid system]
Federal-aid highway bridges eligible for rehabilitation, (3)
[off-system bridges] bridges not on Federal-aid highways
eligible for replacement, and (4) [off-system bridges] bridges
not on Federal-aid highways eligible for rehabilitation. The
deck area of deficient bridges in each category shall be
multiplied by the respective unit price on a State-by-State
basis, as determined by the Secretary; and the total cost in
each State divided by the total cost of the deficient bridges
in all States shall determine the apportionment factors. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, if a State transfers funds
apportioned to the State under this section in a fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1997, to any other apportionment
of funds to such State under this title, the total cost of
deficient bridges in such State and in all States to be
determined for the succeeding fiscal year shall be reduced by
the amount of such transferred funds. No State shall receive
more than 10 per centum or less than 0.25 per centum of the
total apportionment for any one fiscal year. The Secretary
shall make these determinations based upon the latest available
data, which shall be updated annually. Funds apportioned under
this section shall be available for expenditure for the period
specified in section 118(b)(2). Any funds not obligated at the
expiration of such period shall be reapportioned by the
Secretary to the other States in accordance with this
subsection. The use of funds authorized under this section to
carry out a project for the seismic retrofit of a bridge shall
not affect the apportionment of funds under this section. In
this subsection, the term ``deficient bridge'' means a bridge
that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
[(f) The Federal share payable on account of any project
under this section shall be 80 per centum of the cost thereof.]
[(g)] (f) Bridge Set-asides.--
(1) Designated projects.--
(A) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated to carry out the bridge program
under this section for each of the fiscal years
2006 through 2009, all but $100,000,000 shall
be apportioned as provided in subsection (e).
Such $100,000,000 shall be available as
follows:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(vi) $4,500,000 per fiscal year for
replacement of the Missisquoi Bay
Bridge, Vermont, except that any
unobligated funds remaining upon
completion of the project under this
clause shall be transferred to and used
to carry out the project described in
clause (vii).
* * * * * * *
(2) [Off-system bridges] Bridges not on federal-aid
highways.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(h)] (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525-533) shall apply to
bridges authorized to be replaced, in whole or in part, by this
section, except that subsection (b) of section 502 of such Act
of 1946 and section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat.
1151) shall not apply to any bridge constructed, reconstructed,
rehabilitated, or replaced with assistance under this title, if
such bridge is over waters (1) which are not used and are not
susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable
improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign
commerce, and (2) which are (a) not tidal, or (b) if tidal,
used only by recreational boating, fishing, and other small
vessels less than 21 feet in length.
[(i) Inventories and Reports.--The Secretary shall--
[(1) report to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives on projects approved under this
section;
[(2) annually revise the current inventories
authorized by subsections (b) and (c) of this section;
[(3) report to such committees on such inventories;
and
[(4) report to such committees such recommendations
as the Secretary may have for improvements of the
program authorized by this section.
Such reports shall be submitted to such committees biennially.]
(h) Information and Reports.--
(1) Updates of information.--The Secretary shall
annually revise, as necessary, the information required
under subsections (b) and (c).
(2) Reports to congress.--Concurrently with the
President's annual budget submission to Congress under
section 1105(a) of title 31, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report
containing--
(A) a description of projects and activities
approved under this section;
(B) the information updated under paragraph
(1), including a description of the priority
assigned, on a national basis and by State, for
the replacement or rehabilitation of each
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete
bridge on a Federal-aid highway;
(C) a description of any project or activity
carried out by a State under this section in
the preceding fiscal year that is inconsistent
with the priorities assigned by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(3); and
(D) such recommendations as the Secretary may
have for improvements of the program authorized
by this section.
[(j)] (i) Sums apportioned to a State under this section
shall be made available for obligation throughout such State on
a fair and equitable basis.
[(k)] (j) Not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, and periodically thereafter, the
Secretary shall review the procedure used in approving or
disapproving applications submitted under this section to
determine what changes, if any, may be made to expedite such
procedure. Any such changes shall be implemented by the
Secretary as soon as possible. Not later than nine months after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
submit a report to Congress which describes such review and
such changes, including any recommendations for legislative
changes.
[(l)] (k) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
bridge which is owned and operated by an agency (1) which does
not have taxing powers, (2) whose functions include operating a
federally assisted public transit system subsidized by toll
revenues, shall be eligible for assistance under this section
but the amount of such assistance shall in no event exceed the
cumulative amount which such agency has expended for capital
and operating costs to subsidize such transit system. Before
authorizing an expenditure of funds under this subsection, the
Secretary shall determine that the applicant agency has
insufficient reserves, surpluses, and projected revenues (over
and above those required for bridge and transit capital and
operating costs) to fund the necessary bridge replacement or
rehabilitation project. Any non-Federal funds expended for the
seismic retrofit of the bridge may be credited toward the non-
Federal share required as a condition of receipt of any Federal
funds for seismic retrofit of the bridge made available after
the date of the expenditure.
[(m)] (l) Replacement of Destroyed Bridges and Ferryboat
Service.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(n) Off-System Bridge Program.--] (m) Program for Bridges
Not on Federal-Aid Highways.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, with respect to any project not on a Federal-
aid highway for the replacement of a bridge or rehabilitation
of a bridge which is wholly funded from State and local
sources, is eligible for Federal funds under this section, is
noncontroversial, is certified by the State to have been
carried out in accordance with all standards applicable to such
projects under this section, and is determined by the Secretary
upon completion to be no longer a deficient bridge, any amount
expended after the date of the enactment of this subsection
from State and local sources for such project in excess of 20
percent of the cost of construction thereof may be credited to
the non-Federal share of the cost of the projects in such State
which are eligible for Federal funds under this section. Such
crediting shall be in accordance with such procedures as the
Secretary may establish.
[(o)] (n) Historic Bridge Program.--
(1) * * *
(2) State inventory.--The Secretary shall require
each State to complete an inventory of all bridges on
and off [the Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highways
to determine their historic significance.
* * * * * * *
(4) Preservation.--Any State which proposes to
demolish a historic bridge for a replacement project
with funds made available to carry out this section
shall first make the bridge available for donation to a
State, locality, or responsible private entity if such
State, locality, or responsible entity enters into an
agreement to--
(A) * * *
(B) assume all future legal and financial
responsibility for the bridge, which may
include an agreement to hold the [State highway
agency] State transportation department
harmless in any liability action.
* * * * * * *
[(p)] (o) Applicability of State Standards for Projects.--A
project not on a Federal-aid highway under this section shall
be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, safety
standards, design standards, and construction standards.
[(q)] (p) As used in this section the term ``rehabilitate''
in any of its forms means major work necessary to restore the
structural integrity of a bridge as well as work necessary to
correct a major safety defect.
[(r)] (q) Annual Materials Report on New Bridge Construction
and Bridge Rehabilitation.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter,
the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a report
describing construction materials used in new Federal-aid
bridge construction and bridge rehabilitation projects.
[(s)] (r) Federal Share.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(s) Flexible Funding.--Notwithstanding section 126 or any
other provision of law, a State may transfer funds apportioned
to the State under this section for a fiscal year to another
apportionment of funds to the State under this title only if
the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that the State has no structurally deficient bridges on
Federal-aid highways located in the State.
(t) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Functionally obsolete.--The term ``functionally
obsolete'' as used with respect to a bridge means a
bridge that no longer meets current design standards
relating to geometrics, including roadway width,
shoulder width, and approach alignment, for the traffic
demands on the bridge.
(2) Structurally deficient.--The term ``structurally
deficient'' as used with respect to a bridge means a
bridge that has--
(A) significant load-carrying elements that
are in poor or worse condition due to
deterioration or damage, or both; or
(B) a waterway opening that is insufficient
to the point of causing significant traffic
interruptions.
(3) Rehabilitation.--The term ``rehabilitation''
means major work necessary to restore the structural
integrity of a bridge and work necessary to correct a
major safety defect.
(4) Replacement.--The term ``replacement'' as used
with respect to a structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete bridge means a new facility
constructed in the same general traffic corridor that
meets the geometric, construction, and structural
standards, in effect at the time of such construction,
required for the types and volume of projected traffic
of the facility over its design life.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 151. National bridge inspection program
(a) National Bridge Inspection Standards.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the State transportation departments and
interested and knowledgeable private organizations and
individuals, shall establish national bridge inspection
standards for the proper safety inspection and evaluation of
all highway bridges. The standards established under this
subsection shall be designed to ensure uniformity among the
States in the conduct of such inspections and evaluations.
(b) Minimum Requirements of Inspection Standards.--The
standards established under subsection (a) shall, at a
minimum--
(1) * * *
(2) establish the maximum time period between
inspections in accordance with subsection (d);
* * * * * * *
(4) require each State to maintain and make available
to the Secretary upon request--
(A) * * *
(B) current inventory data for all highway
bridges reflecting the findings of the most
recent highway bridge inspections conducted;
[and]
(5) establish a procedure for national certification
of highway bridge inspectors[.];
(6) establish procedures for conducting annual
compliance reviews of State inspections, quality
control and quality assurance procedures, load ratings,
and weight limit postings of structurally deficient
highway bridges; and
(7) establish standards for State bridge management
systems to improve the bridge inspection process and
the quality of data collected and reported by the
States to the Secretary for inclusion in the national
bridge inventory.
(c) Training Program for Bridge Inspectors.--The Secretary,
in cooperation with the State transportation departments, shall
establish a program designed to train appropriate governmental
employees to carry out highway bridge inspections. Such
training program shall be revised from time to time to take
into account new and improved techniques. The Secretary shall
expand the scope of the training program to ensure that all
persons conducting highway bridge inspections receive
appropriate training and certification under the program.
(d) Frequency of Bridge Inspections.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
standards established under subsection (a), at a
minimum, shall provide for--
(A) annual inspections of structurally
deficient highway bridges using the best
practicable technologies and methods;
(B) annual hands-on inspections of fracture
critical members, as such terms are defined in
section 650.305 of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this paragraph); and
(C) biennial inspections of highway bridges
that have not been determined to be
structurally deficient.
(2) Extensions.--Upon the request of a State, the
Secretary may extend, to a maximum period of 4 years,
the time between required inspections of a highway
bridge that has not been determined to be structurally
deficient if the Secretary determines that--
(A) the extension is appropriate based on the
age, design, traffic characteristics, and any
known deficiency of the bridge;
(B) the extension is consistent with the 5-
year performance plan of the State approved
under section 144(d)(5)(B); and
(C) granting the extension will increase the
overall safety of the State's bridge inventory.
[(d)] (e) Availability of Funds.--To carry out this section,
the Secretary may use funds made available pursuant to the
provisions of section 104(a), section 502, and section 144 of
this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 502. Surface transportation research
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Contents of Research Program.--The Secretary shall
include in surface transportation research, technology
development, and technology transfer programs carried out under
this title coordinated activities in the following areas:
(1) * * *
(2) Methods, materials, and testing to improve the
durability of surface transportation infrastructure
facilities and extend the life and enhance the safety
of bridge structures, including--
(A) * * *
(B) tests simulating seismic activity,
vibration, and weather, including
nondestructive tests to assess the structural
integrity of facilities; and
* * * * * * *