Designation of the Primary Freight Network, 69520-69524 [2013-27520]
Download as PDF
69520
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
NAFTA Implementation Act. Provision
of the information requested above is
voluntary; however, failure to provide
the information will preclude your
consideration as a candidate for the
NAFTA Chapter 19 roster. This
information is maintained in a system of
records entitled ‘‘Dispute Settlement
Panelists Roster.’’ Notice regarding this
system of records was published in the
Federal Register on November 30, 2001.
The information provided is needed,
and will be used by USTR, other federal
government trade policy officials
concerned with NAFTA dispute
settlement, and officials of the other
NAFTA Parties to select well-qualified
individuals for inclusion on the Chapter
19 roster and for service on Chapter 19
binational panels.
Juan Millan,
Assistant United States Trade Representative
for Monitoring and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013–27552 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290–F4–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA–2013–0050]
Designation of the Primary Freight
Network
Electronic Access
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for Comments.
AGENCY:
This notice publishes the
draft initial designation of the highway
Primary Freight Network (PFN), which
is established by the Secretary of
Transportation as required by 23 U.S.C.
167(d), and provides information about
designation of Critical Rural Freight
Corridors (CRFC), which are designated
by the States, and establishment of the
National Freight Network (NFN), which
combines the two, along with the
portions of the Interstate System not
designated as part of the highway PFN.
This notice also solicits comments on
the draft initial designation of the
highway PFN and other critical aspects
of the NFN. A notice published in the
Federal Register on February 6, 2013
(78 FR 8686), introduced the process for
designation of the highway PFN, NFN,
and CRFCs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not
duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the
following means:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 366–9329.
• Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number at the
beginning of your comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this program, contact
Ed Strocko, FHWA Office of Freight
Management and Operations, (202) 366–
2997, or by email at Ed.Strocko@
dot.gov. For legal questions, please
contact Michael Harkins, FHWA Office
of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–4928, or
by email at Michael.Harkins@dot.gov.
Business hours for the FHWA are from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
You may retrieve a copy of the notice
through the Federal eRulemaking portal
at: https://www.regulations.gov. The Web
site is available 24 hours each day,
every day of the year. Electronic
submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help
section of the Web site. An electronic
copy of this document may also be
downloaded from Office of the Federal
Register’s home page at: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register and
the Government Printing Office’s Web
page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
Section 167(c) of title 23 United States
Code (U.S.C.), created by Section 1115
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21), directs the
Secretary to establish a NFN to assist
States in strategically directing
resources toward improved system
performance for efficient movement of
freight on the highway portion of the
Nation’s freight transportation system,
including the National Highway System
(NHS), freight intermodal connectors,
and aerotropolis transportation systems.
The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) approaches this with a full
understanding that with regard to
surface freight transportation,
significant tonnage moves over rail,
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
water, and pipeline networks and that
this highway PFN designation does not
fully reflect those aspects of the U.S.
freight system.
Under 23 U.S.C. 167(c), the NFN will
consist of three components: the
highway PFN, the portions of the
Interstate System not designated as part
of the highway PFN, and CRFCs, which
are designated by the States.
Congress limited the highway PFN to
not more than 27,000 centerline miles of
existing roadways that are most critical
to the movement of freight. Congress
allowed an additional 3,000 centerline
miles (that may include existing or
planned roads) critical to the future
efficient movement of goods on the
highway PFN.
Congress instructed DOT to base the
highway PFN on an inventory of
national freight volume conducted by
the FHWA Administrator, in
consultation with stakeholders,
including system users, transport
providers, and States. Congress defined
eight factors to consider in designating
the highway PFN.
The eight factors are:
1. Origins and destinations of freight
movement in the United States;
2. Total freight tonnage and value of
freight moved by highways;
3. Percentage of annual average daily
truck traffic in the annual average daily
traffic on principal arterials;
4. Annual average daily truck traffic
on principal arterials;
5. Land and maritime ports of entry;
6. Access to energy exploration,
development, installation, or production
areas;
7. Population centers; and
8. Network connectivity.
Purpose of the Notice
The purpose of this notice is to
publish the draft initial designation of
the highway PFN as required by 23
U.S.C. 167(d), provide information
regarding State designation of CRFCs
and the establishment of the complete
NFN, and to solicit comments on
aspects of the NFN. The five areas for
comment are: (1) Specific route
deletions, additions, or modifications to
the draft initial designation of the
highway PFN contained in this notice;
(2) the methodology for achieving a
27,000-mile final designation; (3) how
the NFN and its components could be
used by freight stakeholders in the
future; (4) how the NFN may fit into a
multimodal National Freight System;
and (5) suggestions for an urban-area
route designation process.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
Limitations and Considerations for
Primary Freight Network Development
The process of developing a highway
PFN that reflects the criteria for
consideration identified by Congress
and which results in a network limited
to only 27,000 centerline miles of roads
is highly complex. After careful
consideration, DOT determined that the
multitude of factors combined with the
mileage cap does not yield a network
that is representative of the most critical
highway elements of national freight
system that exists in the United States.
For example, the effort to link qualifying
segments to achieve a contiguous
network, and to ensure sufficient
connections to Mexico and Canada,
requires the additional designation of
thousands of miles. This reduces the
number of miles left for qualifying
segments and necessitates raising the
qualifying threshold for level of volume,
value, tonnage or other factors. In
addition, DOT discovered the following
challenges in designating the network
required by MAP–21.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Application of the Primary Freight
Network
The lack of a stated application for the
highway PFN and NFN introduces
uncertainty into the designation
process. Without a better understanding
of the goals for the highway PFN, it was
challenging to weight the factors for
designation relative to one another and
to gauge whether the resulting network
would meet future public planning and
investment needs. Each individual
criterion yields different network
coverage when compared to the
simulations for the other factors. For
example, a map that shows the top
roads by percentage of truck traffic and
a map that shows the top roads by
average annual daily truck traffic yields
very different results. The aggregation of
all these factors results in a map that is
difficult to limit to 27,000 miles without
some significant prioritization of the
many factors and their cut-off points.
With no clear optimal solution,
additional input from stakeholders is
critical to prioritizing the miles to
achieve a 27,000-mile designation.
Centerline Versus Corridor Approach
Limiting the highway PFN to 27,000
centerline miles, as required by 23
U.S.C. 167(d), excludes many freightsignificant Interstate and NHS routes
throughout the country. In 2008, DOT
looked at the question of critical U.S.
freight routes as part of the Freight Story
2008 1 report and developed a
multimodal, corridor-based map. This
approach allowed for the inclusion of
more than one vital route in a congested
region. By contrast, the statutory
language in MAP–21 clearly directs
DOT to use centerline roadway miles for
the development of the NFN, which
does not necessarily allow for the
designation of multiple routes in a
region that comprise an active and fluid
highway freight system. The DOT
suggests that corridor-level analysis and
investment has the potential for
widespread freight benefits, and can
improve the performance and efficiency
of the highway PFN.
Limitations of National Data
The data utilized for the development
of the draft initial highway PFN
comprises the best information available
on freight behavior at a national level.
Nevertheless, national data is not
sufficient to understand fully the
behavior of freight in smaller subsets of
the Nation, to include goods movement
in urban areas. Urban areas of 200,000
and above include a freight-generating
population and in most cases, are the
site of significant freight facilities where
highway freight intersects with other
modes—at rail yards, ports, and major
airports. These ‘‘first and last mile’’
connections, which are also represented
in rural areas, do not always show up
well in data sets.
Lack of Consideration for Critical Urban
Freight Routes in the National Freight
Network
The DOT recognizes that many
highway freight bottlenecks and
chokepoints are located in urban areas
and at first and last mile connectors,
making urban areas critical to the
efficiency of domestic and international
supply chains. Although Federal law
provides a mechanism to enable
connectivity to critical freight ‘‘last
mile’’ origins and destinations in rural
areas through CRFC designation, which
are designated by the States, the NFN
language in 23 U.S.C. 167(d) lacks a
parallel process for designating critical
urban freight routes to address the need
for connectivity to urban areas. Urban
area mileage may only be included in
the NFN if it qualifies as a highway PFN
route or if it is an Interstate System
route. Given the lack of precision of
national data at the urban level, DOT
believes there is merit in establishing a
process for local, regional, or State
government entities to designate critical
urban freight routes that are important
for freight movement to, from, and
through an urban area, but which were
not apparent through analysis of the
national-level data.
Using national data, DOT included in
the highway PFN designation
connectivity to urban areas over 200,000
in population with major freight transfer
facilities. However, DOT recognizes that
cities, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, and State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) are best
positioned to understand the
complexities of freight movement in
individual urban areas, including
current freight movement patterns, and
plans or projections for shifts in freight
movement within the urban areas. The
DOT strongly urges these agencies to act
in partnership to reach out to freight
facility owners and operators to: (1)
Review and provide comments to DOT
on the inclusion of these and other
facilities in the highway PFN; (2)
consider inclusion of these facilities in
State and Metropolitan Freight Plans; (3)
provide comments and suggestions to
DOT for a metropolitan area process
similar to the CRFC designation for
critical urban freight routes; (4)
undertake a metropolitan area process
similar to the CRFC designation for
critical urban freight routes; and (5)
jointly identify for DOT more precise
data that could be used in the
identification of critical urban freight
routes.
Process for Designating the Draft Initial
Primary Freight Network
In undertaking the highway PFN
analysis, DOT developed multiple
scenarios to identify a network that
represents the most critical highway
portions of the United States freight
system. The DOT welcomes comment
on the following methodology.
Highway Primary Freight Network Data
Sources
The draft initial highway PFN was
informed by measurable and objective
national data. In performing the analysis
that led to development of the draft
initial highway PFN, FHWA considered
the following criteria and data sources,
which are further described at the
following Web locations:
1 Publication: FHWA–HOP–08–051, available at
https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_
analysis/freight_story/index.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69521
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
69522
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
Factor
Data source
Origins/destinations of freight movements .........................
FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
freight_analysis/faf/.
FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 2011 AADTT https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm.
HPMS 2011 AADTT https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm.
U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) Containers by
U.S. Customs Ports https://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Container_by_US_Customs_Ports.xls.
DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Transborder data https://www.bts.gov/
programs/international/transborder/TBDR_QuickSearch.html.
U.S. Army Corps, Navigation Data Center, special request, October 2012 via BTS.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) CT 2011 Cargo Airports by Landed Weight
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/
media/cy11_cargo.xlsx.
FAA Aeronautical Information Services—Airport Database in the National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) 2013 www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/.
United States Energy Information Administration Data https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/
natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm#geodata.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) https://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via PHMSA https://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via PHMSA https://www.mapsearch.com.
2010 Census https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2012/main.
FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
FHWA National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) Version 11.09 https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/nhpn/.
FHWA National Highway System Intermodal Connectors https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
planning/national_highway_system/intermodal_connectors/.
Federal Railroad Administration analysis of Rail Inc Centralized Station Master data
https://www.railinc.com/rportal/29.
FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
Freight tonnage and value by highways ............................
Percentage of Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic
(AADTT) on principal arterials.
AADTT on principal arterials ..............................................
Land & maritime ports of entry ..........................................
Airports ...............................................................................
Access to energy exploration, development, installation
or production areas.
Population centers .............................................................
Network connectivity ..........................................................
National Highway System Freight Intermodal Connectors
Railroads ............................................................................
Origin and destination pairs ...............................................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Draft Initial Primary Freight Network
Methodology
The methodology employed by DOT
in developing a draft initial highway
PFN included the following steps:
(1) The Freight Analysis Framework
(FAF) and Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) data sets
were engaged to yield the top 20,000
miles of road segments that qualify in
two of the following four factors: Value
of freight moved by highway, tonnage of
freight moved by highway, annual
average daily truck traffic (AADTT) on
principal arterials, and percentage of
AADTT in the annual average daily
traffic on principal arterials.
(2) Segments identified in Step #1 and
gaps between segments were analyzed
for network connectivity purposes. A
network was created by connecting
segments if the gap between segments
was equal to or less than 440 miles (440
miles being the distance a truck could
travel in 1 day). A segment was
eliminated if it was less than one-tenth
of the length of the nearest qualifying
segment on the highway PFN.
(3) Land ports of entry with truck
traffic higher than 75,000 trucks per
year were identified. These land ports of
entry were then connected to the
network created in Steps #1 and #2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
(4) The NHS Freight Intermodal
Connectors within urban areas with a
population of 200,000 or more were
identified.2 The NHS Freight Intermodal
Connectors included any connectors
that had been categorized as connecting
to a freight rail terminal, port, or
pipeline. In addition, these NHS Freight
Intermodal Connectors included routes
to the top 50 airports by landed weight
of all cargo operations. These 50 airports
represent 89 percent of the landed
weight of all cargo operations in the
United States. The NHS Freight
Intermodal Connectors were connected
back to the network created in Steps #1
and #2 along the route with the highest
AADTT using HPMS.
(5) Road segments within urban areas
with a population of 200,000 or more
that have an AADTT of 8,500 trucks/day
or more were identified.3 Segments
were connected to the network
established in Steps #1 and #2 if they
were equal to or greater than one-tenth
of the length of the nearest qualifying
segment on the highway PFN. Those
segments not meeting this rule were
removed as they were more likely to
2 Due to the timing of the highway PFN analysis
DOT chose to use the Census defined urban areas
(UZAs) rather than the adjusted UZAs that may be
modified by states until June 2014.
3 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
represent discrete local truck movement
activity unrelated to the national
system.
(6) The network was analyzed to
determine the relationship to
population centers, origins and
destinations, maritime ports, airports,
and rail yards. Minor network
connectivity adjustments were
incorporated into the network.
(7) The road systems in Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, were analyzed
using HPMS data. These routes would
not otherwise qualify under a connected
network model but play a critical role in
the movement of products from the
agriculture and energy sectors, as well
as international import/export functions
for their States and urban areas. Roads
connecting key ports to population
centers were incorporated into the draft
initial highway PFN.
(8) The network was analyzed to
determine the relationship to energy
exploration, development, installation,
or production areas. Since the data
points for the energy sector are scattered
around the United States, often in rural
areas, and because some of the related
freight may move by barge or other
maritime vessel, rail, or even pipeline,
DOT did not presume a truck freight
correlation, electing instead to leave this
to the expert consideration of States
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
through the designation of the CRFCs or
comments to the draft initial
designation of the highway PFN.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Outcome
This methodology resulted in a
comprehensive map of 41,518 centerline
miles, including 37,436 centerline miles
of Interstate and 4,082 centerline miles
of non-Interstate roads.4 Since the
statute limits the highway PFN to
27,000 centerline miles, the DOT then
identified those segments with the
highest AADTT. These road segments
represented on the draft highway PFN
map comprise 26,966 miles of centerline
roads that reflect consideration of the
criteria offered by Congress. This draft
highway PFN results in an unconnected
network with major gaps in the system,
including components of the global and
domestic supply chains. The DOT
acknowledges that this 27,000-mile
highway PFN does not meet the
statutory criterion for network
connectivity and would appreciate
feedback on the importance of
designating a connected highway PFN
compared to achieving the connectivity
with the addition of the Interstate routes
in the designation of the NFN.
Furthermore, we offer the
comprehensive 41,518-mile map to
elicit suggestions as to how to proceed
to a final designation of 27,000 miles.
The DOT notes that goods movement
occurs in a very fluid environment and
during the drafting of MAP–21,
Congress did not have access to the
latest data on freight movement. As a
point of comparison, the DOT took the
major freight corridors map that was
originally developed for Freight Story
2008 and ran an analysis in the spring
of 2013 to see how that map would look
using current data. This effort was done
internally as part of the work to develop
the highway PFN. The Freight Story
2008 map contained 27,500 miles of
roads (26,000 miles based on truck data
and parallel intermodal rail lines and
1,500 miles representing goods
movement on parallel major bulk rail
lines or waterways). Using the same
methodology with 2011 HPMS and rail
data, the mileage based solely on the
truck and intermodal rail data grew to
over 31,000 miles of roads, not
including consideration of growth in
4 Commenters should note the 2011 HPMS
database and the current FAF database differ in the
delineation and exact geo-location of the NHS
system. This may result in 1%–2% plus/minus
variation on the total mileage because the mileage
is based on the geospatial network and actual
mileage reported by States may vary due to vertical
and horizontal curves that are not always accurate
in GIS databases. The DOT will look to integrate the
2011 HPMS database with the FAF database to
reduce variation in future iterations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
other freight modes on parallel major
bulk rail lines or waterways.
Additional Miles on the Primary
Freight Network
The Secretary of Transportation,
under Section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.,
may increase the highway PFN by up to
3,000 centerline miles above the 27,000mile limit, to accommodate existing or
planned roads critical to future efficient
movement of goods on the highway
PFN.
In the February 6, 2013, notice
describing the planned process for the
designation of the NFN, DOT outlined a
process for determining facilities to be
included in these additional 3,000
miles. The DOT indicated that in
determining whether a route is critical
to the future efficient movement of
goods on the highway PFN, the
Secretary will consider the factors
identified for the designation of the
highway PFN as well as one or more
additional factors.
In the draft initial designation of the
highway PFN, DOT focused on freight
routes critical to the current movement
of freight. The Department is aware of
emerging freight routes that will be
critical to the future efficient movement
of goods and believes there is value in
expanding the highway PFN in the
future to reflect these routes as the
Nation grows.
Draft Initial Primary Freight Network
Designation
The DOT has posted the details of the
draft initial highway PFN, including the
26,966-mile draft highway PFN map, the
41,518-mile comprehensive map, State
maps and lists of designated routes,
tables of mileage by State, and
information regarding intermodal
connectors and border crossings at:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
infrastructure/nfn/index.htm.
As previously noted, the statute
places a cap on the designation of the
highway PFN at 27,000 centerline miles.
The tables and maps on the above Web
site show a 41,518 mile connected
network that DOT would prefer to
designate if it were not constrained to
27,000 miles by the statute. The 27,000mile subset shown in the map is only
one option of many that DOT could
choose to designate as the highway PFN.
The DOT seeks comments on the routes
identified in the draft initial highway
PFN of 26,966 miles, including the
specific identification of roadways that
freight partners and stakeholders believe
should be included or removed. In
submitting comments relating to the
deletion, addition or modification of
roadways included in this draft highway
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69523
PFN, commenters should provide
information that addresses how the
roadway relates to the factors identified
above and in 23 U.S.C. 167(d).
Further, DOT welcomes comments on
the proposed approach and
methodology to achieve a 27,000 mile
network, considering such questions as:
Connectivity; the treatment of urban
area mileage and the concept of a
critical urban freight corridor process;
inclusion of border crossings of a certain
level of truck volume; corridor-level
designation; the adequacy of the
network to identify bottlenecks and
other freight infrastructure or
operational needs, and more.
Designation of Rural Freight Corridors
The designation of CRFCs by the
States is described in 23 U.S.C. 167(e),
and provides that a State may designate
a road within the borders of the State as
a CRFC if the road is a rural principal
arterial roadway and has at least 25
percent of the AADTT of the road
measured in passenger vehicle
equivalent units from trucks (FHWA
vehicle class 8 to 13); provides access to
energy exploration, development,
installation or production areas; or
connects the highway PFN, a roadway
described above, or the Interstate
System to facilities that handle more
than 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per
year, or 500,000 tons per year of bulk
commodities. The designation of CRFCs
will be performed by State DOTs and
provided to DOT after designation of the
highway PFN is complete. Further
guidance and technical assistance for
identifying these corridors will be
provided in the coming months. The
FHWA will make an initial request of
the States to identify CRFCs and will
maintain route information for the rural
freight corridors thereafter. There is no
equivalent provision in the law for
States to designate routes in urban areas.
National Freight Network Role
Freight in America travels over an
extensive network of highways,
railroads, waterways, pipelines, and
airways: 985,000 miles of Federal-aid
highways; 141,000 miles of railroads;
11,000 miles of inland waterways; and
1.6 million miles of pipelines. There are
over 19,000 airports in the United
States, with approximately 540 serving
commercial operations, and over 5,000
coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
waterway facilities moving cargo.
Section 167(c) of title 23, U.S.C.,
directs the Secretary to establish a NFN
to assist States in strategically directing
resources toward improved system
performance for efficient movement of
freight on the highway portion of the
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
69524
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
Nation’s freight transportation system.
Nevertheless, while specific
commodities are likely to be moved on
a particular mode or series of modes, a
complex multi-modal system is required
to meet fully the growing volume of
bulk and high-velocity, high-value
goods in the United States.
The DOT seeks to develop a NFN to
provide connectivity between and
throughout the three elements that
comprise the NFN (highway PFN,
Remainder of the Interstate System, and
CRFC). The DOT recognizes that as a
highway-only network, the NFN is an
incomplete representation of the system
that is required to efficiently and
effectively move freight in the United
States. Consistent with the national
freight policy in MAP–21, DOT’s goal is
to designate a highway PFN that will
improve system performance, maximize
freight efficiency, and be effectively
integrated with the entire freight
transportation system, including nonhighway modes of freight transport.
The DOT seeks comments on how the
NFN fits into a larger multimodal
national freight system and how a multimodal national freight system may be
defined.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Use of the National Freight Network in
the Future
In creating the NFN, Congress stated
that a NFN shall be established to assist
States in strategically directing
resources toward improved system
performance for efficient movement of
freight on the highway portion of the
Nation’s freight transportation system.
Congress specified that the highway
PFN shall be comprised of not more
than 27,000 miles of existing roadways
that are most critical to the movement
of freight.
The DOT is seeking comments as to
how the designation of the NFN and
highway PFN could be used by and
benefit public and freight stakeholders.
We also welcome comments regarding
potential undesirable applications of the
NFN and highway PFN. The DOT
encourages widespread input to this
proposed draft to provide a thorough
examination of the diverse issues
presented in this notice.
National Freight Network Designation
The following is the approximate
schedule for designation of the NFN:
1. Initial designation of highway
PFN—Fall 2013
2. Compilation of State-designated
CRFC routes—Late 2013—Early 2014
3. Release of the initial designation of
the full NFN (including highway PFN,
rest of the Interstate System, CRFCs)—
2014
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 167; Section 1115 of
Pub. L. 112–141.
Issued on: November 8, 2013.
Victor M. Mendez,
FHWA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–27520 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement for High Capacity
Transit Improvements for the
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor Now
Known as (nka) Green Rapid Transit
Line in the Indiana Counties of Marion
and Hamilton
Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement.
AGENCY:
The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), the Central
Indiana Regional Transportation
Authority (CIRTA), the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(Indianapolis MPO) and Indianapolis
Public Transportation Corporation
(IndyGo) intend to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Northeast Corridor Project, nka
Green Rapid Transit Line (Green Line)
Project relating to proposed fixed
guideway transit improvements in the
Indiana counties of Marion and
Hamilton. The study area is an
approximately 23-mile long travel
corridor extending from downtown
Indianapolis to downtown Noblesville
and includes the community of Fishers.
Options to be considered include NoBuild, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and
Diesel Light Rail Transit (LRT). The EIS
process provides opportunities for the
public to comment on the scope of the
EIS, including the project’s purpose and
need, the alternatives to be considered,
and the impacts to be evaluated. The
southern terminus of all alternatives
would be adjacent to the transit center
in downtown Indianapolis.
An original Notice of Intent for the
proposed Green Line transit
improvement was published on March
9, 2010 and was followed by initial
project scoping, public involvement and
agency coordination. Project activities
were suspended following the initial
scoping activities to address funding
issues and conduct additional planning
related to development of the regional
transit vision plan (referred to as ‘‘Indy
Connect’’). As funding issues are being
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
addressed and the regional transit plan
has been completed, scoping activities
for the Green Line have resumed.
The purpose of this notice is to alert
interested parties regarding the intent to
prepare the EIS, to provide information
on the nature of the proposed project
and possible alternatives, to invite
public participation in the EIS process,
including comments on the scope of the
EIS as proposed in this notice, to
announce that a public scoping meeting
will be conducted, and to identify
participating agency contacts. This
input will be used to assist decision
makers in determining a locally
preferred alternative (LPA) and
preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Green Line.
Upon selection of an LPA, the project
sponsors will request permission from
FTA to enter into Project Development
per requirements of 49 USC 5309. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
will be issued after the project has
entered Project Development.
Dates, Times, and Locations:
Comment Due Date: Written comments
on the purpose and need for the
proposed improvements, and the scope
of alternatives and impacts to be
considered should be sent to the
Indianapolis MPO by December 19,
2013.
A public scoping meeting to accept
comments on the scope of the study will
be held on December 5, 2013 from 6:00
p.m. until 8:00 p.m. in the Julia Carson
Government Center located at 300 East
Fall Creek Parkway North Drive,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46205. The public
scoping meeting will be informal and in
an open house format. Interested
persons may ask questions about the
proposal and the FTA’s environmental
review process. The project’s purpose
and need and the initial set of
alternatives proposed for study will be
presented at the meetings. CIRTA, the
Indianapolis MPO, IndyGo and project
team members will be available to
answer questions and receive
comments. A writing station will be
available to those who wish to submit
written comments at the public scoping
meeting. Project team members will be
available to listen and make notes of
residents’ comments.
The public scoping meeting location
complies with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Persons needing special
accommodations should contact Jeremy
Moore, Project Manager, at (317) 327–
5495 or Jeremy.Moore@indy.gov at least
48 hours prior to the meeting.
An interagency scoping meeting for
federal, state, regional and local
resource and regulatory agencies will be
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69520-69524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27520]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0050]
Designation of the Primary Freight Network
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the draft initial designation of the
highway Primary Freight Network (PFN), which is established by the
Secretary of Transportation as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), and
provides information about designation of Critical Rural Freight
Corridors (CRFC), which are designated by the States, and establishment
of the National Freight Network (NFN), which combines the two, along
with the portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of
the highway PFN. This notice also solicits comments on the draft
initial designation of the highway PFN and other critical aspects of
the NFN. A notice published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2013
(78 FR 8686), introduced the process for designation of the highway
PFN, NFN, and CRFCs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-
9329.
Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this program,
contact Ed Strocko, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations,
(202) 366-2997, or by email at Ed.Strocko@dot.gov. For legal questions,
please contact Michael Harkins, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202)
366-4928, or by email at Michael.Harkins@dot.gov. Business hours for
the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may retrieve a copy of the notice through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is
available 24 hours each day, every day of the year. Electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the
help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may
also be downloaded from Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing
Office's Web page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
Section 167(c) of title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.), created by
Section 1115 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21), directs the Secretary to establish a NFN to assist States in
strategically directing resources toward improved system performance
for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of the
Nation's freight transportation system, including the National Highway
System (NHS), freight intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis
transportation systems. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
approaches this with a full understanding that with regard to surface
freight transportation, significant tonnage moves over rail, water, and
pipeline networks and that this highway PFN designation does not fully
reflect those aspects of the U.S. freight system.
Under 23 U.S.C. 167(c), the NFN will consist of three components:
the highway PFN, the portions of the Interstate System not designated
as part of the highway PFN, and CRFCs, which are designated by the
States.
Congress limited the highway PFN to not more than 27,000 centerline
miles of existing roadways that are most critical to the movement of
freight. Congress allowed an additional 3,000 centerline miles (that
may include existing or planned roads) critical to the future efficient
movement of goods on the highway PFN.
Congress instructed DOT to base the highway PFN on an inventory of
national freight volume conducted by the FHWA Administrator, in
consultation with stakeholders, including system users, transport
providers, and States. Congress defined eight factors to consider in
designating the highway PFN.
The eight factors are:
1. Origins and destinations of freight movement in the United
States;
2. Total freight tonnage and value of freight moved by highways;
3. Percentage of annual average daily truck traffic in the annual
average daily traffic on principal arterials;
4. Annual average daily truck traffic on principal arterials;
5. Land and maritime ports of entry;
6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, or
production areas;
7. Population centers; and
8. Network connectivity.
Purpose of the Notice
The purpose of this notice is to publish the draft initial
designation of the highway PFN as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), provide
information regarding State designation of CRFCs and the establishment
of the complete NFN, and to solicit comments on aspects of the NFN. The
five areas for comment are: (1) Specific route deletions, additions, or
modifications to the draft initial designation of the highway PFN
contained in this notice; (2) the methodology for achieving a 27,000-
mile final designation; (3) how the NFN and its components could be
used by freight stakeholders in the future; (4) how the NFN may fit
into a multimodal National Freight System; and (5) suggestions for an
urban-area route designation process.
[[Page 69521]]
Limitations and Considerations for Primary Freight Network Development
The process of developing a highway PFN that reflects the criteria
for consideration identified by Congress and which results in a network
limited to only 27,000 centerline miles of roads is highly complex.
After careful consideration, DOT determined that the multitude of
factors combined with the mileage cap does not yield a network that is
representative of the most critical highway elements of national
freight system that exists in the United States. For example, the
effort to link qualifying segments to achieve a contiguous network, and
to ensure sufficient connections to Mexico and Canada, requires the
additional designation of thousands of miles. This reduces the number
of miles left for qualifying segments and necessitates raising the
qualifying threshold for level of volume, value, tonnage or other
factors. In addition, DOT discovered the following challenges in
designating the network required by MAP-21.
Application of the Primary Freight Network
The lack of a stated application for the highway PFN and NFN
introduces uncertainty into the designation process. Without a better
understanding of the goals for the highway PFN, it was challenging to
weight the factors for designation relative to one another and to gauge
whether the resulting network would meet future public planning and
investment needs. Each individual criterion yields different network
coverage when compared to the simulations for the other factors. For
example, a map that shows the top roads by percentage of truck traffic
and a map that shows the top roads by average annual daily truck
traffic yields very different results. The aggregation of all these
factors results in a map that is difficult to limit to 27,000 miles
without some significant prioritization of the many factors and their
cut-off points. With no clear optimal solution, additional input from
stakeholders is critical to prioritizing the miles to achieve a 27,000-
mile designation.
Centerline Versus Corridor Approach
Limiting the highway PFN to 27,000 centerline miles, as required by
23 U.S.C. 167(d), excludes many freight-significant Interstate and NHS
routes throughout the country. In 2008, DOT looked at the question of
critical U.S. freight routes as part of the Freight Story 2008 \1\
report and developed a multimodal, corridor-based map. This approach
allowed for the inclusion of more than one vital route in a congested
region. By contrast, the statutory language in MAP-21 clearly directs
DOT to use centerline roadway miles for the development of the NFN,
which does not necessarily allow for the designation of multiple routes
in a region that comprise an active and fluid highway freight system.
The DOT suggests that corridor-level analysis and investment has the
potential for widespread freight benefits, and can improve the
performance and efficiency of the highway PFN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Publication: FHWA-HOP-08-051, available at https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations of National Data
The data utilized for the development of the draft initial highway
PFN comprises the best information available on freight behavior at a
national level. Nevertheless, national data is not sufficient to
understand fully the behavior of freight in smaller subsets of the
Nation, to include goods movement in urban areas. Urban areas of
200,000 and above include a freight-generating population and in most
cases, are the site of significant freight facilities where highway
freight intersects with other modes--at rail yards, ports, and major
airports. These ``first and last mile'' connections, which are also
represented in rural areas, do not always show up well in data sets.
Lack of Consideration for Critical Urban Freight Routes in the National
Freight Network
The DOT recognizes that many highway freight bottlenecks and
chokepoints are located in urban areas and at first and last mile
connectors, making urban areas critical to the efficiency of domestic
and international supply chains. Although Federal law provides a
mechanism to enable connectivity to critical freight ``last mile''
origins and destinations in rural areas through CRFC designation, which
are designated by the States, the NFN language in 23 U.S.C. 167(d)
lacks a parallel process for designating critical urban freight routes
to address the need for connectivity to urban areas. Urban area mileage
may only be included in the NFN if it qualifies as a highway PFN route
or if it is an Interstate System route. Given the lack of precision of
national data at the urban level, DOT believes there is merit in
establishing a process for local, regional, or State government
entities to designate critical urban freight routes that are important
for freight movement to, from, and through an urban area, but which
were not apparent through analysis of the national-level data.
Using national data, DOT included in the highway PFN designation
connectivity to urban areas over 200,000 in population with major
freight transfer facilities. However, DOT recognizes that cities,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) are best positioned to understand the
complexities of freight movement in individual urban areas, including
current freight movement patterns, and plans or projections for shifts
in freight movement within the urban areas. The DOT strongly urges
these agencies to act in partnership to reach out to freight facility
owners and operators to: (1) Review and provide comments to DOT on the
inclusion of these and other facilities in the highway PFN; (2)
consider inclusion of these facilities in State and Metropolitan
Freight Plans; (3) provide comments and suggestions to DOT for a
metropolitan area process similar to the CRFC designation for critical
urban freight routes; (4) undertake a metropolitan area process similar
to the CRFC designation for critical urban freight routes; and (5)
jointly identify for DOT more precise data that could be used in the
identification of critical urban freight routes.
Process for Designating the Draft Initial Primary Freight Network
In undertaking the highway PFN analysis, DOT developed multiple
scenarios to identify a network that represents the most critical
highway portions of the United States freight system. The DOT welcomes
comment on the following methodology.
Highway Primary Freight Network Data Sources
The draft initial highway PFN was informed by measurable and
objective national data. In performing the analysis that led to
development of the draft initial highway PFN, FHWA considered the
following criteria and data sources, which are further described at the
following Web locations:
[[Page 69522]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Data source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origins/destinations of freight FHWA Freight Analysis Framework
movements. (FAF) 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
Freight tonnage and value by FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
highways. freight/freight--analysis/faf/.
Percentage of Average Annual Daily FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring
Truck Traffic (AADTT) on System (HPMS) 2011 AADTT https://
principal arterials. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/
hpms.cfm.
AADTT on principal arterials...... HPMS 2011 AADTT https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm.
Land & maritime ports of entry.... U.S. Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Containers by U.S. Customs Ports
https://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Container_by_US_Customs_Ports.xls ls.
DOT Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) Transborder data
https://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_QuickSearch.html.
U.S. Army Corps, Navigation Data
Center, special request, October
2012 via BTS.
Airports.......................... Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) CT 2011 Cargo Airports by
Landed Weight https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/cy11_cargo.xlsx.
FAA Aeronautical Information
Services--Airport Database in the
National Transportation Atlas
Database (NTAD) 2013 www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/ services/.
Access to energy exploration, United States Energy Information
development, installation or Administration Data https://
production areas. www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_
gas/analysis_publications/maps/
maps.htm#geodata.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) https://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via PHMSA
https://www.mapsearch.com.
Pennwell Mapsearch data via PHMSA
https://www.mapsearch.com.
Population centers................ 2010 Census https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2012/main.
Network connectivity.............. FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
FHWA National Highway Planning
Network (NHPN) Version 11.09 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/nhpn/ tools/nhpn/.
National Highway System Freight FHWA National Highway System
Intermodal Connectors. Intermodal Connectors https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/intermodal_connectors/ connectors/.
Railroads......................... Federal Railroad Administration
analysis of Rail Inc Centralized
Station Master data https://www.railinc.com/rportal/29.
Origin and destination pairs...... FAF 3.4 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Initial Primary Freight Network Methodology
The methodology employed by DOT in developing a draft initial
highway PFN included the following steps:
(1) The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) and Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) data sets were engaged to yield the top 20,000
miles of road segments that qualify in two of the following four
factors: Value of freight moved by highway, tonnage of freight moved by
highway, annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT) on principal
arterials, and percentage of AADTT in the annual average daily traffic
on principal arterials.
(2) Segments identified in Step 1 and gaps between
segments were analyzed for network connectivity purposes. A network was
created by connecting segments if the gap between segments was equal to
or less than 440 miles (440 miles being the distance a truck could
travel in 1 day). A segment was eliminated if it was less than one-
tenth of the length of the nearest qualifying segment on the highway
PFN.
(3) Land ports of entry with truck traffic higher than 75,000
trucks per year were identified. These land ports of entry were then
connected to the network created in Steps 1 and 2.
(4) The NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors within urban areas with a
population of 200,000 or more were identified.\2\ The NHS Freight
Intermodal Connectors included any connectors that had been categorized
as connecting to a freight rail terminal, port, or pipeline. In
addition, these NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors included routes to
the top 50 airports by landed weight of all cargo operations. These 50
airports represent 89 percent of the landed weight of all cargo
operations in the United States. The NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors
were connected back to the network created in Steps 1 and
2 along the route with the highest AADTT using HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Due to the timing of the highway PFN analysis DOT chose to
use the Census defined urban areas (UZAs) rather than the adjusted
UZAs that may be modified by states until June 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Road segments within urban areas with a population of 200,000
or more that have an AADTT of 8,500 trucks/day or more were
identified.\3\ Segments were connected to the network established in
Steps 1 and 2 if they were equal to or greater than
one-tenth of the length of the nearest qualifying segment on the
highway PFN. Those segments not meeting this rule were removed as they
were more likely to represent discrete local truck movement activity
unrelated to the national system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) The network was analyzed to determine the relationship to
population centers, origins and destinations, maritime ports, airports,
and rail yards. Minor network connectivity adjustments were
incorporated into the network.
(7) The road systems in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, were
analyzed using HPMS data. These routes would not otherwise qualify
under a connected network model but play a critical role in the
movement of products from the agriculture and energy sectors, as well
as international import/export functions for their States and urban
areas. Roads connecting key ports to population centers were
incorporated into the draft initial highway PFN.
(8) The network was analyzed to determine the relationship to
energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas.
Since the data points for the energy sector are scattered around the
United States, often in rural areas, and because some of the related
freight may move by barge or other maritime vessel, rail, or even
pipeline, DOT did not presume a truck freight correlation, electing
instead to leave this to the expert consideration of States
[[Page 69523]]
through the designation of the CRFCs or comments to the draft initial
designation of the highway PFN.
Outcome
This methodology resulted in a comprehensive map of 41,518
centerline miles, including 37,436 centerline miles of Interstate and
4,082 centerline miles of non-Interstate roads.\4\ Since the statute
limits the highway PFN to 27,000 centerline miles, the DOT then
identified those segments with the highest AADTT. These road segments
represented on the draft highway PFN map comprise 26,966 miles of
centerline roads that reflect consideration of the criteria offered by
Congress. This draft highway PFN results in an unconnected network with
major gaps in the system, including components of the global and
domestic supply chains. The DOT acknowledges that this 27,000-mile
highway PFN does not meet the statutory criterion for network
connectivity and would appreciate feedback on the importance of
designating a connected highway PFN compared to achieving the
connectivity with the addition of the Interstate routes in the
designation of the NFN. Furthermore, we offer the comprehensive 41,518-
mile map to elicit suggestions as to how to proceed to a final
designation of 27,000 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Commenters should note the 2011 HPMS database and the
current FAF database differ in the delineation and exact geo-
location of the NHS system. This may result in 1%-2% plus/minus
variation on the total mileage because the mileage is based on the
geospatial network and actual mileage reported by States may vary
due to vertical and horizontal curves that are not always accurate
in GIS databases. The DOT will look to integrate the 2011 HPMS
database with the FAF database to reduce variation in future
iterations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT notes that goods movement occurs in a very fluid
environment and during the drafting of MAP-21, Congress did not have
access to the latest data on freight movement. As a point of
comparison, the DOT took the major freight corridors map that was
originally developed for Freight Story 2008 and ran an analysis in the
spring of 2013 to see how that map would look using current data. This
effort was done internally as part of the work to develop the highway
PFN. The Freight Story 2008 map contained 27,500 miles of roads (26,000
miles based on truck data and parallel intermodal rail lines and 1,500
miles representing goods movement on parallel major bulk rail lines or
waterways). Using the same methodology with 2011 HPMS and rail data,
the mileage based solely on the truck and intermodal rail data grew to
over 31,000 miles of roads, not including consideration of growth in
other freight modes on parallel major bulk rail lines or waterways.
Additional Miles on the Primary Freight Network
The Secretary of Transportation, under Section 167 of title 23,
U.S.C., may increase the highway PFN by up to 3,000 centerline miles
above the 27,000-mile limit, to accommodate existing or planned roads
critical to future efficient movement of goods on the highway PFN.
In the February 6, 2013, notice describing the planned process for
the designation of the NFN, DOT outlined a process for determining
facilities to be included in these additional 3,000 miles. The DOT
indicated that in determining whether a route is critical to the future
efficient movement of goods on the highway PFN, the Secretary will
consider the factors identified for the designation of the highway PFN
as well as one or more additional factors.
In the draft initial designation of the highway PFN, DOT focused on
freight routes critical to the current movement of freight. The
Department is aware of emerging freight routes that will be critical to
the future efficient movement of goods and believes there is value in
expanding the highway PFN in the future to reflect these routes as the
Nation grows.
Draft Initial Primary Freight Network Designation
The DOT has posted the details of the draft initial highway PFN,
including the 26,966-mile draft highway PFN map, the 41,518-mile
comprehensive map, State maps and lists of designated routes, tables of
mileage by State, and information regarding intermodal connectors and
border crossings at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/nfn/index.htm.
As previously noted, the statute places a cap on the designation of
the highway PFN at 27,000 centerline miles. The tables and maps on the
above Web site show a 41,518 mile connected network that DOT would
prefer to designate if it were not constrained to 27,000 miles by the
statute. The 27,000-mile subset shown in the map is only one option of
many that DOT could choose to designate as the highway PFN. The DOT
seeks comments on the routes identified in the draft initial highway
PFN of 26,966 miles, including the specific identification of roadways
that freight partners and stakeholders believe should be included or
removed. In submitting comments relating to the deletion, addition or
modification of roadways included in this draft highway PFN, commenters
should provide information that addresses how the roadway relates to
the factors identified above and in 23 U.S.C. 167(d).
Further, DOT welcomes comments on the proposed approach and
methodology to achieve a 27,000 mile network, considering such
questions as: Connectivity; the treatment of urban area mileage and the
concept of a critical urban freight corridor process; inclusion of
border crossings of a certain level of truck volume; corridor-level
designation; the adequacy of the network to identify bottlenecks and
other freight infrastructure or operational needs, and more.
Designation of Rural Freight Corridors
The designation of CRFCs by the States is described in 23 U.S.C.
167(e), and provides that a State may designate a road within the
borders of the State as a CRFC if the road is a rural principal
arterial roadway and has at least 25 percent of the AADTT of the road
measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks (FHWA
vehicle class 8 to 13); provides access to energy exploration,
development, installation or production areas; or connects the highway
PFN, a roadway described above, or the Interstate System to facilities
that handle more than 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per year, or
500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities. The designation of CRFCs
will be performed by State DOTs and provided to DOT after designation
of the highway PFN is complete. Further guidance and technical
assistance for identifying these corridors will be provided in the
coming months. The FHWA will make an initial request of the States to
identify CRFCs and will maintain route information for the rural
freight corridors thereafter. There is no equivalent provision in the
law for States to designate routes in urban areas.
National Freight Network Role
Freight in America travels over an extensive network of highways,
railroads, waterways, pipelines, and airways: 985,000 miles of Federal-
aid highways; 141,000 miles of railroads; 11,000 miles of inland
waterways; and 1.6 million miles of pipelines. There are over 19,000
airports in the United States, with approximately 540 serving
commercial operations, and over 5,000 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland
waterway facilities moving cargo.
Section 167(c) of title 23, U.S.C., directs the Secretary to
establish a NFN to assist States in strategically directing resources
toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on
the highway portion of the
[[Page 69524]]
Nation's freight transportation system. Nevertheless, while specific
commodities are likely to be moved on a particular mode or series of
modes, a complex multi-modal system is required to meet fully the
growing volume of bulk and high-velocity, high-value goods in the
United States.
The DOT seeks to develop a NFN to provide connectivity between and
throughout the three elements that comprise the NFN (highway PFN,
Remainder of the Interstate System, and CRFC). The DOT recognizes that
as a highway-only network, the NFN is an incomplete representation of
the system that is required to efficiently and effectively move freight
in the United States. Consistent with the national freight policy in
MAP-21, DOT's goal is to designate a highway PFN that will improve
system performance, maximize freight efficiency, and be effectively
integrated with the entire freight transportation system, including
non-highway modes of freight transport.
The DOT seeks comments on how the NFN fits into a larger multimodal
national freight system and how a multi-modal national freight system
may be defined.
Use of the National Freight Network in the Future
In creating the NFN, Congress stated that a NFN shall be
established to assist States in strategically directing resources
toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on
the highway portion of the Nation's freight transportation system.
Congress specified that the highway PFN shall be comprised of not more
than 27,000 miles of existing roadways that are most critical to the
movement of freight.
The DOT is seeking comments as to how the designation of the NFN
and highway PFN could be used by and benefit public and freight
stakeholders. We also welcome comments regarding potential undesirable
applications of the NFN and highway PFN. The DOT encourages widespread
input to this proposed draft to provide a thorough examination of the
diverse issues presented in this notice.
National Freight Network Designation
The following is the approximate schedule for designation of the
NFN:
1. Initial designation of highway PFN--Fall 2013
2. Compilation of State-designated CRFC routes--Late 2013--Early
2014
3. Release of the initial designation of the full NFN (including
highway PFN, rest of the Interstate System, CRFCs)--2014
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 167; Section 1115 of Pub. L. 112-141.
Issued on: November 8, 2013.
Victor M. Mendez,
FHWA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-27520 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P