[House Report 110-750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-750

======================================================================



 
   NATIONAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 July 10, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3999]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 3999) to amend title 23, United 
States Code, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway 
bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and 
processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of 
structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    H.R. 3999, the ``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and 
Inspection Act of 2007,'' amends the Highway Bridge Program and 
the National Bridge Inspection Program to improve the safety of 
Federal-aid highway bridges, strengthen bridge inspection 
standards and processes, and increase investment in the 
reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the 
National Highway System.

                  Background and Need for Legislation


                         I-35W BRIDGE COLLAPSE

    On August 1, 2007, at 6:05 p.m., the I-35W Bridge in 
Minneapolis, Minnesota, collapsed into the Mississippi River, 
killing 13 people. The eight-lane, steel truss bridge span, 
which was constructed in 1967, carried approximately 140,000 
vehicles daily. The National Transportation Safety Board 
(``NTSB'') is conducting an investigation into the cause of the 
collapse. The NTSB's investigation may take up to 18 months to 
complete.
    The I-35W Bridge had been rated as structurally deficient 
since 1990, and had undergone annual inspections by the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation (``MnDOT'') since 1993. 
The most recent inspection, completed in June 2006, found 
cracking and fatigue problems, and gave the bridge a 
sufficiency rating of 50 percent on a scale of 0 to 100 
percent. A rating of 50 percent or lower means the bridge is 
eligible for replacement under the Federal Highway Bridge 
Program.
    In the aftermath of the collapse, MnDOT and the Minnesota 
Department of Employment and Economic Development conducted a 
study of the impact to regional mobility and economic activity 
due to the loss of this facility. The study estimated that road 
user costs total $400,000 per day in travel time delays and 
increased operational expenses costs because of the increased 
travel time resulting from the loss of the bridge. The report 
also estimated that the impact of the collapse to Minnesota's 
economy is $18 million in 2007 and $43 million in 2008.

             HIGHWAY BRIDGE CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

    According to the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(``DOT''), one of every eight bridges in the nation is 
structurally deficient. Of the 597,340 bridges in the United 
States, 154,101 bridges are deficient, including 73,784 
structurally deficient bridges and 80,317 functionally obsolete 
bridges.
    A bridge is considered structurally deficient if 
significant load-carrying elements are found to be in poor or 
worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage. The fact 
that a bridge is ``deficient'' does not immediately imply that 
it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe. With in-depth 
inspection, unsafe conditions may be identified and, if the 
bridge is determined to be unsafe, the structure must be 
closed. A deficient bridge, when left open to traffic, 
typically requires significant maintenance and repair to remain 
in service and eventual rehabilitation or replacement to 
address deficiencies.
    The Department of Transportation's (``DOT'') Conditions and 
Performance Report, entitled the 2006 Status of the Nation's 
Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance 
(``Conditions and Performance Report''), found that more than 
$65 billion could be invested immediately in a cost-beneficial 
way, by all levels of government, to replace or otherwise 
address existing bridge deficiencies.
    The high percentage of deficient bridges and the backlog of 
necessary bridge repairs are, in part, due to the age of the 
network. One-half of all bridges in the United States were 
built before 1964. Interstate System bridges, which were 
primarily constructed in the 1960s, pose a special challenge 
because a large percentage of these bridges are in the same 
period of their service lives (e.g., 44 percent of these 
bridges were constructed in the 1960s). Concrete and steel 
superstructures on the Interstate Highway System are, on 
average, 35 to 40 years old.
    The Committee is particularly concerned with the condition 
of bridges on the National Highway System (``NHS''). The NHS is 
a 162,000-mile highway network that consists of the 46,747-mile 
Interstate System, the Strategic Highway Network for military 
mobilizations, and other major highways. While the NHS makes up 
only 4.1 percent of total U.S. mileage, it carries 45 percent 
of vehicle miles traveled. NHS bridges carry more than 70 
percent of all traffic on bridges. Of the 116,172 bridges on 
the NHS (including more than 55,000 Interstate System bridges), 
6,175 NHS bridges are structurally deficient. Almost one-half 
of these structurally deficient NHS bridges are bridges on the 
Interstate Highway System (2,830 structurally deficient 
Interstate System bridges). The Condition and Performance 
Report estimates the current NHS bridge investment backlog to 
be $32.1 billion (including $19.1 billion for the Interstate 
Highway System bridge backlog).

 BRIDGE INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT IN THE 
                                  U.S.

    As is the case with other U.S. surface transportation 
infrastructure programs, inspection, maintenance, repair, 
reconstruction and replacement of highway bridges are conducted 
through a Federal-State partnership. The vast majority of all 
bridges in the U.S. are owned by States and local governments. 
The Federal Government establishes bridge inspection policies, 
guidelines, and requirements. Inspections and management of 
bridge inventories and repair, reconstruction, and replacement 
of bridges are carried out by States, subject to Federal 
oversight. The Federal Government also provides funding for 
States and local governments to invest in their bridge 
inventory through the Highway Bridge Program.
    Federal law requires States to inspect all bridges more 
than 20 feet in length within the State, and report the 
findings of inspections to the Federal Highway Administration 
(``FHWA''). Federal law does not require States to take 
additional actions to maintain, repair or reconstruct deficient 
bridges. That is the responsibility of bridge owners. Bridge 
engineers in the FHWA Division Offices are responsible for 
overseeing States' operation and management of their bridge 
program; however, States choose how and where to invest their 
bridge program resources.
    It should be noted that the Federal Government does own 
approximately one percent of the nation's bridges, primarily 
bridges on federally-owned land. In cases where the Federal 
Government owns the facility, the Federal Government is 
responsible for inspecting and maintaining the bridges.

                  FEDERAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS

    Efforts to create Federal bridge inspection standards began 
in 1968, as a result of the December 1967 collapse of the 
Silver Bridge, a bridge between Point Pleasant, West Virginia, 
and Gallipolis, Ohio. Forty-six people were killed in the 
collapse. The following year, Congress passed the Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1968, which established the National Bridge 
Inspection Program (``NBIP''), and directed DOT to work with 
States to establish national bridge inspection standards 
designed to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies to 
ensure the safety of highway bridges. The Act required DOT to 
establish inspection criteria and procedures, and inspector 
training and qualification requirements. The Act also required 
States to prepare and maintain an inventory of Federal-aid 
highway system bridges.
    In 1971, DOT published the National Bridge Inspection 
Standards (``NBIS''), which established bridge inspection 
policies, in the Federal Register. Under the NBIS, States are 
required to conduct routine safety inspections on each bridge 
at least once every 24 months to determine physical and 
functional conditions of the bridge. The inspections are 
carried out by either State employees or consultants, subject 
to Federal oversight.
    According to the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials' (``AASHTO'') Manual for Condition 
Evaluation of Bridges, the minimum Federal requirement of 
routine inspections consists of ``observations and measurements 
needed to determine the physical and functional condition of 
the bridge, to identify changes in `initial' or previously 
recorded conditions, and to ensure that the structure continues 
to satisfy present service requirements.'' Routine inspections 
are generally visual. However, States do utilize additional 
technology or mechanical techniques to carry out more in-depth 
inspections, depending on the condition and nature of the 
structure. During inspections, three major bridge elements are 
examined: the bridge deck, superstructure, and substructure.
    The AASHTO manual identified the following types of bridge 
inspections:
          Initial--A first inspection of a bridge, which 
        provides a structural inventory and a baseline of 
        structural conditions, including identification and 
        listing of existing problems or locations in the 
        structure that may require special attention.
          Routine--A regularly scheduled inspection to 
        determine the physical and functional condition of the 
        bridge.
          In-Depth--A close-up, hands-on inspection of one or 
        more bridge components to identify potential 
        deficiencies which are not detectable using routine 
        inspection procedures.
          Special--A regular inspection to monitor a specific 
        known or suspected deficiency of a bridge.
          Damage--An unscheduled emergency inspection to 
        determine structural damage resulting from accident or 
        other external incident.
    Information is collected during inspection documenting the 
conditions and composition of the bridge structures. The 
periodic inspections determine the adequacy of the structure to 
service the current demands for structural and functional 
purposes. Information and data regarding the condition of the 
bridges is submitted to the FHWA for inclusion in the National 
Bridge Inventory (NBI).
    The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 expanded 
the NBIS to include bridges on all public roads, including 
bridges not on the Federal-aid highway system. With an expanded 
inventory of bridges to be inspected, FHWA decided to lengthen 
the time between inspections. In 1988, FHWA issued regulations 
extending inspection intervals for certain bridges based on 
findings and analysis from previous inspections. The inspection 
interval for these bridges may not exceed once every 48 months. 
However, States are still required to conduct routine 
inspections on each bridge once every 24 months unless the 
State receives approval from FHWA to extend the inspection 
interval. According to FHWA, 83 percent of bridges are 
inspected once every 24 months, 12 percent are inspected at 
least annually, and 5 percent are inspected at least once every 
48 months.
    The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
Assistance Act of 1987 required additional inspection 
requirements for components that are critical to the safety of 
the structure. These components include fracture-critical 
members and underwater structures. Fracture-critical members 
are bridge components ``whose failure will probably cause a 
portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.'' Inspections for 
underwater structures must occur at least once every 60 months. 
Pursuant to FHWA's 1988 final rule implementing these 
provisions, FHWA may extend the inspection interval for certain 
underwater structures based on findings and analysis from 
previous inspections. The inspection interval for underwater 
structures may not exceed once every 72 months.
    The Secretary uses funds made available for the DOT's 
administrative expenses and the Surface Transportation Research 
Program to implement the NBIS highway bridge inspection 
program. States use Highway Bridge Program funds to carry 
bridge inspection activities.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM

    The Highway Bridge Program (``HBP'') provides funding to 
enable States to improve the condition of their highway bridges 
through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 
maintenance. The program is funded by contract authority, and 
subject to an overall Federal-aid obligation limitation. The 
apportioned funds are distributed according to a formula based 
on each State's relative share of the total cost to repair or 
replace deficient highway bridges.
    Federal assistance for the replacement of bridges was 
originally included in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, 
which contained the Special Bridge Replacement Program 
(``SBRP''). The SBRP required DOT to inventory all bridges 
located on the Federal-aid system over waterways and other 
topographical barriers, classify these bridges, and prioritize 
the bridges by need of replacement. DOT would approve State 
applications for bridge replacement funds based on this 
inventory and classification. Subsequent Federal-Aid Highway 
Acts extended the SBRP.
    The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 renamed 
the program the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 
Program, and made bridge repair, rehabilitation, and 
replacement eligible to receive Federal funding.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (``SAFETEA-LU''), enacted in 
2005, further expanded eligible uses of HBP funds to include 
systematic maintenance.
    Current eligible uses of Highway Bridge Program funds 
include:
          Replacement of a structurally deficient or 
        functionally obsolete highway bridge on any public road 
        with a new facility constructed in the same general 
        traffic corridor.
          Rehabilitation to restore the structural integrity of 
        a bridge on any public road, as well as the 
        rehabilitation work necessary to correct major safety 
        (functional) defects.
          Replacement of ferryboat operations in existence on 
        January 1, 1984, the replacement of bridges destroyed 
        before 1965, low-water crossings, and bridges made 
        obsolete by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control 
        or channelization projects and not rebuilt with Corps 
        funds.
          Bridge painting, seismic retrofitting, systematic 
        preventive maintenance, calcium magnesium acetate 
        applications, sodium acetate/formate, or other 
        environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-
        icing and de-icing compositions or installing scour 
        countermeasures.
          Systematic maintenance.
    HBP funds are apportioned to States according to a formula 
that is based on each State's relative share of the total cost 
to repair or replace deficient highway bridges. The Federal 
share for the Highway Bridge Program is 80 percent, or 90 
percent for bridges on the Interstate system. The program 
includes a set-aside for off-system bridges of not less than 15 
percent of the amount apportioned to each State in each of 
fiscal year 2005 through 2009. These funds are to be used for 
bridge projects that are not on a Federal-aid highway.
    States can use HBP funds for the replacement of a bridge 
with a sufficiency rating below 50 on a scale of 0-100. Bridges 
with a sufficiency rating of between 50 and 80 are eligible for 
repair and rehabilitation. States may not use HBP funds for 
reconstruction of facilities with a sufficiency rating above 
80. Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2005, States 
invested Federal highway program funds as follows: 8 percent on 
new bridge facilities, 60.5 percent on bridge replacement 
projects, 5 percent on major bridge rehabilitation projects, 
and 6.5 percent on minor bridge maintenance projects. The 
percentage of Federal funds being invested in minor bridge 
repairs has been increasing in recent years.
    The Federal-Aid Highway program provides States with 
considerable funding transferability among most Federal-Aid 
Highway apportioned programs. Beginning with enactment of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'') in 
1991, States were allowed to transfer up to 40 percent of HBP 
funds to National Highway System (``NHS'') or Surface 
Transportation Program (``STP'') apportionments. In 1998, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (``TEA 21'') 
increased the percentage of HBP funds that may be transferred 
to 50 percent. In addition, TEA 21 expanded the programs that 
may receive HBP transfers to include NHS, STP, Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (``CMAQ''), highway 
safety and recreational trails apportionments. SAFETEA-LU 
retained this authority. Between 1992 and 2006, States 
transferred a total of $4.73 billion in Highway Bridge Program 
funds to NHS and STP programs.
    In addition, a State may transfer approximately 50 percent 
of its NHS, STP, and Interstate Maintenance apportionments to 
the Highway Bridge Program. A State may also transfer less than 
50 percent of its CMAQ apportionment to the Highway Bridge 
Program. Between fiscal years 2004 and 2007, of the 19 States 
that transferred funding from the Highway Bridge Program to 
other Federal-Aid Highway programs, 7 of those States also 
transferred funding from other Federal-Aid Highway programs to 
their Highway Bridge Programs. In addition, States often invest 
funds from other Federal-Aid Highway programs on bridge 
projects without transferring the funds to the HBP. For 
instance, in fiscal year 2004, FHWA apportioned $5.1 billion to 
the States for the HBP. However, in that year, States actually 
invested a total of $6.6 billion in Federal-Aid Highway funding 
on bridge projects.
    Similarly, in implementing congressionally-mandated 
rescissions of unobligated contract authority balances in 
highway program funds, States have chosen to disproportionately 
rescind contract authority from a few programs, including the 
Highway Bridge Program. Although the Highway Bridge Program 
represents approximately 11 percent of the overall program 
funding level in SAFETEA-LU, rescissions of contract authority 
available for this program have totaled approximately one-third 
of total rescissions.
    Finally, some States are very slow to obligate the 
available Highway Bridge Program contract authority. For 
instance, in the past five years (FY 2003-FY 2007), Minnesota 
has obligated barely one-half (51 percent) of the available HPB 
funds--the lowest obligation-to-apportionment ratio of any 
State. However, the five-year average ratio for all States is 
89 percent. Nineteen States have a five-year average ratio of 
more than 99 percent. Tennessee has the highest Highway Bridge 
Program obligation-to-apportionment ratio of any State (141 
percent). The following table provides the State-by-State HBP 
ratios.


        BRIDGE INSPECTOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    Federal regulation currently sets minimum qualifications of 
the top two levels of personnel responsible for carrying out 
bridge inspections. Specifically, the regulations set minimum 
qualifications for a Program Manager and a Team Leader. 
Underwater bridge inspectors and the individual responsible for 
determining load ratings for bridges are also required to have 
a minimum level of training.
    Federal regulations do not require front-line bridge 
inspectors to receive a minimum level of training. However, 
some States do provide training for all levels of inspectors 
through the National Highway Institute and/or other State-based 
organizations offering FHWA-approved comprehensive training and 
certification programs.

                TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Visual observation and other traditional means of 
observation, such as cleaning and scraping, dragging chains, 
and using sounding rods and hammers, remain the primary methods 
of conducting field tests of bridges elements. A study released 
by the FHWA Destructive Evaluation Center in 2001 raised 
significant concerns over the reliability of visual 
inspections. The 2001 report found that trained bridge 
inspectors rarely detected defects when they conducted visual 
inspections of bridges with identified fatigue problems. In 
fact, the study found that only eight percent of the inspectors 
correctly identified a fatigue crack, and many of the 
inspectors identified non-existent problems. Similarly, a 2004 
study published in the Journal of Bridge Engineering found 
similar problems with accuracy and reliability of viable 
inspections and documentation. These findings raise significant 
concerns, and highlight a serious flaw in the current program. 
Although visual inspections remain the primary method used in 
bridge inspections, they can be very unreliable. In addition, 
Highway Bridge Program funds are distributed based on 
subjective assessments which may be inaccurate.
    To supplement and enhance traditional testing methods, 
state-of-the-art techniques are increasingly being utilized to 
augment and advance examination of critical and/or suspect 
bridge elements. The types of methods being developed and 
utilized by States include: impact echo, infrared thermography, 
ground penetrating radar, strain gauges, ultrasonic, eddy 
current, radiography, acoustic emissions, x-ray technology, and 
other non-destructive evaluation techniques.
    Some States utilize more extensive and sophisticated 
technologies and techniques to provide real-time, in-service 
performance information on bridge conditions. The use of real-
time technologies and monitoring processes, such as structural 
health monitoring of critical bridge elements and underwater 
sonar imaging for inspection of bridge substructures, can 
provide detailed and continuous data and information regarding 
the condition and performance of critical bridge members and 
elements.
    FHWA, industry, academia, the Transportation Research Board 
(``TRB''), and State Departments of Transportation continue to 
research, investigate, and develop bridge inspection 
technologies. To assist in this effort, Congress authorized and 
funded five bridge research program areas: long-term bridge 
performance, innovative bridge delivery, high performance and 
innovative materials, nondestructive inspection technology, and 
seismic research.

                       BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

    Most States have developed some form of computer-based 
bridge management programs. These bridge management systems 
(``BMS'') are utilized to assist States in managing bridge 
programs to improve the bridge inspection process and the 
quality of data collected and reported to the NBI. These 
systems also assist States in prioritizing system-wide 
investment decisions based on the needs of the bridges, and 
tracking the deterioration rate of bridge elements. BMS include 
four basic components: data storage, cost and deterioration 
models, optimization models for analysis, and updating 
functions. While many States use similar computer platforms for 
their BMS, the software and systems being utilized vary in 
complexity and capabilities. This lack of uniform BMS standards 
has raised questions about the consistency of data submitted to 
the NBI. The bridge data contained in the system reflects the 
findings generated during field inspections. Therefore, the 
quality of the data, and the analysis that the BMS provides, is 
only as good as the information that is input into the system.

                           BRIDGE LOAD RATING

    The deteriorating conditions of deficient bridges result in 
facilities being ``load rated''. The load rating is an estimate 
of the safe weight-carrying capacity of a bridge and is 
performed separately from the bridge inspection. Bridge load 
ratings are based on structural condition of the bridge as 
identified in the most recent inspection, and take into account 
bridge design, condition, usage, and potential of failure due 
to overloads. Properly calculating the load rating of 
structurally deficient bridges, and, if necessary, posting 
signs to keep heavier vehicles from crossing them serves to 
protect structurally deficient bridges from stresses caused by 
loads that exceed a bridge's capacity. Load ratings are carried 
out using ratings procedures established by AASHTO. Federal 
regulations require that load rating calculations be carried 
out by a licensed professional engineer.
    In a 2006 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General (``DOT IG'') found that States erred in calculating the 
load rating for structurally deficient bridges on the National 
Highway System (``NHS''). According to the DOT IG, inaccurate 
or outdated maximum weight limit calculations and posting 
entries were recorded in bridge databases of the State 
Departments of Transportation and the NBI. The DOT IG found 
that among structurally deficient bridges on the NHS:
          One in 10 structurally deficient NHS bridges had load 
        rating calculations that did not accurately reflect the 
        condition of the structure;
          Signs were not posted on 7.8 percent of bridges that 
        were required to have maximum safe weight signs posted;
          Procedures were not properly followed in the 
        calculation of load ratings for 10 percent of the 
        bridges; and
          40.5 percent of State-level load ratings posted on 
        National Highway System bridges do not match the 
        information submitted to the National Bridge Inventory.
    The DOT IG also found that FHWA Division Offices spend 
limited time on oversight, and did not ensure that States' 
bridge load ratings were properly calculated and corresponding 
postings were performed. In addition, FHWA does not require its 
Division Offices to analyze bridge inspection data to better 
identify and target specific structurally deficient bridges 
most in need of load limit recalculation and posting. The DOT 
IG recommended that the FHWA utilize the objective data 
generated from the computerized management systems, and 
contained in the NBI and State databases to improve oversight 
and risk assessments of State bridge programs.

                       Summary of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 denotes the short title of the bill as the 
``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 
2007''.

Section 2. Highway Bridge Program

    Section 2 injects a new level of accountability into bridge 
repair and replacement by ensuring that States are investing in 
upgrading those bridges that are most critical to safety, as 
well as freight and passenger mobility. This section requires 
the Secretary of Transportation to develop a system to assign a 
risk-based priority to repair, rehabilitate, or replace each 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridge on the 
Federal-aid highway system. This prioritization will allow 
States to target inspections and limited HBP resources on those 
bridges most in need of repair, rehabilitation, and 
reconstruction. In doing so, the overall safety and reliability 
of State bridge inventories will be increased.
    Subsection (a)(1) of section 2 amends section 144(b) of 
title 23, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Transportation, in consultation with the States, to inventory 
all bridges on Federal-aid highways, identify each bridge 
inventoried that is either structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete, assign a risk-based priority for 
replacement or rehabilitation of each such bridge after 
consideration of safety, serviceability, and essentiality for 
public use, and determine the cost of replacing each such 
bridge with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such 
bridge.
    Subsection (a)(2) requires the Secretary to establish a 
process for assigning risk-based priorities not later than 18 
months after the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary 
must submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
report containing a description of the process for assigning 
risk-based priorities.
    This subsection also requires the National Academy of 
Sciences to independently review the process for assigning 
risk-based priorities for repair, reconstruction, or 
replacement of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete 
bridges to ensure that investment and resource decisions are 
based on need.
    Subsection (b) defines the term ``deficient bridge'' as a 
bridge that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
    Subsection (c) establishes the requirements for State 
participation. States are required to inspect all highway 
bridges every 24 months. The inspections must be in accordance 
with bridge inspection standards established under section 151 
of title 23, United States Code. After completing bridge 
inspections, States must provide updated information on these 
bridges to FHWA for inclusion in the NBI. The Committee intends 
that these inspections will create a new baseline analysis of 
bridge conditions, based on the updated inspection and training 
requirements established pursuant to this Act.
    This subsection also requires States to calculate, every 24 
months, the load rating for structurally deficient bridges and 
ensure that the safe load-carrying capacities for such bridges 
are properly posted. The AASHTO manual encourages States to 
establish standardized procedures for determining load ratings 
of bridges, and to review and update as part of every 
inspection cycle. However, current federal law does not specify 
timeframes or requirements for load ratings of bridges.
    Finally this provision requires States to establish a five-
year performance plan for the inspection of highway bridges and 
the rehabilitation and replacement of any structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. States must submit 
the performance plan to the Secretary and the Secretary must 
approve or disapprove each State's performance plan. The 
performance plans will detail the State's plans for addressing 
bridge needs, and will ensure greater accountability in the 
expenditure of HBP funds. Currently, State priorities and plans 
are incorporated into the broad State transportation plan. 
Requiring specific bridge performance plans will allow for 
necessary prioritization and targeting of inspections and HBP 
resources.
    Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate a report containing a description of the 
priority assigned, on a national basis and by State, for the 
replacement and rehabilitation of each structurally deficient 
or functionally obsolete bridge on a Federal-aid highway. The 
report also must contain a description of any project or 
activity carried out by a State that is inconsistent with the 
priorities assigned by the Secretary.
    Subsection (e) authorizes a State to transfer HBP funds to 
another apportioned program only if the State is able to 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the State 
has no structurally deficient bridges on Federal-aid highways 
located in the State. Between 1992 and 2006, States transferred 
a total of $4.73 billion in Highway Bridge Program funds to NHS 
and STP programs. This provision ensures that in implementing 
the HBP, States are first utilizing the funds made available to 
improve the condition and safety of highway bridges.
    Subsection (f) defines ``functionally obsolete'', 
``structurally deficient'', ``rehabilitation'', and 
``replacement'' for purposes of the Highway Bridge Program.
    Subsection (g) makes various technical and clarifying 
changes to the Highway Bridge Program.
    Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to ensure that 
information in the National Bridge Inventory be more readily 
available to the public. This provision ensures that FHWA will 
provide data regarding each bridge in the inventory in a manner 
that is accessible and understandable to the general public.

Section 3. National Bridge Inspection Program

    Subsection (a) of section 3 provides that the standards 
established under this Act are to be designed to ensure 
uniformity among the States in the conduct of inspections and 
evaluations. Bridges are a key component of the national 
surface transportation network. As such, it is important that 
these facilities are inspected in a consistent fashion, and the 
information generated from the inspection is reliable and 
accurate.
    The 2006 DOT IG's report found significant problems with 
FHWA's ability to oversee the greatly varied State bridge 
inspection programs. This subsection requires FHWA and the 
States to significantly improve their bridge inspection and 
evaluation processes and develop consistent, uniform processes 
and standards for the inspection of bridges and inspector 
training. These improved, uniform standards will ensure that 
the data collected during inspections and submitted to FHWA is 
accurate and consistent.
    The Committee recognizes that there is not a single 
solution to this problem. Different States have different 
levels of need, and different bridges have varying requirements 
and weaknesses. These differences must be accounted for in the 
new system. However, it is the Committee's intent to end the 
piecemeal, patchwork approach to bridge inspection and data 
collection that currently exists.
    Subsection (b) provides that the minimum requirements for 
inspection standards shall include procedures for conducting 
annual compliance reviews of State inspections, quality control 
and quality assurance procedures, load ratings, and weight 
limit postings of structurally deficient bridges. The 
inspection standards must also provide standards for State 
bridge management systems to improve the bridge inspection 
process and the quality of data collected and submitted to the 
NBI.
    The DOT IG's report found serious concerns with FHWA's 
oversight of State bridge inspection programs, and the quality 
and consistency of data being submitted to the NBI. This 
section is designed to require FHWA to take a more active role 
in overseeing State bridge programs, and ensuring State bridge 
inspections conform to the NBIS. The Committee recognizes that 
tools, such as BMS, are critical to prioritizations and 
carrying out bridge inspections and the bridge programs. To 
ensure greater compliance and consistency of data submitted, 
FHWA must establish uniform standards for these systems.
    Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to expand the scope 
of the bridge inspector training program to ensure that all 
persons conducting highway bridge inspections receive 
appropriate training and certification under the program. 
Federal regulation currently sets minimum qualifications of the 
top two levels of personnel responsible for carrying out bridge 
inspections, as well as underwater bridge inspectors and 
individuals responsible for determining load ratings. 
Specifically, the regulations establish minimum qualifications 
for program managers and team leaders. Federal regulations do 
not require front-line bridge inspectors to receive a minimum 
level of training. This provision will make sure that those 
inspecting bridges have the skills and knowledge to recognize 
deficiencies and critical findings, and will ensure bridge 
inspections across the nation are conducted in a consistent 
fashion.
    Subsection (d) requires annual inspections of structurally 
deficient highway bridges using the best practicable 
technologies and methods, annual in-depth inspections of 
fracture critical members, and biennial inspections of highway 
bridges that have not been determined to be structurally 
deficient. Upon the request of a State, the Secretary may 
extend the time between required bridge inspections for non-
structurally deficient bridges to a maximum period of 48 months 
if the Secretary determines that the extension is appropriate 
based on the age, design, traffic characteristics, and any 
known deficiency of the bridge, the extension is consistent 
with the five-year performance plan, and granting the extension 
will increase the overall safety of the State's bridge 
inventory.
    This subsection requires that States inspect structurally 
deficient bridges and bridges with fracture critical members 
are inspected at least annually utilizing the most effective 
technologies and inspection method. This provision will develop 
a framework to allow States to target inspections and HBP 
resources on bridges most in need of monitoring, repair, 
reconstruction, or replacement. The provision also requires 
States to utilize the best practicable technologies and 
inspection methods and techniques in carrying out inspections 
of structurally deficient bridges.
    Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to revise regulations 
relating to the qualifications of State highway bridge 
inspection personnel to require that anyone serving as a 
program manager be a professional engineer licensed under the 
laws of that State, and that an individual serving as a team 
leader be a professional engineer licensed under the laws of 
that State or have at least 10 years of bridge inspection 
experience. The subsection provides that the requirements in 
this subsection only apply to an individual selected by a State 
to serve as a program manager or a team leader after the date 
of issuance of revised regulations.
    Subsection (f) requires the Secretary, within one year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, to modify national 
bridge inspection standards and the training program for bridge 
inspectors in accordance with this section.

Section 4. Surface transportation research

    Section 4 expands the activities eligible to receive 
funding under the highway research program to include research 
into non-destructive inspection technologies. Many States 
currently use these types of technologies to supplement 
traditional bridge inspections. These technologies have 
demonstrated value in assessing bridge conditions and extending 
the life of bridges.

Section 5. Authorization of appropriations

    Subsection (a) of section 5 authorizes $1 billion to be 
appropriated in each of FY 2008 and FY 2009 to repair, 
reconstruct, and replace structurally deficient bridges on the 
NHS.
    Subsection (b) distributes the funds authorized by this 
legislation by formula pursuant to Federal-aid Highway 
apportionments for Federal-aid highway bridges under the 
Highway Bridge Program. This subsection also provides that 
funds distributed under this program shall be used for the 
replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient 
National Highway System bridges. This provision prohibits the 
transfer of funds provided under this act to other Federal-aid 
highway programs.
    Subsection(c) prohibits any Congressional or Administration 
earmarks of funding provided under this program. The 
legislation establishes a process for priority rating for 
bridge repairs and reconstruction. This provision is designed 
to remove political considerations from the decision-making 
process, and ensure that the limited resources available under 
the bridge program are targeted on those bridges most in need 
of rehabilitation.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    On August 2, 2007, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced 
H.R. 3311, in response to the August 1, 2007 collapse of the I-
35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that killed 13 people. 
H.R. 3311 authorized $250 million of additional funds for 
emergency repairs and reconstruction of the I-35W Bridge, 
waived the $100 million on emergency relief funds for emergency 
repairs and reconstruction, and provided emergency transit 
funds. On August 2, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure ordered H.R. 3311 reported favorably to the 
House. On August 3, the House passed the bill by a vote of 421-
0. On August 4, the House passed H.R. 3311, as amended by the 
Senate, by unanimous consent. On August 8, the President signed 
the bill (P.L. 110-56).
    On September 5, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held a hearing on structurally deficient bridges 
on the National Highway System.
    On October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee on Highways and 
Transit held a hearing on highway bridge inspections.
    On October 30, 2007, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced 
H.R. 3999, the ``National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and 
Inspection Act of 2007.''
    On November 2, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 3999, and 
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice vote 
with a quorum present.

                              Record Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection 
with consideration of H.R. 3999 or ordering the bill reported. 
A motion to order H.R. 3999 reported favorably to the House was 
agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget 
Office included in the report.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to 
improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, strengthen 
bridge inspection standards and processes, and increase 
investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient 
bridges on the National Highway System.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3999 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, December 3, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3999, the National 
Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
            Sincerely,
                                          Peter H. Fontaine
                                   (For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3999--National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 
        2007

    Summary: H.R. 3999 would expand the national program to 
inspect bridges and authorize appropriations for replacing and 
rehabilitating highway bridges. The bill would also require the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to complete several reports 
on the status of bridges nationwide and to increase training 
for bridge inspectors. Assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 
cost nearly $1.9 billion over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting 
H.R. 3999 would not affect revenues or direct spending.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3999 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 
(transportation).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Expansion of the Bridge Program:
    Authorization Level\1\......   1,000   1,000       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........     150     550     610     340     170
Increased Requirements on
 Federal Agencies that Own
 Bridges:
    Estimated Authorization           15      15       0       0       0
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       2       8       9       5       3
Reports, Assessments, and
 Guidance:
    Estimated Authorization            7       5       5       5       5
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       3       5       5       5       5
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization    1,024   1,020       5       5       5
         Level..................
        Estimated Outlays.......     155     564     625     350    178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\PubJic Law 109-59 provides contract authority, a mandatory form of
  budget authority, for the Bridge Program codified in section 144,
  title 23, U.S. Code, of$4.4 billion in 2008 and $4.5 billion in 2009.
  Spending of those amounts is controlled by obligation limitations
  contained in appropriation acts. A full-year 2008 appropriation for
  DOT has not yet been enacted.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
3999 will be enacted near the start of calendar year 2008, that 
the authorized amounts will be appropriated each year, and that 
outlays will follow the historical rate of spending for similar 
programs.
    H.R. 3999 would add new requirements for inspecting bridges 
by state inspectors and federal agencies that own bridges, 
increase oversight of those inspections by DOT, and require DOT 
to complete several reports on the status of bridges and bridge 
safety nationwide. In total, the bill would authorize the 
appropriation of just over $1 billion in each of fiscal years 
2008 and 2009 and $5 million per year for 2010 through 2012. 
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost 
nearly $1.9 billion over the 2008-2012 period.

Expansion of the bridge program

    Under current law, states receive about $4 billion annually 
in contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) 
for repairing, rehabilitating, and replacing bridges on public 
roadways. Spending of those amounts, however, is typically 
controlled by limits on annual obligations set in appropriation 
acts (known as obligation limitations). H.R. 3999 would 
authorize the appropriation of an additional $1 billion in each 
of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for that program. CBO estimates 
that implementing those provisions would cost about $1.8 
billion over the 2008-2012 period.
    The appropriation of additional funds for DOT's bridge 
program could result in an increase in the contract authority 
available to states because of DOT's equity bonus program. That 
program adjusts the amount of contract authority available to a 
state based on a variety of factors including that state's 
contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund 
and the amount it received under the previous authorization for 
Highway programs. Any additional contract authority due to the 
equity bonus program would result from a subsequent 
appropriation act; thus, CBO has not estimated any increase in 
contract authority as a result of implementing H.R. 3999.

Increased requirements on Federal agencies that own bridges

    H.R. 3999 would increase the frequency of bridge 
inspections and increase training requirements for inspectors 
of those bridges. Current regulations require that federal 
agencies that own and operate bridges on public roads comply 
with all safety requirements established under the bridge 
program. There are about 9,000 such bridges nationwide mostly 
owned by the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the 
Interior. Assuming appropriation of the amounts estimated to be 
necessary, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would 
cost $27 million over the 2008-2012 period.

Reports, assessments, and guidance

    H.R. 3999 would authorize $2 million in 2008 for the 
National Academy of Sciences to report on DOT's process for 
assessing the. risk of bridge failure and how bridge 
reconstruction and rehabilitation is prioritized. Other 
provisions of the bill would require DOT to produce several 
reports on the safety of the nation's bridges, make certain 
data about bridges more accessible to the public, train more 
state bridge inspectors, and increase DOT's oversight of state 
plans to address bridge safety. Based on information from DOT 
and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $23 
million over the 2008-2012 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3999 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would require recipients of federal 
highway funds to inspect and manage highway bridges. Any costs 
to state local, or tribal governments would result from 
complying with conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on 
the Private Sector: Jacob Kuipers.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Compliance With House Rule XXI

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, H.R. 3999 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 3999 does not 
preempt any State, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Sec.
101.  Definitions and declaration of policy.
     * * * * * * *
144.  Highway bridge [replacement and rehabilitation] program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 104. Apportionment

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Metropolitan Planning.--
          (1) Set-aside.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
        Secretary shall set aside 1.25 percent of the funds 
        authorized to be appropriated for the Interstate 
        maintenance, national highway system, surface 
        transportation, congestion mitigation and air quality 
        improvement, and highway bridge [replacement and 
        rehabilitation] programs authorized under this title to 
        carry out the requirements of section 134.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 105. Equity bonus program

  (a) Program.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in 
        subsection (a) are--
                  (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) the highway bridge [replacement and 
                rehabilitation] program under section 144;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) State Percentage.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in 
        paragraph (1)(B)(ii) are (as in effect on the day 
        before the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU)--
                  (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) the highway bridge [replacement and 
                rehabilitation] program under section 144;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 144. Highway bridge [replacement and rehabilitation] program

  (a) * * *
  [(b) The Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall 
(1) inventory all those highway bridges on any Federal-aid 
system which are bridges over waterways, other topographical 
barriers, other highways, and railroads; (2) classify them 
according to serviceability, safety, and essentiality for 
public use; (3) based on that classification, assign each a 
priority for replacement or rehabilitation; and (4) determine 
the cost of replacing each such bridge with a comparable 
facility or of rehabilitating such bridge.]
  (b) Bridges on Federal-Aid Highways.--The Secretary, in 
consultation with the States, shall--
          (1) inventory all bridges on Federal-aid highways 
        that are bridges over waterways, other topographical 
        barriers, other highways, and railroads;
          (2) identify each bridge inventoried under paragraph 
        (1) that is structurally deficient or functionally 
        obsolete;
          (3) assign a risk-based priority for replacement or 
        rehabilitation of each such bridge after consideration 
        of safety, serviceability, and essentiality for public 
        use, including the potential impacts to regional and 
        national freight and passenger mobility if the 
        serviceability of the bridge is restricted or 
        diminished; and
          (4) determine the cost of replacing each such bridge 
        with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such 
        bridge.
  (c)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall 
(1) inventory all those highway bridges on public roads, other 
than those on any [Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highway, 
which are bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, 
other highways, and railroads, (2) classify them according to 
serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use, (3) 
based on the classification, assign each a priority for 
replacement or rehabilitation and (4) determine the cost of 
replacing each such bridge with a comparable facility or of 
rehabilitating such bridge.
  (2) The Secretary may, at the request of a State, inventory 
bridges, on and off [the Federal-aid system] Federal-aid 
highways, for historic significance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Participation.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Special rule for systematic preventive 
        maintenance.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this subsection, a State may carry out a project under 
        paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (2)(D) for a highway 
        bridge without regard to whether the bridge is eligible 
        for replacement or rehabilitation under this section.
          (5) Requirements for state participation.--
                  (A) In general.--As a condition for providing 
                assistance to a State under this section, the 
                Secretary shall require the State--
                          (i) not later than 2 years after the 
                        date of enactment of this paragraph, 
                        and at least once every 2 years 
                        thereafter (except as otherwise 
                        provided by section 151(d)), to inspect 
                        all highway bridges described in 
                        subsections (b) and (c) that are 
                        located in the State in accordance with 
                        the standards established under section 
                        151 and provide updated information on 
                        such bridges to the Secretary for 
                        inclusion in the national bridge 
                        inventory;
                          (ii) not later than 2 years after the 
                        date of enactment of this paragraph, 
                        and at least once every 2 years 
                        thereafter, to calculate the load 
                        rating for highway bridges located in 
                        the State that have a structural 
                        deficiency in a load-carrying member 
                        and ensure that the safe load-carrying 
                        capacities for such bridges are 
                        properly posted;
                          (iii) to establish, not later than 2 
                        years after the date of enactment of 
                        this paragraph, and update annually, a 
                        5-year performance plan for--
                                  (I) the inspection of highway 
                                bridges described in 
                                subsections (b) and (c) that 
                                are located in the State; and
                                  (II) the rehabilitation and 
                                replacement of any of such 
                                bridges that are structurally 
                                deficient or functionally 
                                obsolete; and
                          (iv) to establish and implement a 
                        bridge management system that complies 
                        with the standards established for such 
                        systems under section 151.
                  (B) Approval of performance plans.--
                          (i) Submission to the secretary.--A 
                        State that establishes a 5-year 
                        performance plan under subparagraph 
                        (A)(iii) shall submit the plan and each 
                        update of the plan to the Secretary for 
                        approval.
                          (ii) Approval and disapproval.--The 
                        Secretary shall approve or disapprove 
                        each 5-year performance plan and update 
                        submitted by a State under this 
                        subparagraph. If the Secretary 
                        disapproves a plan or update, the 
                        Secretary shall inform the State of the 
                        reasons for the disapproval and shall 
                        require the State to resubmit the plan 
                        or update with such modifications as 
                        the Secretary determines necessary.
  (e) Funds authorized to carry out this section shall be 
apportioned among the several States on October 1 of the fiscal 
year for which authorized in accordance with this subsection. 
Each deficient bridge shall be placed into one of the following 
categories: (1) [Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highway 
bridges eligible for replacement, (2) [Federal-aid system] 
Federal-aid highway bridges eligible for rehabilitation, (3) 
[off-system bridges] bridges not on Federal-aid highways 
eligible for replacement, and (4) [off-system bridges] bridges 
not on Federal-aid highways eligible for rehabilitation. The 
deck area of deficient bridges in each category shall be 
multiplied by the respective unit price on a State-by-State 
basis, as determined by the Secretary; and the total cost in 
each State divided by the total cost of the deficient bridges 
in all States shall determine the apportionment factors. For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, if a State transfers funds 
apportioned to the State under this section in a fiscal year 
beginning after September 30, 1997, to any other apportionment 
of funds to such State under this title, the total cost of 
deficient bridges in such State and in all States to be 
determined for the succeeding fiscal year shall be reduced by 
the amount of such transferred funds. No State shall receive 
more than 10 per centum or less than 0.25 per centum of the 
total apportionment for any one fiscal year. The Secretary 
shall make these determinations based upon the latest available 
data, which shall be updated annually. Funds apportioned under 
this section shall be available for expenditure for the period 
specified in section 118(b)(2). Any funds not obligated at the 
expiration of such period shall be reapportioned by the 
Secretary to the other States in accordance with this 
subsection. The use of funds authorized under this section to 
carry out a project for the seismic retrofit of a bridge shall 
not affect the apportionment of funds under this section. In 
this subsection, the term ``deficient bridge'' means a bridge 
that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
  [(f) The Federal share payable on account of any project 
under this section shall be 80 per centum of the cost thereof.]
  [(g)] (f) Bridge Set-asides.--
          (1) Designated projects.--
                  (A) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to 
                be appropriated to carry out the bridge program 
                under this section for each of the fiscal years 
                2006 through 2009, all but $100,000,000 shall 
                be apportioned as provided in subsection (e). 
                Such $100,000,000 shall be available as 
                follows:
                          (i)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (vi) $4,500,000 per fiscal year for 
                        replacement of the Missisquoi Bay 
                        Bridge, Vermont, except that any 
                        unobligated funds remaining upon 
                        completion of the project under this 
                        clause shall be transferred to and used 
                        to carry out the project described in 
                        clause (vii).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) [Off-system bridges] Bridges not on federal-aid 
        highways.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(h)] (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525-533) shall apply to 
bridges authorized to be replaced, in whole or in part, by this 
section, except that subsection (b) of section 502 of such Act 
of 1946 and section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 
1151) shall not apply to any bridge constructed, reconstructed, 
rehabilitated, or replaced with assistance under this title, if 
such bridge is over waters (1) which are not used and are not 
susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable 
improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign 
commerce, and (2) which are (a) not tidal, or (b) if tidal, 
used only by recreational boating, fishing, and other small 
vessels less than 21 feet in length.
  [(i) Inventories and Reports.--The Secretary shall--
          [(1) report to the Committee on Environment and 
        Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives on projects approved under this 
        section;
          [(2) annually revise the current inventories 
        authorized by subsections (b) and (c) of this section;
          [(3) report to such committees on such inventories; 
        and
          [(4) report to such committees such recommendations 
        as the Secretary may have for improvements of the 
        program authorized by this section.
Such reports shall be submitted to such committees biennially.]
  (h) Information and Reports.--
          (1) Updates of information.--The Secretary shall 
        annually revise, as necessary, the information required 
        under subsections (b) and (c).
          (2) Reports to congress.--Concurrently with the 
        President's annual budget submission to Congress under 
        section 1105(a) of title 31, the Secretary shall submit 
        to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
        of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
        containing--
                  (A) a description of projects and activities 
                approved under this section;
                  (B) the information updated under paragraph 
                (1), including a description of the priority 
                assigned, on a national basis and by State, for 
                the replacement or rehabilitation of each 
                structurally deficient or functionally obsolete 
                bridge on a Federal-aid highway;
                  (C) a description of any project or activity 
                carried out by a State under this section in 
                the preceding fiscal year that is inconsistent 
                with the priorities assigned by the Secretary 
                under subsection (b)(3); and
                  (D) such recommendations as the Secretary may 
                have for improvements of the program authorized 
                by this section.
  [(j)] (i) Sums apportioned to a State under this section 
shall be made available for obligation throughout such State on 
a fair and equitable basis.
  [(k)] (j) Not later than six months after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, and periodically thereafter, the 
Secretary shall review the procedure used in approving or 
disapproving applications submitted under this section to 
determine what changes, if any, may be made to expedite such 
procedure. Any such changes shall be implemented by the 
Secretary as soon as possible. Not later than nine months after 
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
submit a report to Congress which describes such review and 
such changes, including any recommendations for legislative 
changes.
  [(l)] (k) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
bridge which is owned and operated by an agency (1) which does 
not have taxing powers, (2) whose functions include operating a 
federally assisted public transit system subsidized by toll 
revenues, shall be eligible for assistance under this section 
but the amount of such assistance shall in no event exceed the 
cumulative amount which such agency has expended for capital 
and operating costs to subsidize such transit system. Before 
authorizing an expenditure of funds under this subsection, the 
Secretary shall determine that the applicant agency has 
insufficient reserves, surpluses, and projected revenues (over 
and above those required for bridge and transit capital and 
operating costs) to fund the necessary bridge replacement or 
rehabilitation project. Any non-Federal funds expended for the 
seismic retrofit of the bridge may be credited toward the non-
Federal share required as a condition of receipt of any Federal 
funds for seismic retrofit of the bridge made available after 
the date of the expenditure.
  [(m)] (l) Replacement of Destroyed Bridges and Ferryboat 
Service.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(n) Off-System Bridge Program.--] (m) Program for Bridges 
Not on Federal-Aid Highways.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, with respect to any project not on a Federal-
aid highway for the replacement of a bridge or rehabilitation 
of a bridge which is wholly funded from State and local 
sources, is eligible for Federal funds under this section, is 
noncontroversial, is certified by the State to have been 
carried out in accordance with all standards applicable to such 
projects under this section, and is determined by the Secretary 
upon completion to be no longer a deficient bridge, any amount 
expended after the date of the enactment of this subsection 
from State and local sources for such project in excess of 20 
percent of the cost of construction thereof may be credited to 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the projects in such State 
which are eligible for Federal funds under this section. Such 
crediting shall be in accordance with such procedures as the 
Secretary may establish.
  [(o)] (n) Historic Bridge Program.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) State inventory.--The Secretary shall require 
        each State to complete an inventory of all bridges on 
        and off [the Federal-aid system] Federal-aid highways 
        to determine their historic significance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Preservation.--Any State which proposes to 
        demolish a historic bridge for a replacement project 
        with funds made available to carry out this section 
        shall first make the bridge available for donation to a 
        State, locality, or responsible private entity if such 
        State, locality, or responsible entity enters into an 
        agreement to--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) assume all future legal and financial 
                responsibility for the bridge, which may 
                include an agreement to hold the [State highway 
                agency] State transportation department 
                harmless in any liability action.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(p)] (o) Applicability of State Standards for Projects.--A 
project not on a Federal-aid highway under this section shall 
be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 
accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, safety 
standards, design standards, and construction standards.
  [(q)] (p) As used in this section the term ``rehabilitate'' 
in any of its forms means major work necessary to restore the 
structural integrity of a bridge as well as work necessary to 
correct a major safety defect.
  [(r)] (q) Annual Materials Report on New Bridge Construction 
and Bridge Rehabilitation.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, 
the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a report 
describing construction materials used in new Federal-aid 
bridge construction and bridge rehabilitation projects.
  [(s)] (r) Federal Share.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (s) Flexible Funding.--Notwithstanding section 126 or any 
other provision of law, a State may transfer funds apportioned 
to the State under this section for a fiscal year to another 
apportionment of funds to the State under this title only if 
the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
that the State has no structurally deficient bridges on 
Federal-aid highways located in the State.
  (t) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions 
apply:
          (1) Functionally obsolete.--The term ``functionally 
        obsolete'' as used with respect to a bridge means a 
        bridge that no longer meets current design standards 
        relating to geometrics, including roadway width, 
        shoulder width, and approach alignment, for the traffic 
        demands on the bridge.
          (2) Structurally deficient.--The term ``structurally 
        deficient'' as used with respect to a bridge means a 
        bridge that has--
                  (A) significant load-carrying elements that 
                are in poor or worse condition due to 
                deterioration or damage, or both; or
                  (B) a waterway opening that is insufficient 
                to the point of causing significant traffic 
                interruptions.
          (3) Rehabilitation.--The term ``rehabilitation'' 
        means major work necessary to restore the structural 
        integrity of a bridge and work necessary to correct a 
        major safety defect.
          (4) Replacement.--The term ``replacement'' as used 
        with respect to a structurally deficient or 
        functionally obsolete bridge means a new facility 
        constructed in the same general traffic corridor that 
        meets the geometric, construction, and structural 
        standards, in effect at the time of such construction, 
        required for the types and volume of projected traffic 
        of the facility over its design life.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 151. National bridge inspection program

  (a) National Bridge Inspection Standards.--The Secretary, in 
consultation with the State transportation departments and 
interested and knowledgeable private organizations and 
individuals, shall establish national bridge inspection 
standards for the proper safety inspection and evaluation of 
all highway bridges. The standards established under this 
subsection shall be designed to ensure uniformity among the 
States in the conduct of such inspections and evaluations.
  (b) Minimum Requirements of Inspection Standards.--The 
standards established under subsection (a) shall, at a 
minimum--
          (1) * * *
          (2) establish the maximum time period between 
        inspections in accordance with subsection (d);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) require each State to maintain and make available 
        to the Secretary upon request--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) current inventory data for all highway 
                bridges reflecting the findings of the most 
                recent highway bridge inspections conducted; 
                [and]
          (5) establish a procedure for national certification 
        of highway bridge inspectors[.];
          (6) establish procedures for conducting annual 
        compliance reviews of State inspections, quality 
        control and quality assurance procedures, load ratings, 
        and weight limit postings of structurally deficient 
        highway bridges; and
          (7) establish standards for State bridge management 
        systems to improve the bridge inspection process and 
        the quality of data collected and reported by the 
        States to the Secretary for inclusion in the national 
        bridge inventory.
  (c) Training Program for Bridge Inspectors.--The Secretary, 
in cooperation with the State transportation departments, shall 
establish a program designed to train appropriate governmental 
employees to carry out highway bridge inspections. Such 
training program shall be revised from time to time to take 
into account new and improved techniques. The Secretary shall 
expand the scope of the training program to ensure that all 
persons conducting highway bridge inspections receive 
appropriate training and certification under the program.
  (d) Frequency of Bridge Inspections.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        standards established under subsection (a), at a 
        minimum, shall provide for--
                  (A) annual inspections of structurally 
                deficient highway bridges using the best 
                practicable technologies and methods;
                  (B) annual hands-on inspections of fracture 
                critical members, as such terms are defined in 
                section 650.305 of title 23, Code of Federal 
                Regulations (as in effect on the date of 
                enactment of this paragraph); and
                  (C) biennial inspections of highway bridges 
                that have not been determined to be 
                structurally deficient.
          (2) Extensions.--Upon the request of a State, the 
        Secretary may extend, to a maximum period of 4 years, 
        the time between required inspections of a highway 
        bridge that has not been determined to be structurally 
        deficient if the Secretary determines that--
                  (A) the extension is appropriate based on the 
                age, design, traffic characteristics, and any 
                known deficiency of the bridge;
                  (B) the extension is consistent with the 5-
                year performance plan of the State approved 
                under section 144(d)(5)(B); and
                  (C) granting the extension will increase the 
                overall safety of the State's bridge inventory.
  [(d)] (e) Availability of Funds.--To carry out this section, 
the Secretary may use funds made available pursuant to the 
provisions of section 104(a), section 502, and section 144 of 
this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 5--RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND EDUCATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 502. Surface transportation research

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Contents of Research Program.--The Secretary shall 
include in surface transportation research, technology 
development, and technology transfer programs carried out under 
this title coordinated activities in the following areas:
          (1) * * *
          (2) Methods, materials, and testing to improve the 
        durability of surface transportation infrastructure 
        facilities and extend the life and enhance the safety 
        of bridge structures, including--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) tests simulating seismic activity, 
                vibration, and weather, including 
                nondestructive tests to assess the structural 
                integrity of facilities; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
