69–006 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

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 loadcarrying 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
3 

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 FederalState 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
4 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
5 

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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
6 

Replacement of ferryboat operations in existence on January 

1, 1984, the replacement of bridges destroyed before 1965, lowwater 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 offsystem 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
7 

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 onehalf (51 percent) of the available HPB funds—the lowest obligationto-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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
8 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR750.001
9 

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-ofthe-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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:48 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR750.XXX HR750

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
10 

search 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
11 

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 Federalaid 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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
12 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
13 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
14 

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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
15 

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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
16 

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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
17 

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 Level ....................................................................... 15 15 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 2 8 9 5 3 

Reports, Assessments, and Guidance: 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................................................................... 7 5 5 5 5 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 3 5 5 5 5 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................................................. 1,024 1,020 5 5 5 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
18 

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 pursuVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:52 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR750.XXX HR750

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
19 

ant 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 øreplacement and rehabilitation¿ program. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
20 

air quality improvement, and highway bridge øreplacement 

and rehabilitation¿ programs authorized under this title to 

carry out the requirements of section 134. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 105. Equity bonus program 

(a) PROGRAM.—

(1) * * * 

(2) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS.—The programs referred to in subsection (a) are—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) the highway bridge øreplacement 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 øreplacement and rehabilitation¿ 

program under section 144; 

* * * * * * * 

§ 144. Highway bridge øreplacement and rehabilitation¿ program 

(a) * * * 

ø(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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
21 

(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 øFederal-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 øthe 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
22 

(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) øFederal-aid system¿ Federal-aid highway bridges eligible for replacement, (2) øFederal-aid system¿ Federal-aid highway bridges eligible for rehabilitation, (3) øoff-system bridges¿ bridges not on Federal-aid highways eligible for replacement, and (4) øoff-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. 

ø(f) The Federal share payable on account of any project under 

this section shall be 80 per centum of the cost thereof.¿ 

ø(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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
23 

$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) øOFF-SYSTEM BRIDGES¿ BRIDGES NOT ON FEDERAL-AID

HIGHWAYS.—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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. 

ø(i) INVENTORIES AND REPORTS.—The Secretary shall—

ø(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; 

ø(2) annually revise the current inventories authorized by 

subsections (b) and (c) of this section; 

ø(3) report to such committees on such inventories; and 

ø(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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
24 

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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(m)¿ (l) REPLACEMENT OF DESTROYED BRIDGES AND FERRYBOAT

SERVICE.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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 Federalaid 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
25 

State which are eligible for Federal funds under this section. Such 

crediting shall be in accordance with such procedures as the Secretary may establish. 

ø(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 øthe 

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 øState highway agency¿ State transportation department harmless in any liability action. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
26 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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; øand¿ 

(5) establish a procedure for national certification of highway 

bridge inspectorsø.¿; 

(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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:33 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR750.XXX HR750

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
27 

gram 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. 

ø(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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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) * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
28 

(B) tests simulating seismic activity, vibration, and 

weather, including nondestructive tests to assess the structural integrity of facilities; and 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS