S. 3338Senate110th Congress (2007-2009)In Committee

National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

SenateCommittee Latest Action

Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-1263.

Environment and Public Works Committee

September 10, 2008

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

July 25, 2008

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Environment and Public Works Committee

July 25, 2008

SenateCommittee

Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-1263.

Environment and Public Works Committee

September 10, 2008

Floor Debate

3 members

What members said about S. 3338 on the floor

1 Republican2 Democrats

Sen. Amy KlobucharD-MN · Sep 26, 2008

I rise to speak about H.R. 3999, which is the companion bill to the bill that Senator Durbin and I introduced in the Senate about bridges and bridge repair. Senator Boxer today asked that this bill be called up. It successfully was passed through our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. She asked that the bill be called up because, obviously, we are in the waning days of the session, and we believed this was an incredibly important bill for this country.

Unfortunately, the other side blocked this bill; they would not allow this bill to be heard. I would like to make some comments about the objection from the other side to this bill.

I do not understand it. I think everyone knows what happened in Minnesota. On August 1, our Nation was shocked to learn that this eight-lane highway in the middle of Minnesota, the I-35W bridge, collapsed. I have said many times after that terrible day that a bridge should not fall down in the middle of America, not a bridge that is an eight-lane freeway, not a bridge that is six blocks from my house, not a bridge that I drive my 13-year-old daughter over every day.

Now, as you know, there has been great progress in rebuilding that bridge. In fact, we have a new bridge. That bridge opened about a week ago, and that new bridge spans the river. We are very proud of the workers who worked on that bridge. But it is also a spot of great sadness as we remember the 13 people who died, the 50-some people who were injured, the 100-some cars that went into the river, and all of the rescue workers who saved so many lives.

We must still get to the bottom of why this enormous bridge fell into the middle of the Mississippi River. It did not happen because of an earthquake or a barge collision; something went terribly wrong. We need to get the answer. Evidence is accumulating that the bridge's condition had been deteriorating for years, and that it had been a subject of growing concern with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

This was not a bridge over troubled waters; this was a troubled bridge over waters. Still, as a former prosecutor, like the Presiding Officer, I know we must wait until all of the facts and evidence are in before we reach a verdict. We will need to be patient as the investigation continues.

Mark Rosenker, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said last month that the NTSB investigation is nearing completion, that a final report should be ready for public release very soon.

The chairman also said that photographs of the gusset plate, which were a half inch thick and warped, were stressed by the weight of the bridge and may have been a key indicator to the dangerous state of the I-35W bridge.

Now we know that this was most likely a design defect in the bridge, but the Chairman has said recently that these photographs show that there were some visible problems. So we will await the report to see what the NTSB thinks about that. But clearly there was some indication that there were problems with this bridge.

Finally, the bridge collapse in Minnesota has shown that America needs to come to grips with the broader question about our deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked Americans into realizing how important it is to have a safe, sound infrastructure. Because we also have learned that another bridge in our State, and I think you have seen this across the country, had a similar design.

We have actually looked at all of our bridges in Minnesota. We have another bridge that is also closed down in the middle of St. Cloud, MN, a midsized city. This bridge has been closed down. And we look all over the country and we have problems with our infrastructure.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Unfortunately, it took a disaster such as the bridge in our State to put the issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national agenda. Of the 25 percent of the Nation's bridges that have been found to be in need of repair--the 600,000--74,000 come into the category of structurally deficient. In my home State, that means 1,579 bridges are considered structurally deficient. There is virtually no way to drive in or out of any State without going over one of these bridges. When the average age of a bridge in the country is 43 years and 25 percent of all American bridges are in need of repair or replacement, it is time to act.

Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a study raising several issues regarding the Federal Highway Bridge Program. First, the program has expanded from improving deficient bridges to include funding criteria that make nearly all bridges eligible. Second, States are able to transfer bridge program funds to other transportation projects. Third, there are disincentives for States to reduce their inventories of deficient bridges since doing so would reduce their Federal bridge funds. Finally, GAO noted that the long- term trend is more bridges in need of repair and the cost of repair rising as well. In other words, the Highway Bridge Fund is not fiscally sustainable.

A few weeks ago, Transportation Secretary Peters announced that the Federal highway trust fund would not be able to meet its obligations. We replenished that fund, but that is not enough. We all know that is not enough. That is why Senator Durbin and I introduced S. 3338, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3999, the bill Congressman Oberstar successfully authored and moved through the House. In the House, there was much Republican support for the bill. It passed by a wide margin.

The reason I care about it is, after we looked at what happened with our bridge in Minnesota, we found out that about 50 percent of the Highway Bridge Fund, Federal funds, had not been used for bridge maintenance. It had been used for other things. This was all across the country. We found out they were used for a construction project, used to plant flowers, all kinds of things. We think if we have a Highway Bridge Program, that money should be used for bridge maintenance and bridge reconstruction.

At the hearing Chairman Boxer had on this topic, we actually had some interesting testimony from witnesses who talked about the fact that bridge maintenance is never a very sexy thing. People don't like to do that as much because it doesn't involve cutting ribbons and new projects. There are all kinds of actual reasons we have not been putting the money that we should into bridge maintenance.

What our bill does is require the Federal Highway Administration and State transportation departments to develop plans to begin repairing and replacing bridges that pose the greatest risk to the public. This triages it and says: Let's look at the bridges that are most in need of repair and let's put our money there first. I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would object to that kind of idea, that we should actually make sure we are repairing the most seriously problematic bridges first.

It would also require the Federal Highway Administration to develop new bridge inspection standards and procedures that use the best technology available. You wouldn't believe some of the old technology that is still being used. As time goes on, we have developed new and more advanced technology, and that technology is

what should be used in order to examine bridges and figure out what is wrong with them and which ones should be repaired. As I mentioned, because some of the States have been transferring their bridge repairs to highway maintenance programs to use for wildflower plantings or road construction, this bill also ensures that Federal bridge funds can only be transferred when a State no longer has bridges on the national highway system that are eligible for replacement.

Anyone out there, if they heard that bridge money was going to other things, it wouldn't make sense to them, when we have bridges falling in the middle of America.

Finally, this bill authorizes an additional $1 billion for the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges that are part of the national highway system.

When you look at what we do here, we first improve the safety of these bridges. We do it by using a risk-based prioritization, a triage of reconstruction of deficient bridges. It has with it an independent review. It has with it a performance plan. It doesn't allow earmarking. It says: Let's look at where the most seriously deficient bridges are and go there first.

Secondly, it strengthens bridge inspection standards and processes. It requires the immediate update of bridge inspection standards. We had a lot of testimony on this as to why it is important because we have new information and reasons we want to update the standards. Certainly, the bridge collapse in Minnesota showed we want increased scrutiny of inspection standards. We are going to await that report. We do know there may have been some problems with the inspection. It was a design defect initially, but there may have been problems with the inspection. That is why we want to upgrade.

Third, we increase the investment for the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the national highway system, $1 billion. If they are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, it boggles my mind why the other side would block us from trying to spend $1 billion on bridges in America that are sorely in need of repair.

That is our plan. That is what we are trying to do. It is a start. We all know there is a lot more work that needs to be done and that will be done in the Transportation bill that our committee will be considering next year. We know work has to be done with funding with an infrastructure bank, to look at other ways to fund our transportation system. We know we need to do better with the increasing cost of gasoline, with public transportation and other ways of travel. We also know we have a burgeoning energy economy, which is exciting for the rural areas of my State, with wind and solar and geothermal and biomass. As we know from projects across the country, we will need better transportation systems to transport energy to market. Yet we have failed to improve our transportation system. If we are going to move into the next century's economy, we cannot be stuck in the last century's transportation system.

This bill will at least make sure our most seriously dangerous bridges are repaired and maintained. It is a start. That is why I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to block this bill, not to add a bunch of amendments that have not gone through committee because we are in the waning days of the session. We only have the House bill now, because that is the easiest vehicle to use, even though the Senate bill was exactly the same. Then we don't have to have a conference committee. We just want to get this done. I am hopeful this will head us in the right direction toward action. As we learned that August 1 day in Minnesota, we cannot afford to wait. We have to get this done.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Sen. Carl LevinD-MI · Sep 10, 2008

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 10, 2008, at 10 a.m., in…

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Improving the Federal Bridge Program: Including an Assessment of S. 3338 and H.R. 3999.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expediency Versus Integrity: Do Assembly-Line Audits at the Defense Contract Audit Agency Waste Taxpayer Dollars?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``New Strategies for Combating Violent Crime: Drawing Lessons From Recent Experience'' on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Managing the Challenges of the Federal Government Transition.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, Committee on Environment and Public Works, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 3 p.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Quality and Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water.''

Sen. Chuck GrassleyR-IA · Sep 26, 2008

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued July 25, 2008

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3338

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 25, 2008

Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

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.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008.

Highway bridge program

(a)

Bridges on Federal-aid highways

(1)

Risk-based prioritization for replacement and rehabilitation of deficient bridges

Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the following:

(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)

(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)

(D)

determine the cost of replacing each such bridge with a comparable facility or of rehabilitating such bridge.

(2)

Process for assigning risk-based priorities

(A)

Deadline for establishment

After modifying national bridge inspection standards in accordance with the amendments made by section 3 and not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the States, shall establish a process for assigning risk-based priorities under sections 144(b)(3), 144(c)(1)(C), and 144(c)(3)(C) of title 23, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(B)

Report to Congress

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 description of the process for assigning risk-based priorities established under subparagraph (A).

(C)

Independent review

(i)

Participation of National Academy of Sciences

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences to permit the Academy to conduct an independent review of the process for assigning risk-based priorities established under subparagraph (A).

(ii)

Report to Congress

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Academy shall submit a report on the results of the review to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(iii)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(b)

Apportionment

Section 144(e) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: In this subsection, the term deficient bridge means a bridge that is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete..

(c)

Participation

Section 144(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(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.

(d)

Information and reports

Section 144(h) of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(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.

(e)

Transferability of funding

Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (r) the following:

(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.

(f)

Definitions

Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

(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.

(g)

National bridge inventory

(1)

In general

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall take necessary actions to make information contained in the national bridge inventory established under section 144 of title 23, United States Code, more readily available to the public, including actions to make the information easier to understand.

(2)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

National bridge inspection program

(a)

National bridge inspection standards

Section 151(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 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

Section 151(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (4) by striking and at the end;

(2)

in paragraph (5) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(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)

Regulations on critical findings of bridge deficiencies

(1)

In general

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations establishing procedures to be used by States in reporting critical findings of bridge deficiencies, and subsequent monitoring activities and corrective actions, to the Secretary in accordance with the standards to be established under section 151(b)(7) of title 23, United States Code, as added by subsection (b)(3) of this section.

(2)

Contents

Regulations to be issued under paragraph (1) shall—

(A)

establish a uniform definition of the term critical finding;

(B)

establish deadlines for State reporting of critical finding determinations to the Secretary;

(C)

establish requirements for monitoring and follow-up actions and reporting following a critical finding determination; and

(D)

provide for enhanced training of bridge inspectors relating to critical findings.

(d)

Training program for all bridge inspectors

Section 151(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 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..

(e)

Frequency of bridge inspections

Section 151 of title 23, United States Code, is amended—

(1)

in subsection (b)(2) by inserting in accordance with subsection (d) before the semicolon;

(2)

by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

(3)

by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

(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.

(f)

Qualifications of program managers and team leaders

(1)

Revision of regulations

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall revise regulations contained in section 650.309 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, relating to the qualifications of highway bridge inspection personnel, to require that, in addition to meeting the qualifications identified in such section (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act)—

(A)

an individual serving as the program manager of a State be a professional engineer licensed under the laws of that State;

(B)

an individual serving as a team leader for a State for the inspection of complex bridges or follow-up inspections of bridges for which there has been a critical finding be a licensed professional engineer; and

(C)

an individual serving as a team leader for a State for the inspection of all other bridges be a licensed professional engineer or have at least 10 years of bridge inspection experience.

(2)

Applicability

The additional qualification requirements specified in paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), and (1)(C) shall apply only to an individual selected by a State to serve as the program manager or a team leader after the date of issuance of revised regulations under paragraph (1).

(3)

Complex bridge defined

In this subsection, the term “complex bridge” means a highway bridge with unusual characteristics, including movable, suspension, and cable-stayed highway bridges.

(g)

Effective date

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall modify national bridge inspection standards and modify the training program for bridge inspectors in accordance with the amendments made by this section.

(h)

Report to Congress

Not later than 15 days after a critical finding determination is made by a State which results in the closure of a bridge, the Secretary of Transportation shall report to the appropriate Committees of Congress regarding the impact, including the economic impact, on regional transportation and transit that will result from the such bridge closure and recommend solutions to mitigate such impact.

GAO study

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct a study and report its findings to the Secretary of Transportation regarding—

(1)

the identification of factors that contribute to construction delays of bridge rehabilitation; and

(2)

any recommendations the Comptroller General may have to simplify and expedite the construction of bridges that are to be rehabilitated.

Surface transportation research

Section 502(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting and enhance the safety before of bridge structures; and

(2)

in paragraph (4) by striking for use with existing infrastructure facilities and with next-generation infrastructure facilities and inserting for assessing the structural integrity of existing infrastructure facilities and next-generation infrastructure facilities.

Authorization of appropriations

(a)

In general

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 144 of title 23, United States Code, $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

(b)

Apportionment and use of funds

Funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a)—

(1)

shall be apportioned among the States under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 144(e) of title 23, United States Code;

(2)

shall be used for the replacement and rehabilitation of structurally deficient highway bridges on the National Highway System; and

(3)

shall be available for obligation in the same manner as other funds apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that such funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available until expended.

(c)

Limitation

None of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may be earmarked by Congress or any Federal department or agency for a specific project or activity.

(d)

Compliance with Immigration and Nationality Act

None of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may be used to employ workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a).

Bridge advanced condition assessment pilot program

(a)

In general

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish and implement a 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 structural health of a highway bridge. Technologies evaluated under the pilot program shall be real-time sensing technologies that record objective data to determine accurate conditions assessments of critical bridge elements.

(b)

Grants

(1)

In general

The Secretary may make grants to States to conduct projects under the pilot program.

(2)

Applications

A State seeking a grant under the pilot program shall submit an application to the Secretary in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may require by regulation.

(c)

Eligibility

(1)

Selection of highway bridges

(A)

In general

In awarding grants under the pilot program, the Secretary shall select not more than 15 highway bridges in not more than 5 States for participation in the program.

(B)

Bridge requirements

The Secretary may select a highway bridge under subparagraph (A) only if the bridge is—

(i)

as of the date of enactment of this Act, classified as structurally deficient under section 144 of title 23, United States Code;

(ii)

a nonredundant, fracture critical structure; and

(iii)

greater than 200 feet in length.

(2)

Selection and use of technologies

(A)

In general

The Secretary shall select no fewer than 2 types of real-time, in-service, sensor-based, commercially-available, advanced-condition assessment technologies to be used in the pilot program.

(B)

Duration of real-time data collection

The duration of real-time data collection from each highway bridge selected for participation in the pilot program shall be not less than 1 year.

(C)

Use of calibrated finite element analysis model

At least one-half of the highway bridges selected for participation in the pilot program shall also be evaluated using a calibrated finite element analysis model of the bridge, based upon data from the advanced condition assessment technologies.

(d)

Federal share

The Federal share payable on account of a project carried out under the pilot program shall be 80 percent of the cost of the project.

(e)

Duration of the pilot program

The Secretary shall carry out the pilot program for a period of 2 fiscal years.

(f)

Final report

(1)

In general

Not later than 6 months after the last day of the pilot program, 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 that describes the effectiveness and benefits of the pilot program carried out under this section.

(2)

Contents

The report shall describe, at a minimum––

(A)

the cost effectiveness of the technologies and processes selected;

(B)

the objectivity, reliability, and accuracy of the technologies and processes employed in providing condition assessments of the highway bridge;

(C)

the quality of the data collected and measured; and

(D)

any recommendations for improving or expanding the pilot program or the use of structural health monitoring technologies or processes, including a suggested plan for wider adoption based on potential highway bridge repair and replacement savings by the Federal Government and State governments.

(g)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

(h)

Availability of amounts

Amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be available for obligation in the same manner as funds apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that such funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available until expended.

Effectiveness of bridge rating system

(a)

Study

The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the effectiveness of the bridge rating system of the Federal Highway Administration, including the use of the terms structurally deficient and functionally obsolete to describe the condition of highway bridges in the United States.

(b)

Evaluation of State systems

In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall evaluate bridge rating systems used by State departments of transportation and provide recommendations on how successful aspects of such bridge rating systems may be incorporated into the bridge rating system of the Federal Highway Administration.

(c)

Report

Not later than February 1, 2009, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the study.

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

(a)

Study

The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a study of the cost benefits of using carbon fiber composite materials in bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects instead of traditional construction materials.

(b)

Report

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 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 on the results of the study conducted under this section.

10.

Sense of congress

It is the sense of Congress that each State should prepare a corrosion mitigation and prevention plan, for a project for construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of a bridge, that includes the following:

(1)

An estimate of the expected useful life of the bridge.

(2)

An estimate of environmental exposure of the bridge, including marine, deicer application, industrial, rural, rainfall, temperature, freeze-thaw, and other factors that influence corrosion prevention and corrosion mitigation strategies.

(3)

An identification of the functional classification of the bridge.

(4)

Details of corrosion mitigation and prevention methods that will be used with respect to the bridge, taking into account—

(A)

material selection;

(B)

coating considerations;

(C)

cathodic protection considerations;

(D)

design considerations for corrosion; and

(E)

concrete requirements.

(5)

Details of a project maintenance program for the life of the bridge.

(6)

A certification that the plan was developed by the State or States and approved by a corrosion expert.

(7)

A certification that each individual conducting inspections of Federal-aid highway bridges in the State or States receives training from a corrosion expert.

11.

Flood risks to bridges

(a)

Study

The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the States, shall conduct a study of the risks posed by floods to bridges on Federal-aid highways, bridges on other public roads, bridges on Indian reservations, and park bridges that are located in a 500-year floodplain.

(b)

Considerations

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall give consideration to safety, serviceability, essentiality for public use, and public safety, including the potential impacts to regional and national freight and passenger mobility if the serviceability of a bridge is restricted or diminished.

(c)

Report

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 on the results of the study.

12.

National tunnel inspection program

(a)

In general

Title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 149 the following:

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.

(b)

Surface transportation program

Section 133(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting , tunnels that are eligible for assistance under this title (including safety inspection of such tunnels), after highways).

(c)

Conforming amendment

The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 149 the following:

150. National tunnel inspection program.