SB1167 amends Section 119(e) of Title 23 to revamp how transportation asset management plans are evaluated. The key change is moving from an annual compliance determination to a four-year cadence that aligns with the recertification process.
The bill also updates submission requirements and introduces an explicit opportunity to cure deficiencies, with a stay of penalties during the cure period and a mechanism for extending that window if requested by the State. These changes are intended to reduce administrative burden while preserving federal oversight of asset management practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the compliance determination cadence under Section 119(e) to occur once every four years, in conjunction with the State’s recertification. It also reorganizes the submission framework and fixes how determinations apply over time once made.
Who It Affects
State Departments of Transportation and the Federal Secretary of Transportation, with the new cadence affecting state reporting cycles and federal oversight.
Why It Matters
Establishes a predictable, longer cycle for exercising oversight while creating a formal cure period and extension options to address gaps, potentially reducing administrative costs for states without sacrificing accountability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Transportation Asset Management Simplification Act makes a few focused changes to how state asset management plans are overseen. First, it moves the timing of official compliance determinations from an annual cycle to a four-year cycle that lines up with state recertification dates.
This means states won’t face a yearly re-evaluation; instead, they will be reviewed on a longer horizon, with the most recent year’s information used to support determinations and other years needing a state certification that asset management meets requirements.
Second, it requires states to submit information to support these determinations in a way that emphasizes the most recent year, while allowing, for non-recent years, a certification by the state that their asset management activities meet the law’s requirements. This creates a clear data threshold and reduces duplicative reporting, but it still anchors oversight in documented performance.Third, the bill introduces an explicit opportunity to cure when a state is found not to be in compliance.
States would receive a written plan of the necessary actions and a defined period (not less than 90 days) to cure deficiencies, during which penalties and other legal impacts are stayed. The Secretary can also extend that cure period upon request.
These features aim to balance timely corrective action with a practical runway for states to come back into compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A four-year cadence replaces annual compliance determinations.
States must submit information tied to recertification with most recent-year focus.
A state’s compliant determination remains valid until the next recertification date.
A cure period (minimum 90 days) is provided if a state is noncompliant, with penalties stayed during cure.
The Secretary may extend cure periods upon request by the State.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Cadence of compliance determinations
The bill replaces the prior annual determination framework with a four-year cycle tied to the recertification process. A determination of compliance under the new framework remains in effect until the next required certification, while a determination of noncompliance lasts from the date of the finding until the state is back in compliance. This re-templated cadence preserves federal oversight while reducing the frequency of formal determinations, lowering ongoing administrative burdens for states.
Submission requirements for determinations
States must submit information to support determinations in conjunction with recertification efforts. Submissions are deemed sufficient for the most recent year if they cover that year; for earlier years, states must certify that asset management activities in those years meet statutory requirements. This creates a clear threshold for what must be demonstrated to support a finding of compliance.
Opportunity to cure and stay of penalties
If the Secretary determines a state is not in compliance, the state receives a written plan outlining necessary actions and at least 90 days to cure the deficiencies. During this cure period, penalties and other legal impacts are stayed, helping states stabilize operations and budget planning while correcting gaps.
Extension authority for cure periods
The redesignated subsection clarifies that the Secretary may extend the cure period at the state's request. The extension preserves the stay of penalties during the extended cure window, accommodating states that need more time to implement corrective actions without triggering immediate enforcement.
Editorial alignment with existing subparagraphs
The bill rearranges cross-references by redesignating subclauses for consistency (e.g., moving from lettered to numbered subparts) and by inserting extension language to align with the new cure mechanics. The practical effect is to ensure the cure, extension, and submission provisions operate cohesively within Section 119(e).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Departments of Transportation: gain a predictable, longer-cycle reporting rhythm and a clear path for correcting deficiencies without immediate penalties.
- State asset management staff and external consultants: benefit from clearer requirements and more manageable workflows around recertification and data collection.
- Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation: gain a structured framework for oversight with defined cure options and extension processes.
- Compliance and program management teams within states: receive explicit, time-bound actions and a formal remedy process that reduces last-minute enforcement risk.
Who Bears the Cost
- State DOTs bear the data collection and documentation burden required to support four-year recertifications.
- States may incur costs to prepare and maintain asset management information and to implement corrective actions during cure periods.
- Local agencies and transportation programs that align with state plans may incur indirect costs to conform to updated reporting standards.
- The federal government bears the administrative cost of administering the new cadence, cure process, and extension approvals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between ensuring timely accountability for asset management and reducing administrative burden for States. A four-year cadence plus a cure window seeks to balance efficiency and oversight, but the combination of extended intervals and discretionary extensions could delay enforcement of improvements and create uncertain timelines for when noncompliance materializes into penalties.
The bill hardens a shift toward longer oversight cycles while adding a formal cure mechanism. The four-year cadence could reduce near-term oversight and accelerate some compliance costs in year-to-year planning, while the cure provisions guard against harsh penalties during corrective actions.
A potential risk is that longer intervals between formal determinations might delay the identification of underinvestment or deteriorating asset conditions, unless States maintain robust, timely data. The extension authority provides needed flexibility, but it also concentrates discretion in the Secretary, which could affect scheduling and budget planning for state programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.