69–010 

Calendar No. 1050 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–482 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION AND 

INSPECTION ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3999] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a 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, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill 

do pass. 

PURPOSES AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 3999, the ‘‘National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008,’’ amends the Highway Bridge Program and 

the National Bridge Inspection Program in an effort to improve the 

safety of Federal aid highway bridges. It would change bridge inspection standards and processes, and authorize $1 billion for the 

reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National 

Highway System. An identical bill, S. 3338, was introduced by Senator Klobuchar and also referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

HIGHWAY BRIDGE CONDITIONS

Public attention was focused on the issue of bridge safety after 

13 people died in the August 1, 2007 collapse of the I–35W Bridge 

across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The bridge 

was known to be structurally deficient since 1990, and was inspected annually by the Minnesota Department of Transportation 

since 1993. The National Transportation Safety Board has not yet 

released its findings on what caused the collapse. 

Of the total of almost 600,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory, 72,524 (about 12%) are structurally deficient and 79,792 

(about 13%) are functionally obsolete. Of the National Highway 

System’s 116,145 bridges, 6,160 (about 5%) are structurally deficient—a reduction of almost 40% since 1997 when 9,930 of such 

bridges were structurally deficient. Approximately 26% of the total 

bridges were built 35–50 years ago, many of them designed for only 

50 years of service. With age and changes in traffic demands comes 

deterioration and obsolescence. Since 1994, the percentage of the 

Nation’s bridges that are classified as ‘‘structurally deficient’’ has 

declined from 19.4 percent to 12.4 percent. Although this is significant improvement, the overall number of deficient bridges is still 

of substantial concern. 

SAFETEA–LU provided a total of $21.6 billion, with an average of $4.3 billion per year for the Highway Bridge Program. According 

to the latest available needs analysis by FHWA, the maximum economic level of investment is up to $12.4 billion per year over the 

next 20 years (by all units of government). If $8.7 billion were invested per year over the next 20 years in the most cost-effective 

manner, the current quality of bridges overall would remain the 

same. Total capital outlay on bridges by all units of government in 

2004 (the latest available figure) from all sources was $10.5 billion. 

If one were to project forward the last ten year improvement rate, 

it would take 46 years to replace or repair all deficient bridges. The 

current capital investment by all levels of government on highways, excluding bridges, was a combined $26 billion in 2004. This 

level of investment is 63 percent below the $70.1 billion annual investment needed to maintain our highways according to FHWA. 

The maximum efficient investment by all levels of government is 

$119.3 billion—almost 5 times current spending. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAMS

Inventory and inspection requirements have been incorporated 

into Federal law to encourage good practice by bridge owners. The 

Federal government uses a standardized set of factors such as 

square footage and cost for fixing or replacing worn out or inadequate structures in order to distribute federal funds. These factors 

were designed to reflect relative need. 

Following the August 2007 collapse of the I–35W bridge in Minneapolis, Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe, Chairman and 

Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, along with Senators Carl Levin and Norm Coleman, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to exVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

amine the Highway Bridge Program, the primary source of Federal 

funding for bridges nationwide. The GAO report, entitled ‘‘Highway 

Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed 

for a More Focused and Sustainable Program’’, recommended that 

specific bridge program goals that are in the national interest be 

identified, performance measures be developed, and that best tools 

and practices be adopted. 

H.R. 3999 would require States to develop risk-based criteria for 

replacing or rehabilitating their bridges and performance plans. It 

would also require FHWA to establish a process for assigning riskbased priorities. 

The Committee is opposed to an approach that would simply require States to address bridges in the worst physical condition first. 

Other factors should be considered, including systematic preventative maintenance, relative importance within the system, a State’s 

long-range transportation plan and overall asset management plan, 

and the most cost beneficial improvements. Furthermore, the Committee believes important State-specific needs, such as seismic retrofitting, are critical considerations when making decisions regarding bridge investments. The Committee stands ready to clarify this 

further if it becomes necessary. 

BRIDGE INSPECTION PRACTICES

Bridges are rated as part of the inspection process, with the information transmitted to the FHWA. The sufficiency rating that is 

produced establishes eligibility for fixing or replacing the structure 

but alone is a poor tool for determining priority. By regulation, inspection procedures, standards, frequency and inspector qualifications have been adopted. States must meet the minimums but are 

influenced by competing demands for operational funds. 

Currently, most bridges are inspected every 24 months but some 

bridges can be inspected every 48 months, and some bridges are inspected at intervals that are less than 24 months. Further, load 

ratings are not being kept up to date, even in connection with inspections. A DOT Office of Inspector General report from 2006 

found that the load rating for 1 in 10 of the structurally deficient 

bridges on the National Highway System was inaccurate, calculations were not conducted properly in 10% of bridges, and signs 

were not posted on 7.8% of bridges where the ratings said that it 

would be required. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 designates the short title of the bill as the ‘‘National 

Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Highway Bridge Program 

Section 2 establishes a process by which bridge priorities are set 

and approved for eligibility under the Highway Bridge Program. It 

also establishes additional requirements for taking an inventory of 

bridges in accordance with that process. This section requires the 

Secretary to consult with the States during the development of the 

risk-based prioritization process. The Committee believes that the 

bridge program should continue to allow and not be biased against 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

bridge improvements such as seismic retrofitting, which is an eligible use of bridge funds and a top priority in some States. 

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 and bridges on other public roads, 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, including the potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes and to regional and national 

freight and passenger mobility if the serviceability of the bridge is 

restricted or diminished, and determine the cost of replacing each 

such bridge with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such 

bridge. 

Subsection (a)(1) also includes a provision stating that, at the request of a State the Secretary may also inventory bridges for historic significance. As well as a provision requiring the Secretary in 

consultation with the Secretary of the Interior to inventory Indian 

Reservation and Park Bridges, 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, including the potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes and to regional and national freight and passenger 

mobility if the serviceability of the bridge is restricted or diminished, and determine the cost of replacing each such bridge with 

a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such bridge. 

Subsection (a)(2) requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process for assigning risk-based priorities not later than 

18 months after the date of enactment, reporting to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate on the process for assigning risk-based priorities. 

Factors such as the dispersion of transport facilities, the presence 

of alternative routes, risk associated with the presence of earthquake faults, and reliance for critical regional and national trade 

and defense movements should be reflected in the consideration of 

priorities and thus risk. Activities such as seismic retrofitting are 

eligible uses of bridge funds and should continue to be allowed and 

encouraged under a risk-based system. 

The risk-based priorities system should be designed so that State 

performance plans can be tailored to accommodate these realities. 

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for an independent review 

of this process by the National Academy of Sciences, to be completed within 2 years of enactment. 

Subsection (b) defines the term ‘‘deficient bridge’’ as a bridge that 

is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. 

Subsection (c) sets new timelines for bridge inspections and load 

rating calculations required for participation in the Highway 

Bridge Program. States must inspect all highway bridges every 24 

months in accordance with bridge inspection standards established 

under section 151 of title 23, United States Code. States must provide updated information on these bridges to FHWA for inclusion 

in the National Bridge Inventory. Within 24 months and every 24 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

months thereafter, States must calculate the load rating for structurally deficient bridges and ensure that the safe load-carrying capacities for such bridges are properly posted. 

Subsection (c) also requires States to submit annually for approval by the Secretary of Transportation a five-year performance 

plan for the inspection of highway bridges and their rehabilitation 

and replacement of any structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Each State shall develop and use a bridge management system that can be integrated with such performance planning as described above. The first of these plans must be submitted 

within 2 years of enactment. A performance plan may provide for 

more frequent inspection of an historic bridge located in a State in 

lieu of replacement, if the bridge meets certain criteria. 

Subsection (d) requires the Secretary of Transportation 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 that represents oversight of 

the performance plan process. It must contain 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) restricts transfers by a State of Highway Bridge 

Program unobligated balances to any other apportioned program. A 

State can do so only if the State is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Transportation that the State has no 

structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System located in the State that are eligible for replacement. 

Subsection (f) defines ‘‘functionally obsolete’’, ‘‘structurally deficient’’, ‘‘rehabilitation’’, and ‘‘replacement’’ for purposes of the Highway Bridge Program. 

Subsection (g) requires the Secretary of Transportation to ensure 

that information in the National Bridge Inventory is more readily 

available to the public and in a manner that is accessible and understandable and authorizes $2 million be available until expended 

for this purpose. The quality of this information should reflect the 

improved data collected and submitted for the National Bridge Inventory from the inspection routines required under this program 

as it is critical to quality performance planning. 

Section 3. National Bridge Inspection Program 

Section 3 Changes inspection standards under the National 

Bridge Inspection Program with mandatory compliance reviews, reporting of critical findings, increasing the frequency of inspections, 

and mandating additional qualifications for inspectors. 

Subsection (b) directs that 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 be specified and used by FHWA. The 

provision specifies that critical findings relating to structural or 

safety deficiencies be reported to the Secretary of Transportation, 

along with plans for corrective actions, and that inspection standards provide for testing with state-of-the-art technology that deVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

tects the growth of fatigue cracks on steel bridges exhibiting fatigue damage or with fatigue susceptible members. 

Subsection (c) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue 

regulations within 2 years of enactment on procedures for reporting 

critical findings and training related to these findings. 

Subsection (d) directs the Secretary of Transportation to expand 

the current training programs to support the inspection requirements as amended in Subsection (f) below and required under this 

program. 

Subsection (e) requires shorter intervals between inspections for 

bridges with the most risky conditions. Those found to be structurally deficient must be inspected annually, using the best practicable technologies and methods. In-depth inspections are required 

for fracture critical members. Upon the request of a State, the Secretary of Transportation may extend the time between required 

bridge inspections up to 4 years for non-structurally deficient 

bridges 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. 

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary of Transportation to change 

the regulations relating to the qualifications of State highway 

bridge inspection personnel. Federal regulation currently sets minimum qualifications of the Program Managers and Team Leaders 

that carry out bridge inspections, as well as underwater bridge inspectors and individuals responsible for determining load ratings. 

The subsection requires that anyone serving as a Program Manager be a professional engineer licensed under the laws of that 

State. Similarly, an individual serving as a Team Leader for the inspection of complex bridges or follow-up inspections of bridges for 

which there has been a critical finding must be a licensed professional engineer. At least 10 years of bridge experience can be substituted for licensure for Team Leaders for the class of bridges requiring only a biannual inspection. This subsection provides an exemption for Team Leaders and Program Managers in place prior to 

the issuance of revised regulations. 

Subsection (g) sets the deadline for modifying both the national 

bridge inspection standards and expanding the training program 

for bridge inspectors. 

Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to report to Congress no 

later than 15 days after a critical finding determination is made by 

a State that results in a bridge closure. 

Section 4. GAO study 

Within a year of enactment, the Government Accountability Office is to conduct and report on a study of construction delays on 

bridge rehabilitation projects. 

Section 5. Surface transportation research 

Section 5 expands the activities eligible to receive funding under 

the highway research program, emphasizing research into advanced technologies such as non-destructive inspection technologies 

to assess structural integrity. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

Section 6. Authorization of appropriations 

Subsection (a) of section 6 authorizes $1 billion to be appropriated in FY 2009 to repair, reconstruct, and replace structurally 

deficient bridges on the National Highway System. 

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 provision makes these funds, once appropriate, available until 

expended. It prohibits the transfer of these funds to other Federalaid highway programs. 

Subsection (c) prohibits any Congressional or Administration earmarks of funding provided under this program. 

Subsection (d) prohibits the use of funds appropriated under subsection (a) to employ workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a). 

Section 7. Bridge advanced condition assessment pilot program 

Section 7 of the bill requires the DOT to establish and implement, within 180 days of enactment, a two-year pilot program to 

evaluate the effectiveness, accuracy, and reliability of the use of advanced condition assessment inspection processes and technologies 

(including fiber optic, vibrating wire, acoustical emissions, and 

peak strain displacement technologies) in monitoring and evaluating the health of a highway bridge. A one-time authorization is 

made available for appropriation of $5 million to carry out the program, to remain available until expended. The Secretary is required to submit a report on the effectiveness and benefits of the 

pilot program to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate later than 6 months after 

the last day of the pilot program. 

Section 8. Effectiveness of bridge rating system 

Section 8 requires that no later than February 2009, the Government Accountability Office conduct and report on a study of the effectiveness of the bridge rating system established in accordance 

with this program. 

Section 9. Use of carbon fiber composite materials in bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects 

Section 9 requires within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary 

of Transportation to conduct and report on a study of the cost and 

benefits of using carbon fiber composite materials in bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects instead of traditional construction 

materials. 

Section 10. Sense of Congress 

Section 10 states that in preparing and implementing the performance plans required under this program, it is the sense of the 

Congress that corrosion mitigation and prevention methods should 

be integrated into the design of new bridges and maintenance of 

existing bridges. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

Section 11. Flood risks to bridges 

Section 11 requires that within 2 years of enactment, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the States, shall conduct and report on a study of risks posed by floods to the Nation’s 

bridges. 

Section 12. National Tunnel Inspection Program 

Section 12 creates a new inspection and inventory regimen for all 

highway tunnels comparable to the programs for bridge structures. 

The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with States and 

knowledgeable experts, shall establish inspection standards designed to ensure safety and uniformity. These standards are to include the inspection methods, the interval between inspections, 

qualifications for inspectors, procedures for compliance reviews. In 

addition, the Secretary shall establish a national inventory of highway tunnels, and training and certification programs for tunnel inspectors are to be established to foster use of the best and latest 

techniques. 

Section 12 also clarifies that funds made available from the Surface Transportation Program are eligible for improvement of and 

inspection of such tunnels. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 3999 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 30, 1997 by Chairman Oberstar as the National Highway 

Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2007. Having passed 

the House of Representatives on July 24, 2008, it was referred to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 25, 2008. 

An identical bill, S. 3338, was introduced by Senator Klobuchar 

and also referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works. The Committee met on September 17, 2008, to consider 

H.R. 3999 and it was ordered to be reported favorably without 

amendment. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Environment and Public Works held two 

hearings relating to the Highway Bridge Program during the 110th 

Congress. A full Committee oversight hearing was held on September 20, 2007 to examine the condition of our Nation’s bridges. 

A full Committee legislative hearing was held on September 10, 

2008 entitled ‘‘Improving the Federal Bridge Program: Including an 

Assessment of S. 3338 and H.R. 3999.’’ 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider H.R. 3999 on September 17, 2008. A quorum of the Committee being present, H.R. 3999 was reported favorably without 

amendment by a voice vote. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b)(2) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee estimates that no regulatory 

impact is expected by the passage of the bill. The bill will not affect 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

the personal privacy of individuals. As noted below, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the bill will not establish 

any private-sector mandates. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the Committee finds, consistent with the determination of the Congressional Budget Office, that H.R. 3999 would 

impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, 

local or tribal governments. The Committee further agrees with the 

Congressional Budget Office that the bill does not impose private 

sector mandates. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3999, the National 

Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro, who can be 

reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3999—National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 3999 would expand the national program to inspect bridges and authorize appropriations for replacing and rehabilitating highway bridges. The act also would require the Department of Transportation (DOT) to complete several reports on the 

status of bridges nationwide and to increase its efforts to train 

bridge inspectors. Assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 

cost $976 million over the 2009–2013 period. Enacting H.R. 3999 

would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 3999 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

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— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Expansion of the Bridge Program: 

Authorization Level a ............................................................ 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 270 410 160 50 40 930 

New Requirements for Federal Agencies that Own Bridges: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 15 0 0 0 0 15 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 4 6 2 1 1 14 

Other Specified Programs: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 9 0 0 0 0 9 

Outlays ................................................................................. 3 4 2 0 0 9 

Reports, Guidance, and Assessments: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 5 5 5 5 5 25 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 3 5 5 5 5 23 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 1,029 5 5 5 5 1,049 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 280 425 169 56 46 976 

a Public Law 109–59 provides contract authority, a mandatory form of budget authority, of $4.5 billion in 2009 for the Bridge Program 

codified in section 144, title 23, U.S. Code. Spending of those amounts is controlled by obligation limitations contained in appropriation acts. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

3999 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009, that the authorized amounts will be appropriated each year, and that outlays 

will follow the historical rate of spending for these programs. 

The act would authorize the appropriation of just over $1 billion 

for fiscal year 2009. In addition, CBO estimates that appropriations 

of $40 million over the 2009–2013 period would be needed to implement the legislation. CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $976 million over the 2009–2013 period, assuming 

appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

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 fiscal year 2009 for that program. CBO 

estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $930 

million over the 2009–2013 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 be provided by 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 inspections of federally owned bridges and would increase the 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 DOT’s bridge 

program. There are about 9,000 such bridges nationwide, mostly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

owned by the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior. Based on information from DOT, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $14 million over the 2009–2013 

period. 

OTHER PROGRAMS

CBO estimates that other provisions of the bill would cost $32 

million over the 2009–2013 period, including: 

• Almost $5 million annually for DOT to train more state bridge 

inspectors, increase oversight of state plans to address bridge safety, and produce several reports on the safety of the nation’s 

bridges; 

• $5 million for grants to states to use certain advanced technologies to assess the safety of bridges; 

• $2 million for the National Academy of Sciences to report on 

DOT’s process in assessing the risk of bridge failure; and 

• $2 million for DOT to make information contained in that National Bridge Inventory more readily available to the public. 

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 and tunnels. The bill also 

would establish a grant program for five states to test the effectiveness of certain technology in bridge inspections. Any costs to state, 

local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Previous CBO estimate: On December 3, 2007, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for H.R. 3999 as ordered reported by the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on October 31, 

2007. That version of the legislation authorized the appropriation 

of $1 billion for the bridge program in fiscal year 2008 and did not 

authorize a grant program to use certain advanced technologies to 

assess the safety of bridges. The CBO cost estimates reflect those 

differences. 

On September 8, 2008, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

3999 as passed by the House of Representatives. This cost estimate 

is identical to our estimate for the House-passed legislation. 

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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(12) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

BACKGROUND

The Highway Bridge Program in its current form needs to be reformed to make it more useable for States. Unfortunately, H.R. 

3999 hinders, rather than strengthen States’ abilities to address 

their greatest bridge priorities. It would force States to follow a 

risk-based system developed in Washington to prioritize the replacement or rehabilitation of bridges. There is great concern that 

this one-size-fits-all approach would not allow for important local 

factors, such as seismic retrofit. This legislation also forces States 

to spend scarce resources on new procedures that will provide little 

or no new information to State bridge engineers. 

SAFETEA–LU will expire on September 30, 2009, just 12 months 

from the filing of this report. Any major policy changes at this 

point in the process will distract from the overall goal of completing 

a comprehensive bill on time. For that reason, a policy change of 

this magnitude should be handled in the context of reauthorization. 

Furthermore, it is counterproductive to attempt to fix our crumbling infrastructure through piecemeal efforts. Comprehensive reform is necessary and should be addressed in a holistic approach 

in the reauthorization bill this Committee will work on in the coming months. 

There has been a lot of press about the poor condition of the nation’s bridges in the wake of the Minnesota tragedy. Our bridges 

are certainly in need of additional investment, but the roads on the 

National Highway System (NHS) are actually in greater need. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the nation’s bridges receive an average of 15 percent less funding from all 

levels of government than the maximum amount that could be economically invested. In contrast, the roads on the NHS receive 78 

percent less funding than the maximum economic level. 

This is not to say that there are not enormous bridge needs. 

These are simply 20 year averages, and much more could be economically invested in the short term. According to the same study 

by the FHWA, $62 billion could be invested immediately in a costbeneficial basis. It is critical, however, to view investment in the 

nation’s highways and bridges in a comprehensive fashion. 

PROHIBITS TRANSFERS

Many States rely on the flexibility allowed under the federal 

highway program to transfer money in between core highway programs as an important cash and program management tool. This 

flexibility in the bridge program is needed by States as bridges are 

enormous, ‘‘lumpy’’ investments and it often becomes necessary for 

States to wait a few years between major bridge replacements. If 

they did not do so, bridges would consume too much of their highVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:43 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

way resources to address non-bridge needs. This bill would prohibit 

all transfers from the bridge program on the incorrect assumption 

that all transfers are bad. 

Many States find the bridge program requirements too bureaucratic and prefer to replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient 

bridges using more flexible programs. These States transfer money 

out of the bridge program and then obligate those same dollars to 

structurally deficient bridges. Also, when bridges are being replaced or rehabilitated as a part of a larger project, States frequently transfer money into a single category of funding that can 

be used on the entire project. Because of the narrow eligibility of 

Highway Bridge Program funds, the flexibility to transfer funds is 

oftentimes necessary and does not necessarily detract from the 

goals of the Highway Bridge Program. 

H.R. 3999 incorrectly assumes that all bridge construction and 

reconstruction is done through the bridge program. In fact, only 

about 55 percent of obligations on bridges are through the Highway 

Bridge Program. The remaining obligations of funds on bridges, 

about $2.4 billion, are done using other categories of funding. By 

prohibiting transfers, H.R. 3999 would effectively punish States 

that are spending more on bridges than is provided in bridge funding, by denying them an important cash and program management 

tool. 

RISK BASED MANAGEMENT

H.R. 3999 requires States to follow a risk-based system developed in Washington to prioritize the replacement or rehabilitation 

of bridges. Many fear that this will produce a ‘‘worst first’’ approach to replacing and rehabilitating our bridges—an approach 

that is widely criticized among economists as it costs far more 

money than a targeted approach. In many aspects of government 

this is a prudent method to make decisions, but the approach set 

forth in this bill lacks the cumulative factor analysis required to 

make the most cost-beneficial and safety-driven bridge investment 

decisions. Under H.R. 3999’s risk-based system, a lower rated 

bridge that is rarely used and poses no public safety threat could 

be prioritized ahead of a slightly higher rated bridge with more 

traffic, greater relative importance to the rest of the system, and 

overall more need for investment. This bill would create yet another level of bureaucracy to a bridge program over-burdened with 

red tape, as State risk-management plans will have to be approved 

by the Department of Transportation. 

The requirements for the risk management system set forth in 

H.R. 3999 are vague and unspecific. However, there is a wide concern among State departments of transportation that they will be 

interpreted by FHWA to force one-size-fits-all federal standards 

that ignore local considerations and variations in risk factors across 

the country, such as seismic retrofit. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

States are already using a highly effective bridge management 

system to address risk when making state-wide bridge investment 

decisions; this bill will disrupt these efforts. 

JOHN BARRASSO. 

KIT BOND. 

L. E. CRAIG. 

JIM INHOFE. 

JOHNNY ISAKSON. 

GEORGE VOINOVICH. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(15) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

CURRENT THROUGH PUBLIC LAW 109-1, APPROVED JAN. 7, 2005 

CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 

101. Definitions and declaration of policy 

102. Program efficiencies 

103. Federal-aid systems 

104. Apportionment 

105. Minimum guarantee 

106. Project approval and oversight 

107. Acquisition of rights-of-way - Interstate System 

108. Advance acquisition of real property 

109. Standards 

110. Revenue aligned budget authority 

111. Agreements relating to use of and access to rights-of-way - Interstate System 

112. Letting of contracts 

113. Prevailing rate of wage 

114. Construction 

115. Advance construction 

116. Maintenance 

117. High priority projects program 

118. Availability of funds 

119. Interstate maintenance program 

120. Federal share payable 

121. Payment to States for construction 

122. Payments to States for bond and other debt instrument financing 

123. Relocation of utility facilities 

124. Advances to States 

125. Emergency relief 

126. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds 

127. Vehicle weight limitations - Interstate System 

128. Public hearings 

129. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries 

130. Railway-highway crossings 

131. Control of outdoor advertising 

132. Payments on Federal-aid projects undertaken by a Federal agency 

133. Surface transportation program 

134. Metropolitan planning 

135. Statewide planning 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

136. Control of junkyards 

137. Fringe and corridor parking facilities 

138. Preservation of parklands 

[139. Repealed.] 

140. Nondiscrimination 

141. Enforcement of requirements 

142. Public transportation 

143. Highway use tax evasion projects 

144. Highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program 

145. Federal-State relationship 

146. Carpool and vanpool projects 

147. Priority primary routes 

148. Development of a national scenic and recreational highway 

149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program 

150. National tunnel inspection program 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 101. Definitions and declaration of policy 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 133. Surface transportation program 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a surface 

transportation program in accordance with this section. 

(b) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A State may obligate funds apportioned 

to it under section 104(b)(3) for the surface transportation program 

only for the following: 

(1) Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, 

restoration, and operational improvements for highways, tunnels that are eligible for assistance under this title (including 

safety inspection of such tunnels), (including Interstate highways) and bridges (including bridges on public roads of all 

functional classifications), including any such construction or 

reconstruction necessary to accommodate other transportation 

modes, and including the seismic retrofit and painting of and 

application of calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate/formate, or other environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive 

anti-icing and de-icing compositions on bridges and approaches 

thereto and other elevated structures, mitigation of damage to 

wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems caused by a transportation 

project funded under this title. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 144. Highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program 

(a) FINDING AND DECLARATION.—Congress finds and declares 

that it is in the vital interest of the United States that a highway 

bridge program be carried out to enable States to improve the condition of their highway bridges over waterways, other topographical 

barriers, other highways, and railroads through replacement and 

rehabilitation of bridges that the States and the Secretary deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 9001 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

mine are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and through 

systematic preventive maintenance of bridges. 

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. 

ø(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, 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. 

ø(2) The Secretary may, at the request of a State, inventory 

bridges, on and off the Federal-aid system, for historic significance. 

ø(3) INVENTORY OF INDIAN RESERVATION AND PARK BRIDGES.—As 

part of the activities carried out under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall (A) 

inventory all those highway bridges on Indian reservation roads 

and park roads which are bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways, and railroads, (B) classify them 

according to serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use, 

(C) based on the classification, assign each a priority for replacement or rehabilitation, and (D) 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 and public safety, including the potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes and 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) BRIDGES ON OTHER PUBLIC ROADS.— 

(1) INVENTORY OF BRIDGES.—The Secretary, in consultation 

with the States, shall— 

(A) inventory all those highway bridges on public roads, 

other than those on any Federal-aid highway, which are 

bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other 

highways, and railroads; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

(B) identify each bridge inventoried under subparagraph 

(A) that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 

(C) assign a risk-based priority for replacement or rehabilitation of each such bridge after consideration of safety, 

serviceability, and essentiality for public use and public 

safety, including the potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes and to regional and national freight and passenger mobility if the serviceability of the bridge is restricted or diminished; and 

(D) determine the cost of replacing each such bridge with 

a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such bridge. 

(2) INVENTORY OF BRIDGES FOR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.—The 

Secretary may, at the request of a State, inventory bridges, on 

and off Federal-aid highways, for historic significance. 

(3) INVENTORY OF INDIAN RESERVATION AND PARK BRIDGES.— As part of the activities carried out under paragraph (1), the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, 

shall— 

(A) inventory all those highway bridges on Indian reservation roads and park roads which are bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways, and 

railroads; 

(B) identify each bridge inventoried under subparagraph 

(A) that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 

(C) assign a risk-based priority for replacement or rehabilitation of each such bridge after consideration of safety, 

serviceability, and essentiality for public use and public 

safety, including the potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes and to regional and national freight and passenger mobility if the serviceability of the bridge is restricted or diminished; and 

(D) determine the cost of replacing each such bridge with 

a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such bridge. 

* * * * * * 

* 

(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 bridges eligible for replacement, (2) Federal-aid 

system bridges eligible for rehabilitation, (3) off-system bridges eligible for replacement, and (4) off-system bridges 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 apportionVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

ment 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. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PARTICIPATION.— (1) BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION.—On application by a State or States to the Secretary for assistance for a 

highway bridge that has been determined to be eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under subsection (b) or (c), the Secretary may approve Federal participation in— 

(A) replacing the bridge with a comparable facility; or 

(B) rehabilitating the bridge. 

(2) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—On application by a State or 

States to the Secretary, the Secretary may approve Federal assistance for any of the following activities for a highway bridge 

that has been determined to be eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under subsection (b) or (c): 

(A) Painting. 

(B) Seismic retrofit. 

(C) Systematic preventive maintenance. 

(D) Installation of scour countermeasures. 

(E) Application of calcium magnesium acetate, sodium 

acetate/formate, or other environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions. 

(3) BASIS FOR DETERMINATION.—The Secretary shall determine the eligibility of highway bridges for replacement or rehabilitation for each State based on structurally deficient and 

functionally obsolete highway bridges in the State. 

(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR 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 to take the following actions: 

(i) INSPECTIONS.—Not later than 24 months after the 

date of enactment of this paragraph, and at least once 

every 24 months thereafter (except as otherwise provided by section 151(d)), the State shall 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. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

(ii) CALCULATION OF LOAD RATINGS.—The State 

shall— 

(I) not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph, calculate the load rating for all highway bridges described in subsections (b) and (c) that are located in the State; 

(II) at least once every 24 months thereafter, reevaluate and, as appropriate, recalculate the load 

rating for each such bridge; and 

(III) ensure that the safe load-carrying capacities 

for such bridges are properly posted. 

(iii) PERFORMANCE PLAN.—The State shall develop, 

not later than 24 months after the date of enactment 

of this paragraph, update annually, and implement 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. 

(iv) BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.—Notwithstanding section 303(c), the State shall develop and implement a bridge management system that meets the 

requirements of section 303. 

(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) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall establish criteria for the approval of performance plans and updates submitted under clause 

(i). 

(iii) 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. 

(C) HISTORIC BRIDGES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—A 5-year performance plan of a 

State under subparagraph (A)(iii) may provide for 

more frequent, in-depth inspection of a historic bridge 

located in the State in lieu of replacement of the bridge 

if the Secretary determines that— 

(I) it is appropriate based on the age, design, 

traffic characteristics, and any known deficiency of 

the bridge; and 

(II) granting the exception will increase the overall safety of the State’s bridge inventory. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

(ii) HISTORIC BRIDGE DEFINED.—In this subparagraph, the term ‘‘historic bridge’’ means any bridge 

that is listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

* * * * * * 

* 

ø(h) 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.¿ 

(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), (c)(1)(C), and (c)(3)(C); and 

(D) such recommendations as the Secretary may have for 

improvements of the program authorized by this section. 

* * * * * * 

* 

(r) 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) FEDERAL SHARE.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph (2), 

the Federal share of the cost of a project payable from funds 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

made available to carry out this section shall be determined 

under section 120(b). 

ø(2) INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project on the Interstate System payable from funds made 

available to carry out this section shall be determined under 

section 120(a).¿ 

(s) TRANSFERABILITY OF 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 there are not 

any bridges on the National Highway System located in the State 

that are eligible for replacement. 

(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; 

(B) a load capacity that is significantly below current 

truckloads and that requires replacement; or 

(C) a waterway opening causing frequent flooding of the 

bridge deck and approaches resulting in 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. 

* * * * * * 

* 

§ 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 

program 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 150. National tunnel inspection program 

(a) NATIONAL TUNNEL INSPECTION STANDARDS.—The Secretary, 

in consultation with State transportation departments and interested and knowledgeable private organizations and individuals, 

shall establish national tunnel inspection standards for the proper 

safety inspection and evaluation of all highway tunnels. The standVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

ards established under this subsection shall be designed to ensure 

uniformity among the States in the conduct of such inspections and 

evaluations. 

(b) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTION STANDARDS.—The 

standards established under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum— 

(1) specify, in detail, the method by which highway tunnel inspections shall be carried out by the States; 

(2) establish the maximum time period between the inspections based on a risk-management approach; 

(3) establish the qualifications for those charged with carrying out the inspections; 

(4) require each State to maintain and make available to the 

Secretary upon request— 

(A) written reports on the results of the inspections together with notations of any action taken pursuant to the 

findings of the inspections; and 

(B) current inventory data for all highway tunnels located in the State reflecting the findings of the most recent 

highway tunnel inspections conducted; 

(5) establish procedures for national certification of highway 

tunnel inspectors; 

(6) establish procedures for conducting annual compliance reviews of State inspections and State implementation of quality 

control and quality assurance procedures; and 

(7) establish standards for State tunnel management systems 

to improve the tunnel inspection process and the quality of data 

collected and reported by the States to the Secretary for inclusion in the national tunnel inventory to be established under 

this section. 

(c) TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR TUNNEL INSPEC- TORS.—The Secretary, in cooperation with State transportation departments, shall establish a program designed to ensure that all individuals carrying out highway tunnel inspections receive appropriate training and certification. Such program shall be revised 

from time to time to take into account new and improved techniques. 

(d) NATIONAL TUNNEL INVENTORY.—The Secretary shall establish 

a national inventory of highway tunnels reflecting the findings of 

the most recent highway tunnel inspections conducted by States 

under this section. 

(e) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—To carry out this section, the Secretary may use funds made available pursuant to the provisions of 

sections 104(a) and 502. 

* * * * * * 

* 

§ 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

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) specify, in detail, the method by which such inspections 

shall be carried out by the States; 

(2) establish the maximum time period between inspections 

in accordance with subsection (d); 

(3) establish the qualification for those charged with carrying 

out the inspections; 

(4) require each State to maintain and make available to the 

Secretary upon request— 

(A) written reports on the results of highway bridge inspections together with notations of any action taken pursuant to the findings of such inspections;øand¿ 

(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 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; 

(7) establish procedures for States to follow in reporting to the 

Secretary— 

(A) critical findings relating to structural or safety-related deficiencies of highway bridges; and 

(B) monitoring activities and corrective actions taken in 

response to such a finding; and 

(8) provide for testing with a state-of-the-art technology that 

detects growth activity of fatigue cracks as small as 0.01 inches 

on steel bridges exhibiting fatigue damage or bridges with fatigue susceptible members. 

(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 in depth 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 

(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 48 months, 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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 502. Surface transportation research 

(a) BASIC PRINCIPLES GOVERNING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

INVESTMENTS.— 

(1) COVERAGE.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(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) Development, use, and dissemination of indicators, including appropriate computer programs for collecting and analyzing data on the status of infrastructure facilities, to measure 

the performance of the surface transportation systems of the 

United States, including productivity, efficiency, energy use, 

air quality, congestion, safety, maintenance, and other factors 

that reflect system performance. 

(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) new and innovative technologies to reduce corrosion; 

(B) tests simulating seismic activity, vibration, and 

weather; and 

(C) the use of innovative recycled materials. 

(3) Technologies and practices that reduce costs and minimize disruptions associated with the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of surface transportation systems, including responses to natural disasters. 

(4) Development of nondestructive evaluation equipment øfor 

use with existing infrastructure facilities and with next-generation infrastructure facilities¿for assessing the structural inVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR482.XXX SR482

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

tegrity of existing infrastructure facilities and next-generation 

infrastructure facilities that use advanced materials. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS