62596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 

surveys to ensure that Passport Services 

reaches the appropriate audience and 

leverages the best research method 

obtain valid responses. The survey data 

will cover an estimated 48,000 

respondents annually and will include 

topics covering passport demand, travel, 

and socio-demographic variables of 

interest to the United States Department 

of State. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

Rachel M. Arndt, 

Managing Director (Acting), Passport Support 

Operations, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25249 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8062] 

Allowing New Investment in Burma 

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic & Business 

Affairs, Office of Sanctions Policy and 

Implementation, Department of State. 

SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of State 

has determined that it would be 

contrary to the national security 

interests of the United States to 

continue to apply the sanction referred 

to in section 570(b) of the Foreign 

Operations, Export Financing, and 

Related Programs Appropriations Act of 

1997 (Pub. L. 104–208) (the ‘‘Act’’), 

which authorizes and directs the 

President to prohibit U.S. persons from 

making new investment in Burma, if the 

President makes certain determinations 

and certifications to Congress. The 

President made the required 

determinations and certifications and 

imposed a prohibition on new 

investment in Executive Order 13047 

(May 20, 1997). He subsequently 

delegated the waiver authority under 

Section 570(e) of the Act to the 

Secretary of State on July 11, 2012, and 

the determination described above 

constitutes the exercise of such waiver 

authority. In conjunction with this 

waiver determination, the Department 

of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign 

Assets Control issued a General License 

(No. 17) on July 11, 2012 authorizing 

new investment in Burma by U.S. 

persons subject to limitations and 

requirements set forth therein. 

These steps are in response to the 

recent reforms that have taken place in 

Burma over the past year. Continued 

application of the ban on investment 

would be contrary to U.S. national 

security interests because it would 

hinder current U.S. policy to support 

those in the Burmese government 

leading important reform efforts. 

Further reforms would advance 

longstanding U.S. national security 

interests such as promoting national 

reconciliation and democracy in Burma; 

improving respect for human rights; 

curtailing the flow from Burma of 

refugees, illicit narcotics, infectious 

diseases, and victims of trafficking; and 

advancing nonproliferation goals. While 

the Department of State remains 

concerned about the protection of 

human rights, corruption, and the role 

of the military in the Burmese economy, 

it believes that the participation of U.S. 

businesses in the Burmese economy will 

set a model for responsible investment 

and business operations as well as 

encourage further change, promote 

economic development, and contribute 

to the welfare of the Burmese people. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Marshall Klein, Senior Sanctions 

Officer, Economic & Business Affairs, 

Office of Sanctions Policy and 

Implementation, 202–647–9452. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

Jose W. Fernandez, 

Assistant Secretary for Economic and 

Business Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25252 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation 

Interim Guidance on State Freight 

Plans and State Freight Advisory 

Committees 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), 

Federal Motor Carriers Administration 

(FMCSA) Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHSMA), Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration 

(RITA), St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation (SLSDC). 

ACTION: Notice of Interim Guidance and 

Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 6, 2012, the President 

signed into law Public Law 112–141, the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21). Section 1118 of 

MAP–21 directs the Secretary of 

Transportation to encourage each State 

to develop a comprehensive State 

Freight Plan that outlines immediate 

and long-range plans for freight-related 

transportation investments. Section 

1117 of MAP–21 directs the Secretary to 

encourage each State to establish a State 

Freight Advisory Committee. The 

Department of Transportation is issuing 

this Notice to provide Interim Guidance 

on both State Freight Plans and State 

Freight Advisory Committees. It 

encourages States to develop State 

Freight Plans and provides guidance to 

States on the required elements of a 

State Freight Plan and information on 

funding and on the relationship of State 

Freight Plans to other provisions of 

MAP–21. It encourages States to 

develop State Freight Advisory 

Committees as part of the process for 

developing a State Freight Plan. The 

Department requests public comments 

on all aspects of this Interim Guidance. 

DATES: All public comments must be 

received by November 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number DOT– 

OST–2012–0168 using any of the 

following methods: 

Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: http://www.regulations.gov and 

follow the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. Fax 1–202–493–2251. 

Courier: commercial delivery service, 

such as, but not limited to the 

following—Federal Express or United 

Parcel Service, addressed to Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

The Department will post all 

comments received, without change, to 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information. If you mail or 

hand deliver your comments and want 

the Department to acknowledge receipt 

of your comments, include with your 

comments a pre-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the docket number 

appears. We will stamp the date on the 

postcard and mail it to you. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov or to Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 62597 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment if 

submitted on behalf of an association, a 

business, a labor union, etc.). You may 

review the Department’s complete 

Privacy Act statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

This Interim Guidance will also be 

posted on the Department’s MAP–21 

Web site (www.dot.gov/map21). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jack Wells, Chief Economist, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone Number (202) 366– 

9224 or Email jack.wells@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Program Purpose 

II. Policy 

III. Funding 

IV. Contents of State Freight Plans 

V. The State Freight Planning Process 

VI. Data and Analytical Resources for State 

Freight Planning 

VII. Request for Comments 

I. Background and Program Purpose 

The purpose of this document is to 

provide guidance on the 

implementation of Section 1118 (State 

Freight Plans) and Section 1117 (State 

Freight Advisory Committees) of the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21). Section 1118 

directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to encourage States to develop freight 

plans that are comprehensive and that 

include both immediate and long-term 

freight planning activities and 

investments. Section 1117 directs the 

Secretary to encourage each State to 

establish a State Freight Advisory 

Committee consisting of a representative 

cross-section of public and private 

freight stakeholders. Section 1118 

specifies certain minimum contents for 

State Freight Plans, and states that such 

a plan may be developed separate from 

or be incorporated into the statewide 

strategic long-range transportation plan 

required by section 135 of title 23, 

United States Code. 

Section 1116 of MAP–21 

(Prioritization of Projects to Improve 

Freight Movement) authorizes the 

Secretary to increase the Federal share 

payable for any project to 95 percent for 

projects on the Interstate System and 90 

percent for any other project if the 

Secretary certifies that the project: 

• Demonstrates the improvement 

made by the project to the efficient 

movement of freight (including making 

progress on freight performance 

measures established under MAP–21) 

and 

• Is identified in a State Freight Plan 

developed pursuant to section 1118. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

will be issuing separate guidance on the 

implementation of Section 1116. One 

purpose of this guidance is to inform 

States of the freight planning process 

they must undertake to qualify for the 

freight prioritization provisions of 

Section 1116. 

II. Policy 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation strongly encourages all 

States to develop State Freight Plans. 

The Department believes that freight 

transportation, because its effects are 

often regional or national in scope, and 

includes freight providers that own and 

operate private infrastructure, has often 

been more difficult for States to 

incorporate into their planning process 

than has passenger transportation, and 

that accordingly infrastructure 

investments and other State policy 

initiatives related to freight 

transportation have often received less 

funding and attention than passengerrelated initiatives. Because freight 

transportation is critical to the economic 

vitality of the United States, renewed 

attention to safe and efficient freight 

transportation can have a positive effect 

on the economic growth of the United 

States. 

State Freight Plans can identify freight 

transportation facilities that are critical 

to each State’s economic growth and 

give appropriate priority to investments 

in such facilities. In doing so, such 

Plans can enhance economic growth at 

both the State and National level, thus 

enhancing the Nation’s economic 

competitiveness. State Freight Plans can 

also help to guide investments and other 

policies that will help to achieve the 

Department’s other strategic goals, 

including safety, state of good repair, 

livability, and environmental 

sustainability. State Freight Plans can 

also identify freight transportation 

facilities that are critical to export 

movements and, by directing resources 

toward improving those facilities, assist 

the United States in meeting the goals 

of the President’s National Export 

Initiative. 

The State Freight Plan may be 

developed separate from or incorporated 

into the statewide strategic long-range 

transportation plan required by section 

135 of title 23, United States Code. If the 

State Freight Plan is separate from the 

statewide strategic long-range 

transportation plan, each plan should 

show how the findings of the State 

Freight Plan are incorporated into the 

statewide strategic long-range 

transportation plan. If the two plans are 

combined, the statewide strategic longrange transportation plan should 

include a separate section focused on 

freight transportation, and must include 

the elements specified in section 1118. 

Other State transportation plans, such as 

State Rail Plans, are required by statute 

to be coordinated with section 135 of 

title 23, and as a consequence the freight 

component of those plans should be 

incorporated into the State Freight Plan 

to ensure a comprehensive and systemwide planning approach. 

The Department also strongly 

encourages all States to establish State 

Freight Advisory Committees. Such 

Advisory Committees are an important 

part of the process needed to develop a 

thorough State Freight Plan. Bringing 

together the perspectives and 

knowledge of public and private 

partners, including shippers, carriers, 

and infrastructure owners and 

operators, is important to developing a 

quality State Freight Plan. 

The Department will be developing a 

multimodal National Freight Strategic 

Plan in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 1115 of MAP– 

21, and intends to rely significantly on 

the freight plans prepared by the States. 

III. Funding 

Authorization level under MAP–21: 

There is no formula or discretionary 

funding specifically associated with 

State Freight Plans or State Freight 

Advisory Committees. 

States may use funding allocated 

under the Surface Transportation 

Program (23 U.S.C. 133) for developing 

State Freight Plans, as well as funding 

under the State Planning and Research 

Program (23 U.S.C. 505). They may also 

use carryover balances from National 

Highway System funds authorized 

under SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 

103(b)(6)(E) as in effect on the day 

before enactment of MAP–21) that can 

be used for transportation planning in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 

(23 U.S.C. 103 was amended by MAP– 

21 section 1104, which eliminated the 

National Highway System Program 

under section 103, and hence 

eliminated the funding for planning 

under section 103 as amended). 

IV. Contents of State Freight Plans 

Section 1118 of MAP–21 requires that 

a State Freight Plan developed pursuant 

to Section 1118 include, at a minimum, 

the following elements: 

• An identification of significant 

freight system trends, needs, and issues 

with respect to the State; 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
62598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 

• A description of the freight policies, 

strategies, and performance measures 

that will guide the freight-related 

transportation investment decisions of 

the State; 

• A description of how the plan will 

improve the ability of the State to meet 

the national freight goals established 

under section 167 of title 23, United 

States Code; 

• Evidence of consideration of 

innovative technologies and operational 

strategies, including intelligent 

transportation systems, that improve the 

safety and efficiency of freight 

movement; 

• In the case of routes on which travel 

by heavy vehicles (including mining, 

agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, 

and timber vehicles) is projected to 

substantially deteriorate the condition 

of roadways, a description of 

improvements that may be required to 

reduce or impede the deterioration; and 

• An inventory of facilities with 

freight mobility issues, such as truck 

bottlenecks, within the State, and a 

description of the strategies the State is 

employing to address those freight 

mobility issues. 

In addition to these minimum elements 

required by section 1118, the 

Department has provided additional 

recommended elements based on what 

States have found useful to include in 

freight plans that have already been 

prepared, as well as on consistency with 

the requirements for the National 

Freight Strategic Plan, found in 23 U.S.C 

167(f). 

State Freight Plans may be organized 

in any structure that works best for 

individual States, as long as they cover 

the required elements; however, in 

order to aid States in addressing the 

required criteria, and to facilitate the 

incorporation of analysis from the State 

Freight Plans into the National Freight 

Strategic Plan, as well as to aid in 

conceptualizing the detailed issues 

surrounding robust freight planning, 

DOT is suggesting the following 

structure as a recommended model for 

states to follow. 

1. Strategic Goals 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must include a description 

of how the plan will improve the ability 

of the State to meet the national freight 

goals established under 23 U.S.C. 167. 

The following is a summary of the goals 

of the National Freight Policy 

established in 23 U.S.C. 167: 

• Improving the contribution of the 

freight transportation system to 

economic efficiency, productivity, and 

competitiveness; 

• Reducing congestion on the freight 

transportation system; 

• Improving the safety, security, and 

resilience of the freight transportation 

system; 

• Improving the state of good repair 

of the freight transportation system; 

• Using advanced technology, 

performance management, innovation, 

competition, and accountability in 

operating and maintaining the freight 

transportation system; 

• Reducing adverse environmental 

and community impacts of the freight 

transportation system. 

The Department recommends that each 

State Freight Plan also include a 

discussion of the State’s strategic goals 

for freight transportation. These goals 

would include the goals of the National 

Freight Policy summarized above, but 

States may also add other strategic 

goals. The Department recommends that 

State Freight Plans indicate which goals 

are most important to the State. 

2. The Economic Context of Freight 

Transportation Planning 

The Department recommends that 

each State Freight Plan include a 

discussion of the role that freight 

transportation plays in the State’s 

overall economy. This section would 

identify what industries are most 

important to the State, and what supply 

chains (including the transportation 

modes that support them) are critical to 

the State’s industries. In particular, it 

would indicate what supply chains 

involving the State are important to 

exports, whether the exports of that 

State or of other States. 

3. Freight Policies, Strategies, and 

Institutions 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must include a discussion 

of the State’s freight policies and 

strategies that will guide the freightrelated transportation investment 

decisions of the State. The Department 

recommends that this section also 

discuss how these freight policies and 

strategies will guide not just freightrelated transportation investment 

decisions of the State, but also the 

broader freight improvement strategy of 

the State, including operational 

strategies and policy changes. The 

Department recommends that this 

discussion also: 

• Include the State’s grant and loan 

programs that are available to pay for 

freight-related transportation 

infrastructure; 

• Identify the State’s freight-related 

institutions, including transportationrelated infrastructure owners and 

regulatory authorities, such as the State 

DOT, port authorities, toll roads, and 

bridge and tunnel authorities; 

• Explain the governance structures 

and funding mechanisms for such 

authorities (e.g., whether the authorities 

are controlled by the governor or are 

independent, and whether the authority 

has a dedicated source of revenue); 

• Identify private transportation 

infrastructure owners, such as railroads, 

terminals, pipelines, and freight transfer 

facilities; 

• Identify statutory and constitutional 

constraints on freight-related 

investments and policies, such as 

prohibitions on spending State funds for 

certain kinds of freight infrastructure; 

• Discuss regional freight planning 

activities in which the State 

participates, such as planning for key 

multi-state freight corridors, multi-state 

metropolitan areas, or for other regional 

groups of States; and 

• Set out the State’s priorities in 

freight transportation infrastructure 

development. 

4. State Freight Transportation Assets 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must include an inventory 

of facilities with freight mobility issues. 

The Department recommends that this 

inventory also include a complete 

inventory of the State’s freight 

transportation assets. This would 

include a description of the State’s 

transportation infrastructure in all 

freight-carrying modes, the warehousing 

and intermodal facilities located in the 

State, and the freight gateways and 

corridors that are located in or that pass 

through the State. MAP–21 places 

particular emphasis on transportation 

infrastructure that is used to serve areas 

of the State that are significant for 

energy development, mining, 

agriculture, and timber production, and 

the Department recommends that the 

State Freight Plan inventory note 

particularly routes that are used to move 

equipment for these productive 

activities into those areas and for 

moving the output of those productive 

activities out of those areas. 

5. The Conditions and Performance of 

the State’s Freight Transportation 

System 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must include the 

performance measures that will guide 

the freight-related transportation 

investment decisions of the State. The 

Department recommends that this 

discussion also include an analysis of 

the conditions and performance of the 

State’s freight transportation system. 

This analysis would include the 

identification of bottlenecks in the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 62599 

freight transportation system that cause 

delays and unreliability in freight 

movements, as well as other specific 

locations that are in a poor state of good 

repair, create safety hazards, or create 

other performance problems. The 

National Freight Strategic Plan also is 

required to include an analysis of the 

conditions and performance of the 

national freight system, and when those 

measures of freight conditions and 

performance are established, the 

Department recommends that State 

Freight Plans include those measures. 

Until those measures are established, 

however, the Department recommends 

that States use the measures of 

condition and performance that they 

consider to be most reasonable and 

appropriate. In general, the Department 

recommends that measures of 

conditions and performance reflect the 

State’s freight transportation goals—for 

each goal, there would be at least one 

measure of condition or performance 

that indicates how well the freight 

transportation system is doing in 

achieving that goal. 

The Department recommends that 

States use measures of conditions of 

transportation infrastructure that reflect 

the quality of service that this 

infrastructure provides to users of that 

infrastructure and to the general public. 

Similarly, measures of the performance 

of the freight transportation system 

would reflect the quality of freight 

service provided to freight shippers and 

the impact of the freight transportation 

system on the general public. Measures 

of conditions and performance would 

reflect outcomes that are directly 

important to the system’s users and to 

the general public (for example, 

reductions in crashes, fatalities, and 

injuries; reduced delay and congestion; 

and reduced vehicle operating costs); 

The Department recommends that States 

try to avoid using measures that are not 

of direct importance to users and the 

general public (for example, miles of 

track or number of bridges inspected 

each year). 

6. Freight Forecast 

Consistent with one of the required 

elements of the National Freight 

Strategic Plan, which must be 

developed in consultation with the 

States, the Department recommends that 

State Freight Plans include a 20-year 

forecast of freight transportation 

demands, broken down by mode of 

transportation and commodity 

classification, and showing demands for 

transportation of freight coming into the 

State, outbound from the State, passing 

through the State between outside origin 

and destination points, and moving 

intrastate between origin and 

destination points within the State. The 

freight forecast could draw upon the 

forecast prepared by the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 

Office of Freight Management and 

Operations and on the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s national and airportlevel forecasts of air cargo. The FHWA 

forecast includes projected tonnage for 

each mode—truck, rail, air (air and 

truck), water, and pipeline. 

7. Overview of Trends, Needs, and 

Issues 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must identify significant 

freight system trends, needs, and issues 

with respect to the State. The 

Department recommends that this 

discussion also include how emerging 

trends make those needs and issues of 

greater significance, or how these trends 

affect how those needs and issues can 

be addressed. 

8. Strengths and Problems of the State’s 

Freight Transportation System 

The Department recommends that a 

State Freight Plan include an analysis of 

the strengths of the State’s freight 

system that it wishes to preserve and the 

problems that it wishes to solve. This 

analysis would show what the strengths 

of the State’s freight system are that the 

State wishes to build upon; it would 

also show in what respects the State’s 

freight system does not meet the State’s 

goals, and indicate which problems are 

most important for the State to address. 

Some of these might include problems 

that the State expects to develop in the 

future as a result of increasing demand 

for freight transportation or other trends 

that the State is anticipating. 

9. The State’s Decision-Making Process 

The Department recommends that a 

State Freight Plan include a discussion 

of the State’s decision-making process 

on freight transportation improvements, 

including how the State conducted 

outreach to stakeholders and the public 

and how the State prioritized the 

various strategies, projects, and policy 

changes it considered. This discussion 

would show how the State coordinated 

improvements to different modes of 

transportation in order to achieve its 

goals in the most cost-effective way. It 

would also discuss ways in which the 

State coordinated with other States in 

regional freight planning efforts, and 

with metropolitan areas within the State 

that have done freight planning. 

The Department encourages States to 

conduct economic analysis as part of the 

State Freight Plan, including analyses of 

benefits and costs of various 

improvements that they are considering. 

If economic analysis has been 

conducted, the results of that analysis 

should be reported in this portion of the 

State Freight Plan. The discussion 

would show how the State compared 

alternative approaches to achieving the 

same goal. As specified in section 1118, 

the discussion must also show evidence 

of consideration of operational strategies 

(such as congestion pricing) or 

innovative technologies (such as use of 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS)) 

that improve the safety and efficiency of 

freight movement. If an economic 

analysis is provided, it would be 

particularly useful to estimate benefits 

and costs of each alternative considered. 

10. The State’s Freight Improvement 

Strategy 

As specified in section 1118, a State 

Freight Plan must include a description 

of the strategies the State is employing 

to address freight mobility issues. The 

Department recommends that this 

description also include a presentation 

of the State’s complete freight 

improvement strategy, with different 

improvements ranked in order of 

priority (or grouped into higher and 

lower priority groups). This 

presentation of the State’s freight 

improvement strategy would include an 

analysis of how each improvement will 

advance the State’s strategic goals, 

relating to: 

• Capital investments; 

• Operational improvements, such as 

congestion pricing and travel demand 

management; 

• Policy changes, including 

performance management, competition, 

and accountability initiatives; and 

• Expanded use of ITS and other 

innovative technologies. 

The strategy would also include: 

• An analysis of how proposed 

improvements will affect specific 

supply chains and industries that have 

been identified as important to the State 

in Section 2; 

• Because MAP–21 places particular 

emphasis on infrastructure that is used 

for transporting mining, agricultural, 

energy, and timber equipment and 

products, a discussion of how those 

freight transportation routes would be 

affected (and in particular how the 

strategy would impede the deterioration 

in the condition of infrastructure on 

those routes); 

• An analysis of the improvements in 

outcomes that are expected to result 

from the proposed freight 

improvements; 

• A discussion of how the freight 

plan relates to other transportation 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
62600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 

plans, such as a state rail plan, a longrange statewide transportation plan, or a 

metropolitan area freight plan; and 

A discussion of how the State’s Freight 

Improvement Strategy coordinates with 

plans of other adjacent States, including 

groups of States that work together to 

plan for freight transportation along key 

multi-state freight corridors, in multistate metropolitan areas, or through 

other regional groupings. 

11. Implementation Plan 

Finally, the Department recommends 

that a State Freight Plan include a 

comprehensive implementation plan, 

showing both short-term and long-term 

strategies, and including an 

approximate time schedule for each 

proposed freight improvement. This 

implementation plan would include an 

analysis of which capital improvements 

have the potential to generate a revenue 

stream, and hence which projects have 

the potential to be funded with loans 

(repaid from the revenue stream) rather 

than solely through grants or general 

funds. The Plan would include a 

funding plan, showing how each project 

will be funded, including those funded 

by grants, loans, and public-private 

partnerships. The Plan would discuss 

the State’s proposed partnerships with 

private infrastructure owners, such as 

railroads, terminal operators, and 

pipeline companies. Finally, the Plan 

would discuss how the State proposes 

to work with adjacent States on projects 

that cross State lines, or on freight 

corridors that cross State lines (even if 

the project itself is all in one State). 

V. The State Freight Planning Process 

The Department recommends that 

States use a collaborative process for 

freight planning that involves all of the 

relevant stakeholders affected by the 

freight transportation system. These 

stakeholders would include owners of 

freight transportation infrastructure 

(both public and private); carriers 

operating on publicly-owned freight 

infrastructure; shippers and freight 

forwarders; representatives of 

employees of these stakeholders; State, 

local, and tribal governments; and the 

general public. Stakeholders might be 

domiciled both inside the State and 

outside of the State. 

States are strongly encouraged to 

establish State Freight Advisory 

Committees to facilitate this 

collaborative process. As specified in 

section 1117 of MAP–21, State Freight 

Advisory Committees should include 

representatives of a cross-section of 

public and private sector experts and 

stakeholders. These might include 

representatives of: 

• The transportation department of 

the State; 

• Metropolitan planning 

organizations, councils of government, 

regional councils, and other regional 

and planning organizations; 

• Local and tribal governments; 

• Independent transportation 

authorities, such as seaport and airport 

authorities, toll highway authorities, 

and bridge and tunnel authorities; 

• Private infrastructure owners, such 

as railroads and pipelines; 

• Carriers, including carriers 

operating on their own infrastructure 

and carriers operating on publiclyowned infrastructure; 

• Shippers and freight forwarders; 

• Freight-related associations; 

• Organizations representing the 

freight industry workforce; 

• Environmental, safety, and 

community organizations; and 

• Independent transportation experts, 

including academic specialists and 

consultants. 

State Freight Advisory Committees 

should be charged with 

• Advising the State on freight-related 

priorities, issues, projects, and funding 

needs; 

• Serving as a forum for discussion of 

State decisions affecting freight 

transportation; 

• Communicating and coordinating 

regional priorities with other 

organizations; 

• Promoting the sharing of 

information between the private and 

public sectors on freight issues; and 

• Participating in the development of 

the State’s Freight Plan. 

VI. Data and Analytical Resources for 

State Freight Planning 

The modal administrations of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and other 

departments in the U.S. Government 

can provide a wide range of data and 

analysis to assist States in the freight 

planning process. The following is a 

series of links to internet Web sites that 

provide useful data and analysis 

resources: 

General Data and Analysis Sources on 

Freight 

Commodity Flow Survey: http://www.bts

.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/ 

Data Sources Related to Freight 

Transportation: http://www.ops.

fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/

data_sources/index.htm 

Freight Analysis Framework: http:// 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/

freight_analysis/faf/index.htm 

Freight Performance Measures: http:// 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_

analysis/travel_time.htm 

Quick Response Freight Manual: http:// 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/ 

publications/qrfm2/index.htm 

Maritime Statistics 

USA Trade Online (The Official Source for 

U.S. Merchandise Trade Data), U.S. Census 

Bureau: https://www.usatradeonline.gov/ 

Navigation Data Center, Waterborne 

Commerce Statistics Center, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers: http:// 

www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/ 

wcsc.htm 

Navigation Data Center, Vessel Entrances and 

Clearances, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/data/ 

dataclen.htm 

Maritime Statistics, U.S. Maritime 

Administration: http://www.marad.dot.

gov/library_landing_page/data_and_

statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm 

Marview Statistics, U.S. Maritime 

Administration: www.marview.gov/ 

Rail Freight Resources and Statistics 

The Preliminary National Rail Plan: http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlan

Prelim10-15.pdf 

The National Rail Plan Progress Report: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/

NRP_Sept2010_WEB.pdf 

The Proposed State Rail Plan Guidance: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/ 

fp_Proposed_State_Rail_Plan_

Guidance.shtml 

Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck 

Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/ 

Comparative_Evaluation_Rail_Truck_

Fuel_Efficiency.pdf 

Discussion of the confidential Carload 

Waybill Sample and State access: http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/

econ_waybill.html 

National Transportation Atlas Database 

includes FRA rail network: http:// 

www.bts.gov/publications/

national_transportation_atlas_database/ 

Online highway rail grade crossing 

investment analysis tool: http:// 

gradedec.fra.dot.gov/ 

Interactive mapping application that allows 

users to view aspects of railroad 

infrastructure: http://fragis.frasafety.net/ 

GISFRASafety/default.aspx 

Air Freight Statistics 

FAA Air Cargo forecasts: http://www.faa.gov/ 

about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/ 

aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/ 

2012–2032/ 

Click on ‘‘Forecast Tables, US Commercial 

and Foreign Flag Carriers, Tables 5–23.’’ 

Cargo forecasts are Tables 19 and 20. 

VII. Request for Comments 

DOT invites interested parties to 

submit comments on any aspect of the 

Department’s implementation of MAP– 

21 requirements for State Freight Plans 

or State Freight Advisory Committees. 

The Department will consider these 

comments as it continues to implement 

the freight provisions of the law. The 

instructions for submitting comments 

can be found in the Addresses section 

above. Late-filed comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices 62601 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 

2012. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25261 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan Board of Directors 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan Board of Directors 

Meeting. 

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held 

on October 25, 2012, from 12:00 noon to 

3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. 

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the 

public via conference call. Any 

interested person may call 1–877–820– 

7831, passcode, 908048 to listen and 

participate in this meeting. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified 

Carrier Registration Plan Board of 

Directors (the Board) will continue its 

work in developing and implementing 

the Unified Carrier Registration Plan 

and Agreement and to that end, may 

consider matters properly before the 

Board. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 

Carrier Registration Board of Directors at 

(505) 827–4565. 

Issued on: September 21, 2012. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25350 Filed 10–11–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket Nos. NOR 38302S and NOR 38376S] 

United States Department of Energy 

and United States Department of 

Defense v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 

Company, et al. and Aberdeen & 

Rockfish Railroad Company, et al. 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement, Issuance of Procedural 

Schedule. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2012, United 

States Department of Energy and the 

United States Department of Defense 

(the Government) and BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) (collectively 

Movants), filed a motion requesting 

approval of an agreement that would 

settle these rate reasonableness disputes 

as between them only. The Board is 

adopting a procedural schedule for 

filing comments and replies addressing 

their proposed settlement agreement. 

(As detailed below, these proceedings 

involve disputes among a number of 

different entities, including other 

railroad carriers besides BNSF. This 

settlement applies only to the parties 

submitting the instant agreement and 

does not resolve these proceedings in 

their entirety.) 

DATES: Comments are due by November 

29, 2012. Reply comments are due by 

December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

comply with the instructions at the EFILING link on the Board’s Web site, at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: Docket No. NOR 38302S, et 

al., 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20423–0001. Copies of written 

comments and replies will be available 

for viewing and self-copying at the 

Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 131, 

and will be posted to the Board’s Web 

site. In addition, send one copy of 

comments to each of the following: (1) 

Stephen C. Skubel, Room 6H087, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585; (2) Terrance A. Spann, U.S. 

Department of Defense, 9275 Gunston 

Road, Suite 1300, Fort Belvoir, VA 

22060; and (3) Jill K. Mulligan, BNSF 

Railway Company, 2500 Lou Menk 

Drive, AOB–3, Fort Worth, TX 76131. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc Lerner, (202) 245–0390. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 1– 

800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In March 

1981, the Government filed these 

complaints against 21 major railroads 

(the Railroad Defendants) under section 

229 of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, 

Public Law 96–448, 94 Stat. 1895. The 

Government sought reparations and a 

rate prescription relating to the 

nationwide movement of spent nuclear 

fuel, other high level radioactive wastes, 

and the empty containers (casks) and 

buffer and escort cars used for their 

movement (radioactive materials). In 

1986, the Board’s predecessor, the 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 

found that the Railroad Defendants were 

engaging in an unreasonable practice, 

imposing substantial and unwarranted 

cost additives—above and beyond the 

regular train service rates—in an effort 

to avoid transporting these radioactive 

materials. The ICC canceled the existing 

rates and cost additives, prescribed new 

rates, and awarded reparations. See 

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Aberdeen 

& Rockfish R.R., 2 I.C.C.2d 642 (1986). 

The United States Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit set aside and remanded 

the decision. See Union Pacific R.R. v. 

ICC, 867 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1989). On 

remand, the ICC ruled that the 

movement of these radioactive materials 

for reprocessing was subject to the rate 

cap on recyclables set out in former 49 

U.S.C. 10731(e) and directed the parties 

to file revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) 

evidence to resolve the remaining 

reparations and rate prescription issues. 

See United States Department of Energy 

v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 10 I.C.C.2d 

112 (1994). While judicial review was 

pending, Congress enacted the ICC 

Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 

104–88, 109 Stat. 803, which repealed 

§ 10731 in its entirety and directed that 

all proceedings pending under the 

repealed section be terminated. 

The Railroad Defendants petitioned 

the Board to dismiss the complaints in 

1996, and, in 1997, they invited the 

Government to explore the possibility of 

settling the complaints. Discussions 

commenced on a nationwide settlement 

covering all of the Railroad Defendants 

that might carry radioactive materials. 

The Government subsequently chose to 

negotiate only with Union Pacific 

Railroad Company (UP), the destination 

carrier for most of the movements of 

radioactive materials that were to be 

covered by the nationwide settlement, 

after the parties concluded that there 

were potential antitrust problems in 

negotiating with the Railroad 

Defendants as a group. On September 

15, 2004, the Government and UP filed 

a motion seeking approval under 49 

U.S.C. 10704 of a settlement agreement 

(the UP Agreement) they had negotiated 

to resolve these complaints as between 

them only. The Board, in a decision 

served in these proceedings on August 

2, 2005: (1) Approved the UP 

Agreement; (2) dismissed UP as a party 

to these proceedings; (3) relieved UP of 

any obligation to participate in these or 

related proceedings involving claims 

against connecting railroad defendants 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with