[DOCID: f:sr482.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
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.
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
examine 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 risk-based 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 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 Federal-aid 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 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 detects 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.
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 Federal-aid 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.
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 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 Levela................................ 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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aPublic 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 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:
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> $5 million for grants to states to use certain
advanced technologies to assess the safety of bridges;
<bullet> $2 million for the National Academy of Sciences to
report on DOT's process in assessing the risk of bridge
failure; and
<bullet> $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.
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 cost-beneficial 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 highway 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.
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.
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 [black 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
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
* * * * * * *
Sec. 101. Definitions and declaration of policy
(a) Definitions.--* * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 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 determine are structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete and through systematic preventive
maintenance of bridges.
[(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.
[(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.
[(2) The Secretary may, at the request of a State, inventory
bridges, on and off the Federal-aid system, 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) 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;
(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 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.
* * * * * * *
(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.
(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.
(ii) Historic bridge defined.--In
this subparagraph, the term ``historic
bridge'' means any bridge that is
listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
* * * * * * *
[(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.
[(s) Federal Share.--
[(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph
(2), the Federal share of the cost of a project payable
from funds made available to carry out this section
shall be determined under section 120(b).
[(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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
(a) Establishment.--* * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 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 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 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
Inspectors.--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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 151. National bridge inspection program
(a) National Bridge Inspection Standards.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the State transportation departments and
interested and knowledgeable private organizations and
individuals, shall establish national bridge inspection
standards for the proper safety inspection and evaluation of
all highway bridges. The standards established under this
subsection shall be designed to ensure uniformity among the
States in the conduct of such inspections and evaluations.
(b) Minimum Requirements of Inspection Standards.--The
standards established under subsection (a) shall, at a
minimum--
(1) 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;[and]
(B) current inventory data for all highway
bridges reflecting the findings of the most
recent highway bridge inspections conducted;
and
(5) establish a procedure for national certification
of highway bridge inspectors[.];
(6) establish procedures for conducting annual
compliance reviews of State inspections, quality
control and quality assurance procedures, load ratings,
and weight limit postings of structurally deficient
highway bridges;
(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
(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.
[(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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 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 [for use with existing infrastructure
facilities and with next-generation infrastructure
facilities]for assessing the structural integrity of
existing infrastructure facilities and next-generation
infrastructure facilities that use advanced materials.
* * * * * * *
----------
<all>