[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71185-71198]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24862]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0168]
RIN 2105-ZA02

Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory
Committees

AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC); U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of guidance; response to comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAST Act included a provision that requires each State
that receives funding under the National Highway Freight Program to
develop a State Freight Plan that provides a comprehensive plan for the
immediate and long-range planning activities and investments of the
State with respect to freight and meets all the required plan contents
listed in the Act. This guidance provides the minimum required elements
that State Freight Plans must meet, provides a template that reflects
those statutory requirements, and suggests recommended, but optional
elements, that States may include in their State Freight Plans. It also
provides suggestions for establishing State Freight Advisory Committees
that will benefit State freight planning. This notice also responds to
comments submitted in response to interim guidance on State Freight
Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees published by DOT on October
15, 2012.

DATES: Unless otherwise stated in this Notice, this guidance is
effective October 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Endorf, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER> or Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Questions can also be submitted to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this Guidance on State
Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees is to provide
States with information on the statutorily required elements of State
Freight Plans under 49 U.S.C. 70202 and recommend approaches and
information that States may include in their State Freight Plans. This
guidance also strongly encourages States to establish State Freight
Advisory Committees and provides suggestions as to how those Committees
can help the State with its freight planning.
    49 U.S.C. 70202 lists ten required elements that all State Freight
Plans must address for each of the transportation modes:
    1. An identification of significant freight system trends, needs,
and issues with respect to the State;
    2. A description of the freight policies, strategies, and
performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation
investment decisions of the State;
    3. When applicable, a listing of--
    a. multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors
designated within the State under section 70103 of title 49 (National
Multimodal Freight Network);
    b. critical rural and urban freight corridors designated within the
State under section 167 of title 23 (National Highway Freight Program);
    4. A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the
State to meet the national multimodal freight policy goals described in
section 70101(b) of title 49, United States Code and the national
highway freight program goals described in section 167 of title 23;
    5. A description of how innovative technologies and operational
strategies, including freight intelligent transportation systems, that
improve the safety and efficiency of the freight movement, were
considered;
    6. In the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles
(including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber
vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of
the roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to
reduce or impede the deterioration;
    7. An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as
bottlenecks, within the State, and for those facilities that are State
owned or operated, a description of the strategies the State is
employing to address those freight mobility issues;
    8. Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by
freight movements and any strategies to mitigate that congestion or
delay;
    9. A freight investment plan that, subject to 49 U.S.C. 70202(c),
includes a list of priority projects and describes how funds made
available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 167 would be invested and matched; and
    10. Consultation with the State Freight Advisory Committee, if
applicable.
    Each of these required elements is discussed more fully in Section
V of the guidance below. In addition, DOT suggests a number of optional
items that States may consider including in their State Freight Plans.
These optional elements are discussed more fully in Section VI below.
    MAP-21 included two provisions that required the Secretary to
encourage States to establish State Freight Plans and State Freight
Advisory Committees. The FAST Act moved these provisions from title 23
to title 49 (Multimodal Freight Transportation) and required that
States complete a State Freight Plan in order to obligate freight
formula funds under 23 U.S.C. 167. State Freight Plans and State
Freight Advisory Committees are complementary to other FAST Act freight
provisions, such as the development of the National Freight Strategic
Plan and the release of a Final National Multimodal Freight Network
(NMFN; DOT released an Interim NMFN on May 27, 2016 per the statutory
requirement).
    Following the enactment of MAP-21 on July 6, 2012, DOT released
Interim Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory
Committees for public comment (77 FR 62596, October 15, 2012). DOT
received 54 comments from State Departments of Transportation, local
governments, industry groups, ports, and private individuals pertaining
to various aspects of the Interim Guidance. In this section, DOT
responds to these comments and describes their relevance to the new
provisions in 49 U.S.C. 70201 and 70202, established under section 8001
of the FAST Act.

Response to Comments

Scope of Guidance

    An important issue for some of the commenters was that it appeared
to create an unnecessary burden for States by suggesting that a State
include in its

State Freight Plan items beyond what is required by section 1118 of
MAP-21. In particular, these commenters felt that the Interim Guidance
lacked clarity about which plan elements were required as opposed to
those that were recommended but not mandatory. Some commenters noted
that certain aspects of the recommended guidance did not apply to their
States or alternatively, that their States lacked the financial or
technical capacity to address those aspects fully in their State
Freight Plans. Additionally, there was concern that the Secretary would
give preferential treatment (through the Secretary's discretionary
authority to approve projects for increased Federal share under section
1116 of MAP-21) to States that included some or all of the recommended
elements from the Interim Guidance (note that section 1116 of MAP-21
was repealed by the FAST Act).
    To address these concerns, DOT is modifying the structure of the
guidance below to clarify which elements are statutorily required
versus those elements that are recommended for States to consider for
optional inclusion in their State Freight Plans. As indicated in this
new Guidance, some provisions for the State Freight Plans are required
by the FAST Act and must be addressed in order for a State to obligate
apportioned funds under the NHFP.
    DOT recognizes that States vary in their transportation needs and
system requirements, particularly regarding multimodal freight
transportation. Some of the recommended elements may not be relevant to
every State, and as such, do not have to be included in the plan.
Similarly, the guidance is not intended to preclude States from
supplementing their State Freight Plans with elements not described in
the FAST Act or in this guidance. States have significant flexibility
in creating State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees
that fit their needs.
    Based on a review of State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory
Committee materials that have been published by some States, DOT is
confident that States, MPOs, local and tribal governments, and private
entities will be able to take advantage of State Freight Plans and
State Freight Advisory Committees to improve their freight planning
processes. These materials are extensive in nature and far exceed many
of the Plan and Advisory Committee requirements of MAP-21.\1\ To date,
46 States are now in the process of developing or have developed State
Freight Plans or modified Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans to
include freight provisions (many of these plans were developed prior to
MAP-21), and 35 States have established State Freight Advisory
Committees. Based on the new provisions of the FAST Act, it is
anticipated that any State Freight Plan that was MAP-21 compliant will
require some modification to meet the FAST Act requirements. These
modifications will be discussed in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It is important to note that MAP-21 did not require a State
Freight Plan in order to receive federal formula or discretionary
funding, although the development of a compliant plan was a
requirement for consideration for eligibility to use a larger
Federal share of federal aid funding for freight projects under
section 1116 of MAP-21, Prioritization of Projects to Improve
Freight Movement. This funding provision was repealed by the FAST
Act and replaced with the new formula program for freight projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT will have a role in determining whether a State Freight Plan
conforms to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 70202. This review will be
made using the statutorily defined requirements of section 70202 as
they pertain to the specific transportation and other circumstances
defined by each State. The optional elements suggested for
consideration in this guidance will not be used as a factor for
determining whether a State Freight Plan conforms to the requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 70202.
    Following the publication of the Interim Guidance in 2012, DOT
received a number of comments regarding section 1116 of MAP-21. Because
the FAST Act repealed section 1116 of MAP-21, DOT will not specifically
address these comments. However, with respect to the new requirement in
the FAST Act that States must have FAST Act-compliant State Freight
Plans in order to remain eligible to obligate formula funding under the
NHFP after December 4, 2017, the new Guidance below specifies that
State Freight Plans, whether separate or incorporated into the Long-
Range Statewide Transportation Plan, will be reviewed by DOT to
determine whether the Plan satisfies the minimum requirements of 49
U.S.C. 70202.
    Other commenters expressed concerns that the October 15, 2012,
Interim Guidance was not sufficiently prescriptive. This set of
commenters thought that the Interim Guidance should have provided more
details so that States would not ignore important considerations in
developing their plans. To address these concerns, we have provided
additional recommended elements for consideration, along with the
rationale for providing such suggestions. As previously stated, these
recommendations are optional and are not meant to be exhaustive of
additional considerations that could be included by a State. As
addressed above, DOT recognizes that States differ in their freight
considerations and capacities and these variations should be reflected
in their State Freight Plans. States with unique freight
characteristics are welcome to add those considerations into their
State Freight Plans even if these considerations are not explicitly
outlined in the guidance. DOT will monitor best practices regarding
these plans and may seek to share such practices through publicly
available resources like a public Web site, webinar, or future
guidance.
    DOT also received comments suggesting that additional categories of
stakeholders should be included as part of State Freight Advisory
Committees. DOT notes below that the FAST Act expands the categories of
participants to be included in State Freight Advisory Committees, but
also recognizes that States are free to add other participants and to
exercise their discretion as to which stakeholders to include in their
State freight planning process. The Guidance provided below offers
suggestions for additional categories of members. Other recommendations
in this Guidance are intended to assist the State in establishing
protocols and best practices for State Freight Advisory Committees
relative to the intent of 49 U.S.C. 70201.

Multimodal Considerations

    A second major issue in the comments received on the October 15,
2012, Interim Guidance relates to how States should consider non-
highway modes in their freight planning. Many commenters, including
several State DOTs, urged that DOT encourage States to include
maritime, rail, aviation, and other non-highway modes and facilities in
their State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees. Some
commenters, by contrast, urged that DOT not recommend inclusion of non-
highway portions of the freight system.
    The U.S. transportation system moved a daily average of 49 million
tons of freight valued at over $53 billion in 2015 (daily value). By
2045, the U.S. population is expected to increase by 70 million more
people and freight tons moved by all modes of transportation are
expected to increase by 40 percent according to recent data released by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).\2\ While much of this
freight growth will occur on highways and depend upon highway
connectivity,

particularly for first and last mile connections, significant increases
are also projected for rail, maritime, pipeline, and air freight. In
order to meet these future challenges, it is essential that freight
planning efforts and investment decisions are coordinated, to the
extent possible, among all modes of transportation. This view was
supported in other public comments collected by DOT for the development
of another MAP-21 requirement, the Primary Freight Network.\3\ DOT
recognizes that not all States have the ability to influence decisions
over non-highway infrastructure, but a plan that considers the needs
and capabilities of the entire freight system, including providing
improved connectivity between different modal systems, will lead to
better efficiency and safer outcomes than one that only considers the
needs of highway freight. In addition, two primary purposes for
establishing the National Multimodal Freight Network (49 U.S.C. 70103),
a requirement of the FAST Act, are to assist States in strategically
directing resources toward improved system performance for the
efficient movement of freight on the network and to inform freight
transportation planning. Supporting the importance of multimodal
freight consideration, Congress created a requirement for a multimodal
freight network in the FAST Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot-releases-30-year-freight-projections.
    \3\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FHWA-151002-013_F%20PFN.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Freight Plans developed pursuant to the FAST Act are
multimodal in scope. DOT views State Freight Plans as a critical
resource for the States to use in prioritizing freight transportation
investments and guiding future transportation policymaking. Under the
FAST Act, this linkage has been reinforced; prioritization of freight
projects (within a State Freight Plan) is now mandatory. Specifically,
within the State Freight Plan, a freight investment plan must include a
prioritized list of projects and describe how funds made available to
carry out the NHFP would be invested and matched by other funding
sources. 49 U.S.C. 70202(b)(9). This information will also be helpful
to States, MPOs, local and tribal governments, maritime ports and other
special transportation authorities, and the Federal government in the
identification of freight projects that may be eligible for funding
under the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program
(known as the ``FASTLANE program,'' \4\ established under section 1105
of the FAST Act and codified in 23 U.S.C. 117); the Advanced
Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment
program (established by section 6004 of the FAST Act and codified in 23
U.S.C. 503(c)); as well as for applications for credit under the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) programs.
However, the only projects that must be included in the freight
investment plan of the State Freight Plan (as of December 4, 2017) are
those that would use NHFP funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for
the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Freight Plans ultimately reflect each State's analysis of its
own economy and how the key sectors of its economy rely upon the
freight transportation system. The more comprehensively a State Freight
Plan represents all transportation modes related to freight movement,
the more useful it will be in meeting the freight transportation needs
of all of the State's industries, and in helping the State to make the
best freight transportation decisions. State Freight Advisory
Committees, with comprehensive representation by public and private
freight interests, are a highly effective means of gathering
information on system needs and potential solutions to be included in
State Freight Plans and for other planning processes at interstate and
local levels.
    DOT made extensive use of the State Freight Plans prepared in
response to section 1118 of MAP-21 (or earlier State-initiated efforts)
in formulating the October 2015 draft National Freight Strategic Plan
required under section 1115 of MAP-21 (this requirement was renewed by
the FAST Act under 49 U.S.C. 70102). The new statutory provisions in 49
U.S.C. 70202 with regard to preparing fiscally constrained multimodal
freight investment plans will greatly strengthen DOT's ability to
respond to requirements for future revisions of the multimodal National
Freight Strategic Plan under 49 U.S.C. 70102, which requires, among
other factors, the identification of freight infrastructure bottlenecks
and information on the cost of addressing each bottleneck, as well as
any operational improvements that could be implemented. Accurate
information of this type cannot be developed at the national level but
rather must rely on careful assessments at the State and MPO levels,
some of which is now required in State Freight Plans.

Interstate and International Collaboration

    Several comments submitted for the October 15, 2012, Interim
Guidance noted that the efficiency of freight movement has an important
impact on international trade and that freight transportation issues
often transcend State borders. In particular, these comments suggested
that State Freight Advisory Committees should also include
representatives from neighboring States or at least coordinate directly
on regional priorities with other States. DOT fully agrees that
efficient and reliable freight movement is a critical factor in
stimulating international and interstate trade and encourages States to
work jointly with their State and international neighbors, as well as
with regional planning organizations and corridor coalitions, to
prioritize projects that can facilitate freight movement across
borders. While there are no specific requirements in chapter 702 of
title 49, United States Code, for participation of neighboring States
and nations in State Freight Advisory Committees or in the development
of State Freight Plans, DOT believes that such participation would be
valuable in facilitating discussions about prioritizing mutually
beneficial freight transportation investments. As such, DOT strongly
encourages neighboring States and countries to work together or consult
with each other during the development or updating of State Freight
Plans. Additionally, for multi-state projects that would be on a
fiscally constrained freight investment plan, those multi-state
projects would require coordination of the States involved such that
the project is accurately and consistently reflected in each State's
Freight Plan.

Integration With Existing State Planning Processes

    Many commenters on the October 15, 2012, Interim Guidance addressed
the issue of integrating State Freight Plans within the existing State
planning process. Several commenters emphasized the role that MPOs
should have in this process. Other commenters mentioned that State
Freight Planning should be coordinated in part with State environmental
and economic development agencies. Some commenters emphasized the role
of regional planning.
    DOT strongly recommends that States include all relevant parties in
their freight planning processes, particularly

through inclusion in State Freight Advisory Committees. This inclusion
is supported by section 8001 of the FAST Act which requires that, ``The
Secretary of Transportation shall encourage each State to establish a
freight advisory committee consisting of a representative cross-section
of public and private sector freight stakeholders, including
representatives of ports, freight railroads, shippers, carriers,
freight-related associations, third-party logistics providers, the
freight industry workforce, the transportation department of the State,
and local governments'' (49 U.S.C. 70201(a)). Other potential members
of the State Freight Advisory Committees, including State environmental
agencies and tribal governments, are described in the Guidance below.
Even in instances where an organization is not a participant in a State
Freight Advisory Committee, DOT recommends that the freight planning
work of the organization be reviewed and incorporated into the State
Freight Plan.
    DOT recommends that MPOs (although not specifically listed in 49
U.S.C. 70201) be adequately represented in the State Freight Advisory
Committee and in the development of the State Freight Plan. States and
MPOs already coordinate planning activities in the development of Long-
Range Statewide Transportation Plans and statewide transportation
improvement programs (STIPs). Joint participation by State DOTs and
MPOs in multimodal State Freight Advisory Committees will help ensure
that State Freight Plan, TIP, and STIP processes are coordinated, fully
address non-highway freight projects, and are consistent in their
treatment. Existing and enhanced cooperation between States and MPOs
will be vital in the development of fiscally constrained freight
investment plans that must now be part of the State Freight Plan under
49 U.S.C. 70202.

Plan Updates and Modifications

    One commenter on the October 15, 2012, Interim Guidance asked how
States should proceed if they recently updated their State Freight
Plans prior to the release of the Interim Guidance. DOT expects that
this question is still relevant for States that updated their State
Freight Plans to be compliant with the MAP-21 requirements. DOT notes
that in order for a State to obligate NHFP (23 U.S.C. 167) funds 2
years after the date of enactment of the FAST Act (i.e., after December
4, 2017), its State Freight Plan must include the required elements
under 49 U.S.C. 70202 (except that the multimodal elements of the plan,
which the FAST Act allows, may be incomplete before an obligation is
made) and the project must be identified in the State Freight Plan.
Thus, if a State recently updated its State Freight Plan, it should
verify that its plan addresses all of the required elements under 49
U.S.C. 70202 and that the plan provides the required prioritized
fiscally constrained list of freight projects that are needed in the
State. If the State Freight Plan is missing any of these elements, the
State should modify or amend its plan by December 4, 2017, so that it
can continue to obligate funds available through the NHFP.\5\ This
modification or revision process would also restart the clock for
submitting an updated State Freight Plan, which must be updated at
least once every 5 years. States may wish to update their State Freight
Plans on the same cycle that they update their Long-Range Statewide
Transportation Plan, but States are allowed to update their State
Freight Plans at whatever frequency is most suitable for them, provided
this cycle does not exceed 5 years. In addition to the fiscally
constrained freight investment plan component, States must include in
their State Freight Plans, at a minimum, all plan contents required by
49 U.S.C. 70202(b) as they relate to highways in order to obligate NHFP
apportioned funds after December 4, 2017. While any multimodal
component of a State Freight Plan is not required in order to obligate
NHFP funds, DOT strongly encourages States to have incorporated these
components in their Plan by that date, when applicable, along with any
other multimodal content not already identified in section 70202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ States may obligate NHFP funding prior to December 4, 2017
without a State Freight Plan, provided they meet the other
requirements and eligibilities of the NHFP program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One State commenting on the October 15, 2012, Interim Guidance
objected to listing out the recommended projects, stating that it would
create an expectation in the general public that they would be
constructed regardless of available funding. That State expressed that
projects are developed with potential sources of funding in mind, as
opposed to projects being developed without consideration for how they
might be funded. DOT notes that the FAST Act addresses this concern
both by providing sources of dedicated freight funding (23 U.S.C. 167
and 23 U.S.C. 117) and requiring in 49 U.S.C. 70202 that a State
Freight Plan include a fiscally constrained freight investment plan
that includes a list of priority projects and describes how NHFP funds
would be invested and matched. DOT believes that these plans will help
States to identify and act on their freight priorities. Further, State
Freight Plans will be more useful for policymakers at all levels of
government and the public if States can provide more information in
advance about prioritized projects, including information about a
project's need for funding and potential funding streams.

Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees

Table of Contents

I. Background and Program Purpose
II. Policy
III. Funding
IV. State Freight Advisory Committees
V. State Freight Plans--Required Elements
VI. State Freight Plans--Optional Elements
VII. Other Encouragements
VIII. Data and Analytical Resources for State Freight Planning

I. Background and Program Purpose

    The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the
implementation of 49 U.S.C. 70201 (State Freight Advisory Committees)
and 70202 (State Freight Plans), as established under the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; Pub. L. 114-94). These
concepts were initially introduced under sections 1117 and 1118,
respectively, of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141). 49 U.S.C. 70201 requires 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. 49 U.S.C. 70202 requires each State receiving
funding under 23 U.S.C. 167 (NHFP) to develop a comprehensive State
Freight Plans that include both immediate and long-term freight
planning activities and investments. Section 70202 specifies certain
minimum contents for State Freight Plans, and provides that such plans
may be developed separate from or be incorporated into the Long-Range
Statewide Transportation Plans required by 23 U.S.C. 135.
    The provisions for the State Freight Advisory Committees and State
Freight Plans described under MAP-21 and the FAST Act are similar in
content and scope, with some important distinctions. Unlike the
provisions in MAP-21, which only encouraged the development of State
Freight Plans,\6\ section 8001 of the FAST Act requires

that each State that receives NHFP funds under 23 U.S.C. 167 shall
develop a freight plan that provides a comprehensive plan for the
immediate and long-range planning activities and investments of the
State with respect to freight. State Freight Plans developed pursuant
to the FAST Act are multimodal in scope. For example, a State Freight
Plan is required to include a description of how the Plan will improve
the ability of the State to meet the national multimodal freight policy
goals described in 49 U.S.C. 70101(b), and if applicable, the State
Freight Plan must include multimodal critical rural freight facilities
and corridors designated within the State under 49 U.S.C. 70103. State
Freight Plans are meant to be comprehensive, and as such, they should
assist State planning that involves all relevant freight modes
(highway, rail, maritime, air cargo, and pipeline, as appropriate to
that State).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The only requirement for a State Freight Plan under MAP-21
was to gain eligibility for consideration for a higher federal match
for freight projects; this provision was repealed under the FAST
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 23 U.S.C. 167(i)(4), effective beginning 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the FAST Act, each State that plans to
obligate funds apportioned to the State under the NHFP must have
developed a State Freight Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 70202 (as
it relates to highways), though the multimodal components of the Plan
may be incomplete. In addition to the requirements for State Freight
Plans under MAP-21, each FAST Act-compliant Plan must include a
fiscally constrained freight investment plan and a list of the
multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors that the
State designates under 49 U.S.C. 70103 and the critical rural freight
corridors and critical urban freight corridors (if these have been
identified at the time of submission of the Plan) designated by the
State and MPOs under 23 U.S.C. 167. FHWA has issued separate guidance
on the implementation of 23 U.S.C. 167, which can be found here: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pol_plng_finance/policy/fastact/s1116nhfpguidance/.
    FHWA has also provided a detailed Questions and Answers document
that is available here: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pol_plng_finance/policy/fastact/s1116nhfpqa/.

II. Policy

    DOT 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. If a State
establishes a State Freight Advisory Committee, the State must consult
with its respective advisory committee while developing or updating its
State Freight Plan (49 U.S.C. 70202(b)(10)). Bringing together the
perspectives and knowledge of public and private partners, including
shippers, carriers, and infrastructure owners and operators, is
important to developing a comprehensive and relevant State Freight
Plan.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 70202, each State that receives funding for
the NHFP shall develop a comprehensive freight plan that provides for
the immediate and long-range planning activities and investments of the
State with respect to freight. Further, 23 U.S.C. 167(i)(4) specifies
that, notwithstanding any other provision of the FAST Act, effective
beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of the FAST Act (i.e.,
December 4, 2017), a State may not obligate funds apportioned to the
State under the NHFP unless the State has developed a freight plan in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 70202, except that the multimodal component
of the plan may be incomplete. State Freight Plans are required to be
updated no less frequently than every 5 years.
    DOT strongly encourages every State to develop a multimodal State
Freight Plan for reasons in addition to enabling long-term access to
funding under the NHFP. DOT understands that the effects of freight
transportation are often regional or national in scope, and because
freight providers own and operate private infrastructure, it can be
more difficult for States to incorporate freight projects into their
planning process than it is for projects that aid passenger
transportation. DOT strongly encourages States to consider the
performance and modal interaction of the overall freight system when
developing their State Freight Plans. State Freight Plans that consider
all the relevant transportation modes and performance measures
(congestion reduction, safety, infrastructure condition, economic
vitality, system reliability, and environmental sustainability) will be
more informed and lead to better outcomes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information on performance measures, particularly
on highways, please see www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 8001 of the FAST Act made important reforms to establish
and codify a National Multimodal Freight Policy, National Multimodal
Freight Network, multimodal State Freight Advisory Committees, and
State Freight Plans, which must address the goals of the National
Multimodal Freight Policy. The FAST Act greatly increases the
likelihood of widespread adoption of improved freight transportation
planning and implementation by creating dedicated sources of freight
funding with multimodal eligibility. Because freight transportation is
critical to the economic vitality of the United States and now has a
source of dedicated funding through the FAST Act, renewed attention to
planning and investing for safe and efficient freight transportation
will have strong positive effects on the welfare of Americans and the
competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.
    State Freight Plans can help States contribute to the goals of the
National Multimodal Freight Policy in 49 U.S.C. 70101(b) and the goals
of the NHFP in 23 U.S.C. 167(b). DOT believes strongly that these goals
provide essential direction and support for the improvement of freight
transportation across all modes.
    The State Freight Plans can also be used to communicate the freight
performance measurement targets established pursuant to MAP-21,
progress and strategies to goal achievement, any extenuating
circumstances or other information relevant to this regulatory
requirement. [Note: At the time of the release of this Guidance, the
comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the freight
performance measures was open and DOT was soliciting input on the
proposed measures.\8\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Federal Highway Administration, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program, 81 FR 23806 (April 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State Freight Plan may be developed as a separate document
from, or incorporated into, the Long-Range Statewide Transportation
Plan required by 23 U.S.C. 135. If the State Freight Plan is separate
from the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan,\9\ both the State
Freight Plan and the Long-Range Statewide Plan should explain how the
projects and actions listed in the State Freight Plan are compatible
with and reflected in the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan. If
the two plans are combined, the Long-Range Statewide Transportation
Plan should include a separate section focused on freight
transportation and must include the elements specified in 49 U.S.C.
70202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f) (Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the flexibility provided by this guidance to States
regarding State Freight Plans, DOT will be reviewing State Freight
Plans separately from the Long-Range Statewide Transportation and State
Rail Plans, which are governed by other statutes. For

consideration of compliance with FAST Act provisions of State Freight
Plans, States should submit their State Freight Plans to the Federal
Highway Division Office in their State. DOT will review the freight
plans for compliance with 49 U.S.C. 70202 and will use them to
determine whether a State is eligible to continue to obligate NHFP
funds after December 4, 2017.
    DOT released a multimodal, draft National Freight Strategic Plan
for public comment on October 18, 2015 (see http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOT-OST-2015-0248). DOT is updating the draft National
Freight Strategic Plan to comply with the requirements under 49 U.S.C.
70102, as enacted by the FAST Act, and to incorporate public comments
received. The final National Freight Strategic Plan will be based on
the national goals and priorities set forth in 49 U.S.C. 70101, but has
and will continue to incorporate, to the extent possible, issues and
trends identified in State Freight Plans to capture State and local
priorities.

III. Funding

    Authorization level under the FAST Act: There is no formula or
discretionary funding specifically designated for State Freight Plans
or to establish or operate State Freight Advisory Committees.
Nevertheless, there are several resources with eligibility to assist in
the activities that support these elements of the FAST Act.
    States may use funding apportioned under the Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program (23 U.S.C. 133) for developing State Freight Plans,
as well as funding set aside from apportioned programs for the State
Planning and Research Program (23 U.S.C. 505). Similarly, States can
use funds from the new NHFP to support freight planning and outreach,
including efforts to develop or update State Freight Plans and support
State Freight Advisory Committees. They may also use carryover balances
from National Highway System (NHS) funds authorized under the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (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 that benefits the NHS in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135
(section 1104 of MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 103, eliminating the National
Highway System Program under section 103; however, the carryover
balances remain available for planning activities that benefit the
NHS).

IV. State Freight Advisory Committees

    DOT strongly recommends that States use a collaborative process for
freight planning that involves all of the relevant stakeholders acting
within or affected by the freight transportation system. To help
accomplish this and per guidance found in 49 U.S.C. 70201, DOT strongly
encourages States to establish, continue, or expand membership in State
Freight Advisory Committees. A forum of this type that is similar from
State to State will also facilitate the ability of public and private
stakeholders, including but not limited to cargo carriers and logistics
companies, and safety, community, energy, and environmental
stakeholders, to identify and engage the appropriate freight planning
organization in each State. However, DOT emphasizes that the
establishment of State Freight Advisory Committees is not required by
statute or by DOT. Each State has the option of establishing a State
Freight Advisory Committee at its own convenience and subject to its
own conditions, though pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 70201(b), the role of each
committee shall include at a minimum the items listed in section
70201(b).
    As specified in section 8001 of the FAST Act, State Freight
Advisory Committees should include representatives of a cross-section
of public and private sector freight stakeholders. These might include,
but are not limited to, representatives of the following:
     Ports;
     Freight railroads;
     Shippers, freight forwarders;
     Carriers, including carriers operating on their own
infrastructure (such as railroads and pipelines) and carriers operating
on publicly-owned infrastructure (such as airlines, railroads, trucking
companies, ocean carriers, and barge companies);
     Freight-related associations;
     Third-party logistics providers;
     Freight industry workforce;
     The transportation department of the State;
     MPOs, councils of government, regional councils,
organizations representing multi-State transportation corridors, tribal
governments, and local governments, and regional planning
organizations;
     Federal agencies;
     Independent transportation authorities, such as maritime
port and airport authorities of varying sizes, toll highway
authorities, and bridge and tunnel authorities;
     Safety partners and advocates
     State and local environmental and economic development
agencies;
     Other private infrastructure owners, such as pipelines;
     Hazardous material transportation providers;
     Representatives of environmental justice populations
potentially affected by freight movement;
     University Transportation Centers and other institutions
of higher education with experience in freight.
    The inclusion of freight carriers, freight associations, and
shipper and logistics companies in State Freight Advisory Committees is
essential, as much of the innovation in freight carriage, management,
and planning for future systems takes place among these organizations.
Planning for freight without consulting with these organizations would
constitute a significant gap in understanding the nature of freight
needs and concerns. Carriers should represent a range of sizes and
specialties, including full truck load, less than truckload, and small
package delivery services. Similarly, participation by shipper and
logistics companies of different sizes can provide critical information
about warehousing and distribution service needs.
    DOT strongly encourages States to include representatives from MPOs
in freight planning processes because many freight projects are located
within metropolitan areas. For that reason, MPOs and State DOTs must be
in agreement if such projects are to be included in STIPs and TIPs and
Long-Range Metropolitan and Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans.
Similarly, local governments, which often have land use authority in
locations of important freight activity, should be included. MPOs,
local governments, and civic organizations are concerned about
community impacts of freight projects and early collaboration with
those organizations during the freight project planning process can
help to address concerns and opportunities. For example, community
input and engagement with railroad representatives can help identify
existing or emerging impacts of growth in rail activity that affect
mobility, throughput, and safety at railway-roadway grade crossings.
This focus in a State Freight Advisory Committee can help inform
strategies and identify areas for investment in a State Freight Plan to
resolve conflicts and improve Ladders of Opportunity in communities.
Similarly, the inclusion of independent transportation authorities,
such as maritime port and airport authorities, toll highway
authorities, and bridge and tunnel authorities will help minimize the
fragmentation of

planning that often occurs due to different authorities acting
independently.
    The FAST Act made important changes to the Tribal Transportation
Program, including (but not limited to) the creation of the Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program (section 1121 of the FAST Act;
23 U.S.C. 207) that extends many of the self-governance provisions of
Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
to transportation. Representation of tribal governments in State
freight planning is essential to development of a comprehensive State
Freight Plan.
    State DOTs already coordinate State involvement in both freight and
passenger rail operations, and as required under section 330 of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), develop FRA-
accepted State Rail Plans. Rail, highway, and other modal divisions
(pipeline safety, maritime/ports, and aviation airports) within the
State DOT, or in other agencies of the State government, should be
represented if deemed appropriate by the State. States should also
consider the inclusion of other State agencies, including those engaged
in law enforcement and emergency planning, which may have the authority
to regulate and enforce speed limits on roads and highways, issue
permits for higher-weight truck movements and longer combination
vehicles (tractor-trailer combinations with two or more trailers) on
State roads, and plan for emergency operations. Participation of
Federal and State environmental agencies may prove useful in helping
project sponsors anticipate and mitigate potential environmental issues
that could arise from freight projects. Additionally, these agencies
establish and enforce air and water regulations that have important
effects on freight transportation. Joint planning with multiple
participants within the framework of State Freight Advisory Committees
can facilitate better solutions and prevent future conflicts.
    States are encouraged to invite representatives from neighboring
States and nations (Canada and Mexico, and their subordinate Provinces
and States, as appropriate) to participate in State Freight Advisory
Committees. They should also consider inviting councils of government
and regional councils (if not already represented through the MPO),
organizations representing multi-State transportation corridors, and
other local and regional planning organizations to participate.
Participation by Federal government representatives is also encouraged.
These participants can play an important role in coordinating planning
and funding for larger freight projects that extend beyond the
boundaries of MPOs and States. Similarly, participation by regional
economic development offices and State or regional Chambers of Commerce
can be beneficial. These organizations may also have recommendations
for other participants.
    Representatives from the freight transportation industry workforce
are critical participants in the freight planning process.
Transportation workers provide input in identifying bottlenecks and
other inefficiencies, safety problems, methods to respond to freight
labor shortages, truck parking capacity and information needs,
applications of new technologies, and other factors. Similarly,
independent transportation experts, including academic specialists and
industry consultants are valuable additions to the planning effort.
    In all cases, DOT expects that State Freight Advisory Committee
participation will vary from State to State and acknowledges that
available funding, State DOT resources, and specific characteristics of
a State's freight infrastructure will lead to significant differences
in the size and composition of such Committees.
    The FAST Act directs that State Freight Advisory Committees shall:
     Advise the State on freight-related priorities, issues,
projects, and funding needs;
     Serve as a forum for discussion of State transportation
decisions affecting freight mobility;
     Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with other
organizations (for example, among a State's DOT, MPOs, tribal and other
local planning organizations);
     Promote the sharing of information between the private and
public sectors on freight issues; and
     Participate in the development of the State Freight Plan.
    DOT notes that the multimodal, multiagency mix of participants
recommended above offers an excellent forum for the exchange of
information needed to develop the required components of the State
Freight Plan (described in more detail below), such as in the
identification of significant freight system trends, needs, and issues
with respect to the State; a description of how innovative technologies
and operational strategies, including freight intelligent
transportation systems, that improve the safety and efficiency of
freight movement are considered (the private sector is leading the way
in the deployment of connected, automated and autonomous systems);
creating an inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such
as bottlenecks; development of strategies to mitigate that congestion
or delay; and development of freight investment plans that combine
public and private funding.
    The identification of problems and opportunities in a multimodal
forum can lead to innovative solutions that may never rise to the level
of a State Freight Plan priority. By facilitating State, MPO, and local
government access to highly skilled agency and private freight
expertise, the Committee focuses and facilitates government efforts to
incorporate freight into day-to-day planning efforts and raise the
visibility of freight issues to levels not previously achieved. For
this reason, DOT recommends that State Freight Advisory Committees meet
on a regular basis, not solely for the purpose of developing or
revising a State Freight Plan.
    DOT notes that if a State is establishing or updating a State
Freight Plan and also has opted to create a State Freight Advisory
Committee, 49 U.S.C. 70202 requires that the State must consult with
its State Freight Advisory Committee on the State Freight Plan. DOT
believes that it will in almost all cases be more constructive to
prepare a useful State Freight Plan based on State Freight Advisory
Committee review and input. The FAST Act does not require, however,
that a State Freight Advisory Committee be established or provide its
approval for a State Freight Plan to become final. As such, the
authority of the State to go forward with a State Freight Plan is not
diminished by establishing a Committee. A State Freight Advisory
Committee is advisory in nature and is not subject to Federal open
meeting laws, though State open meeting laws may apply. DOT strongly
encourages States to conduct State Freight Advisory Committee business
in an open manner so that interested persons are able to observe any
meeting of the Committee and be afforded opportunities to provide
input.
    The FAST Act, through 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2), provides that the
Federal Highway Administrator, in re-designating the Primary Highway
Freight System, shall provide an opportunity for State Freight Advisory
Committees, as applicable, to submit additional route miles for
consideration. Similarly, 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(2)(j) authorizes the Under
Secretary of Transportation to consider recommendations by State
Freight Advisory Committees for facilities to be

included on the National Multimodal Freight Network. DOT notes that
States are not statutorily constrained from placing requirements in the
charters of their State Freight Advisory Committees to require State
consensus with such Committee recommendations for such facilities to
the Under Secretary or the Administrator.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The charter for the California Freight Advisory Committee
(http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ogm/CFAC/Final_CFAC_Charter_062813_3.pdf) is one example of a State Freight
Advisory Committee charter that conforms to good practice, providing
for committee membership, responsibilities, frequency of meetings,
decision processes, reporting, etc. States can, of course, vary from
this format, but DOT strongly recommends the development of a
charter document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. State Freight Plans--Required Elements

    Beginning on December 4, 2017, to be eligible to obligate Federal
funds provided through the NHFP (23 U.S.C. 167), the FAST Act requires
that a State has developed a State Freight Plan that provides a
comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-range planning activities
and investments of the State with respect to freight (49 U.S.C. 70202),
except that multimodal elements of the plan need not be complete (23
U.S.C. 167(i)(4)).
    DOT recognizes that many States have recently published State
Freight Plans or are in the process of updating their State Freight
Plans to be compliant with MAP-21 requirements. DOT emphasizes that
those Plans can be updated (including by amendment) to be compliant
with the FAST Act requirements. The required elements of State Freight
Plans under section 1118 of MAP-21 and under 49 U.S.C. 70202, as
amended by the FAST Act, are similar and are listed below. However,
there are several additional requirements added under the FAST Act,
meaning that all MAP-21 compliant State Freight Plans must be updated
to include these requirements if they are not already in the plans.
These new requirements have been highlighted in bold:
    1. An identification of significant freight system trends, needs,
and issues with respect to the State;
    2. A description of the freight policies, strategies, and
performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation
investment decisions of the State;
    3. When applicable, a listing of--
     multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors
designated within the State under section 70103 of title 49 (National
Multimodal Freight Network);
     critical rural and urban freight corridors designated
within the State under section 167 of title 23 (National Highway
Freight Program);
    4. A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the
State to meet the national multimodal freight policy goals described in
section 70101(b) of title 49, United States Code and the national
highway freight program goals described in section 167 of title 23;
    5. A description of how innovative technologies and operational
strategies, including freight intelligent transportation systems, that
improve the safety and efficiency of the freight movement, were
considered;
    6. In the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles
(including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber
vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of
the roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to
reduce or impede the deterioration;
    7. An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as
bottlenecks, within the State, and for those facilities that are State
owned or operated, a description of the strategies the State is
employing to address those freight mobility issues;
    8. Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by
freight movements and any strategies to mitigate that congestion or
delay;
    9. A freight investment plan that, subject to 49 U.S.C. 70202(c),
includes a list of priority projects and describes how funds made
available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 167 would be invested and matched; and
    10. Consultation with the State Freight Advisory Committee, if
applicable.
    State Freight Plans issued prior to section 1118 of MAP-21 may need
substantial modification to comply with the FAST Act if they were not
previously updated for MAP-21. In this instance, issuance of a new
consolidated FAST Act-compliant State Freight Plan is strongly
encouraged; however, the new plan could make extensive use of material
from a prior State Freight Plan.
    The action of amending or updating a State Freight Plan to comply
with the FAST Act will constitute a formal update of the plan and would
restart the clock for submitting an updated State Freight Plan, which
must be updated at least once every 5 years.
    DOT wishes to emphasize that the elements listed in 49 U.S.C. 70202
(which are shown above) are the only required elements of State Freight
Plans. Each element, as it relates to highways, must be addressed if a
State wishes to obligate NHFP funds available under 23 U.S.C. 167 after
December 4, 2017. Note that if a State wishes to obligate NHFP funds
for a freight intermodal or freight rail project, that project must be
included in the fiscally constrained freight investment plan as well.
As long as State Freight Plans cover the required elements, they may be
organized in any structure that works best for individual States.
    For States that have neither developed nor recently updated their
State Freight Plan to reflect MAP-21 requirements and are looking for a
possible model to address the FAST Act requirements, DOT suggests the
following structure as a possible, but not mandated, model that States
can follow to address all of the statutorily required criteria:
    1. Identification and Inventory of Freight System:
    a. An identification of significant freight system trends, needs,
and issues with respect to the State;
    b. An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as
bottlenecks, within the State;
    c. When applicable, a listing of--
    i. Multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors
designated within the State under section 70103 of title 49; and
    ii. Critical rural and urban freight corridors designated within
the State under 23 U.S.C. 167;
    2. Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by
freight movements and any strategies to mitigate that congestion or
delay;
    3. Description of Policies, Goals and Strategies:
    a. A description of the freight policies, strategies, and
performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation
investment decisions of the States;
    b. A description of how the Plan will improve the ability of the
State to meet the National Multimodal Freight Policy goals described in
49 U.S.C. 70101(b) and the NHFP goals described in 23 U.S.C. 167(b);
    c. In the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles
(including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber
vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of
the roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to
reduce or impede the deterioration;
    d. For those facilities that are State-owned or operated, a
description of the strategies the State is employing to address the
freight mobility issues;
    e. A description of strategies to mitigate any significant
congestion or delay caused by freight movements;
    f. A description of how innovative technologies and operational
strategies,

including freight intelligent transportation systems, that improve the
safety and efficiency of freight movement, were considered;
    4. A freight investment plan that, subject to 49 U.S.C. 70202(c),
includes a list of priority projects and describes how funds made
available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 167 would be invested and matched;
\11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ States must include in their State Freight Plan any
facility, highway or otherwise, on which they intend to use NHFP
funding, in that 23 U.S.C. Section 167(i)(5)(ii) requires an
eligible project for such funding to be identified in a freight
investment plan included in a freight plan of the State that is in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Demonstration of consultation with the State Freight Advisory
Committee, if applicable.
    This optional organizational scheme does not change or reduce the
statutorily-required elements of the State Freight Plan, but merely
provides one possible structure that allows for consolidation of
related elements and information. As noted previously, States have
flexibility to follow any structure they wish as long as they contain
the statutorily required elements noted above.

VI. State Freight Plans--Optional Elements

    DOT reiterates that the only elements that State Freight Plans must
include are those identified in the statute and outlined in the
previous section ``V. STATE FREIGHT PLANS--Required Elements.'' This
section (SECTION VI) suggests optional methods by which States might
respond to the above requirements and identifies a number of other
items that States may consider including in their State Freight Plans.
These items have been identified through a review of research papers,
studies of best industry practices, and State Freight Plans that were
completed immediately following MAP-21. DOT is providing this
information to help inform each State's freight planning process; but
ultimately, it is up to each State to determine which if any of these
additional elements to include.
    A State Freight Plan must address a 5-year forecast period,
although DOT strongly encourages an outlook of two decades or more.
While the FAST Act provides that ``A State freight plan described in
subsection (a) shall address a 5-year forecast period'' (49 U.S.C.
70202(d)), the Act also states that the plan should provide ``a
comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-range planning activities
and investments of the State with respect to freight'' (49 U.S.C.
70202(a)). In almost all transportation planning exercises, long-range
planning necessarily exceeds a period of 5 years. DOT notes that a
freight plan horizon of only 5 years would not enable States to do more
than list present problems and projects already in the development
pipeline, without respect to longer-term trends and new technologies.
In summary, whereas a planning forecast of 5 years is sufficient (and
must be provided) to meet the statutory requirement, longer outlooks
supplementing the five year forecast are strongly recommended for the
overall State Freight Plan--if possible, corresponding at least to the
20-year outlook of the Long-Range Metropolitan and Long-Range Statewide
Transportation Plans. Carefully developed forecasts of freight
movements will be essential to the success of a freight plan whether it
cover a 5-year period, a 20-year period or longer timeframe. For
example, it will be important to have accurate estimates of freight
moving along a particular corridor and the numbers of trucks, trains,
etc. associated with moving that freight in an efficient manner in
order to select the most appropriate project or projects for that
corridor. Improved freight travel modeling is necessary for estimating
freight emissions accurately and to better inform alternatives analysis
for freight projects, including multi-modal freight planning. To assist
States in long term freight planning Section VIII of this guidance
contains a number of data and analysis sources that may prove useful.
DOT continues to support further improvements in freight modeling
through its freight model improvement program.
    A special exception to this guidance on a 20-year outlook periods
applies to the fiscally constrained Freight Investment Plan component
of the State Freight Plan (49 U.S.C. 70202(c)), which addresses the
NHFP funding timeframe and can be updated more frequently than the
five-year requirement for the entire State Freight Plan. Fiscal
constraint requires that revenues in transportation planning and
programming (Federal, State, local, and private) are identified and
``are reasonably expected to be available'' to implement the Long-Range
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the STIP/TIP, while providing for
the operation and maintenance of the existing highway and transit
systems. In addition, revenues must be ``available or committed'' for
the first 2 years of a TIP/STIP in air quality nonattainment and
maintenance areas (23 CFR 450.324(e) and 23 CFR 450.216(a)(5)). Long-
Range Statewide Transportation Plans are not required to be fiscally
constrained, however; and in some cases, States may not be able to
provide a fiscally-constrained state-wide list of freight projects
exceeding the planning period of the STIP. Thus, DOT recommends the
Freight Investment Plan, at a minimum, be carefully aligned with the
TIP and STIP documents for the respective State. Aligning this
investment plan with the above-referenced documents enhances the
State's ability to better prioritize their freight projects and ensures
coordination between the State DOT and the MPOs. States may opt to
extend the period of their Freight Investment Plans to longer
intervals, including 20-year periods that correspond to the Statewide
and metropolitan long-range plans, if this would help them for freight-
planning purposes.
    The FAST Act does not provide instructions on the volume of the
information to be included or the thoroughness of a State Freight Plan.
DOT notes that the contents of the State Freight Plan and its necessary
components should comply with what a State determines is needed to
guide planning and investment activities. Many States have already
prepared State Freight Plans in response to section 1118 of MAP-21 that
provide extensive multimodal and other useful information in keeping
with the goal of improving their freight planning. DOT supports these
State efforts to improve their freight planning and invites the
inclusion of any aspects of freight planning that a State believes add
value to its planning effort in addition to addressing the required
components of the FAST Act.
    DOT has organized this section around the statutory requirements of
49 U.S.C. 70202 to provide context for where optional elements can
supplement the required elements. Bold items are the statutory
requirements described in Section V; non-bold items are the optional
elements, or clarifying statements.
    1. An identification of significant freight system trends, needs,
and issues with respect to the State;
    States have broad flexibility in addressing the trends, needs, and
issues of their freight systems. To enhance the identification of these
issues, DOT recommends, but does not require, that the State Freight
Plan begin with a discussion of the role that freight transportation
plays in the State's overall economy, and how the economy is projected
to grow or change. This section could identify those industries which
are most important to the economy of the State and the specific freight
transportation modes and facilities most vital to the supply chains

of these industries. The discussion could address the key issues
confronting the freight system, both in the present and anticipated in
the future, such as needs to improve safety and reduce impacts of
freight movement on communities, particularly minority and low-income
communities, and the environment, as well as future transportation
labor force challenges. This could include assessing the following: The
benefits and burdens of freight movements, including air quality,
noise, and vibration impacts; effects on community connectivity and
cohesion; impacts of longer and more frequent trains at roadway/rail
grade crossings; truck parking capacity and information; hazardous
material transportation and emergency response capability; and areas
with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Many of these
issues can be identified through the State Freight Advisory Committee
(if one has been established). In most instances, the State will also
have identified critical freight issues in studies conducted through
State agencies, MPOs, and academic or research institutions.
Additionally, there are many national studies (such as through the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science,
Engineering and Medicine) and frequently, local case studies that focus
on emerging freight problems, such as last mile delivery issues, that
will be relevant to many States.
    The following are possible items to consider when identifying the
economic trends and forecasts that will affect freight: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ There are many Transportation Research Board publications
that can assist States in evaluation freight system trends and
needs. Among them are NCFRP Report 8, Freight-Demand Modeling to
Support Public-Sector Decision Making; NCHRP Report 606, Forecasting
Statewide Freight Toolkit; NCHRP Report 388, A Guidebook for
Forecasting Freight Transportation Demand; SHRP 2 Capacity Project
C43, Innovations in Freight Demand Modeling and Data Improvement;
NCHRP Report 750, Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 1:
Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure
Investment; and others. (See: http://www.trb.org/FreightTransportation/FreightTransportation2.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Global, national, regional, and local economic conditions
and outlooks, particularly those of the State, neighboring States or
countries, and principal trading partners;
     Population growth and location;
     Income and employment by industry and service sector,
including the expected employment by each sector of the transportation
industry;
     Freight attributes of industry and service sectors
(including heavy freight, less than truckload freight, and small
package delivery);
     Type, value, and quantity of imports and exports;
     Industrial and agricultural production forecasts; and
     Forecasts of freight movements by commodity type and
location, including small package deliveries associated with e-
commerce, and projected port or rail freight activity.
    DOT notes that when there is a high degree of uncertainty about
future economic, industrial, and technological conditions, (e.g.,
changing energy markets, deployment of connected and autonomous freight
vehicles), approaches, such as scenario planning, can help to develop
alternative outlooks and investments that can accommodate more than one
future outlook.
    DOT recommends that the State Freight Plan describe the conditions
and performance of the State's freight transportation system, including
trends in conditions and performance. This analysis, if the State
chooses to do it, would help to identify needs for future investment
within the State. If a State has already conducted an analysis of the
conditions and performance of its overall public infrastructure, that
analysis could be referenced or incorporated into the State Freight
Plan in so far as it pertains to the freight system.\13\ Similarly,
States may be able to develop such measures from State asset management
systems, Highway Performance Monitoring System data, Level of Service
data from Transportation Management Centers, National Performance
Management Research Data Sets (NPMRDS), or other sources. It is
recommended that the performance measures used correspond to those
required under Item 2 (``A description of freight policies, strategies,
and performance measures'') below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Section 1203 of MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 150 to require the
establishment of performance management measures, some of which
pertain specifically to freight movement. As of the issuance of this
State Freight Plan guidance, some of these measures have not yet
been finalized. For the purpose of the optional presentation of
conditions and performance in the State Freight Plan, States may use
any measure of conditions and performance already in use in the
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information on the condition and performance of private
infrastructure is also encouraged, although it is acknowledged that
this information is more difficult to obtain. State Rail Plans and
other sources could be used to gather information on some aspects of
freight rail and rail bridge data (e.g., miles and locations of freight
rail that can carry cars weighing 286,000 pounds or greater, tunnel
heights adequate for double stack rail cars, dual track sections).
Similarly, States may have commissioned reports on port and waterway
conditions, or may be able to establish performance conditions. Metrics
for States to assess truck parking capacity are offered for
consideration in the summary report on the Jason's Law survey,
available here: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/truck_parking/jasons_law/truckparkingsurvey/index.htm.
    Data on port and waterway conditions and performance may also be
available from port authorities, in Port Master Plans, or from
automatic identification systems (AIS) for vessels and Global
Positioning System (GPS) probe data for trucks in port areas and
operating on port access roads. More information about performance data
for measuring mobility for non-highway modes is provided in Item 7,
``An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues,'' below.
    DOT acknowledges, however, that the FAST Act does not specifically
require condition and performance data in State Freight Plans. States
are not required or expected to undertake such an evaluation solely for
the purpose of informing the State Freight Plan.
    2. A description of freight policies, strategies, and performance
measures that will guide the freight-related transportation investment
decisions of the State;
    This section of the State Freight Plan is important for providing
the overall approach the State will take to address the challenges
described in the preceding section. The policies and strategies in the
State Freight Plan are likely to reflect a mix of State legislative
direction, discretionary decisions by State DOTs and other State
agencies, decisions by other States, plans by MPOs, local and tribal
governments, special transportation authorities (including port,
airport, and toll authorities); and the accommodation of plans by
private sector companies, such as railroads, marine terminal operators,
pipeline companies, trucking companies, and others. It is recommended
that the State Freight Plan also identify any statutory and State
constitutional constraints on freight-related investments and policies,
such as prohibitions on spending State funds on certain kinds of
infrastructure. The State could also discuss regional freight planning
activities in which the State participates, identify freight-related
institutions within the State, and explain the governance structures
and funding mechanisms for such institutions.
    DOT recommends that the State explain how it will measure the
success of its strategies, policies, and investments in achieving the
goals and

objectives of the Plan. Such measurements may be qualitative, but
preferably would be quantifiable and consistent with the measures (if
any) used by the State to describe the conditions and performance of
the freight infrastructure (including measures of pavement and bridge
condition, traffic congestion and travel time, safety, emissions and
water quality, and other factors). Where possible, the State should
consider the use of performance measures in the State Freight Plan that
are consistent with those used in other State planning documents and in
reports and grant requests submitted to the Federal government. These
would allow a State to determine if it is achieving its objectives and
to quantify and assess outputs and outcomes relative to expectations.
    3. When applicable, a listing of--
    a. Multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors
designated within the State under section 70103 of title 49; and
    b. Critical rural and urban freight corridors designated within the
State under section 167 of title 23;
    Compliance with this requirement of the FAST Act is
straightforward: If these corridors have been designated pursuant to
the FAST Act, they should be included in the State Freight Plan.
Therefore, Plans may need to be capable of being updated if or as these
corridors are changed or redesignated. DOT also suggests, but does not
require, States to provide an inventory of the State's freight
transportation assets, both publicly and privately owned, that it deems
most significant for its freight planning purposes. This optional list
could include elements not included in the National Highway Freight
Network or the National Multimodal Freight Network, such as locally
important freight roads and bridges not on these networks, short line
railroads, smaller border crossings, water (including port) facilities,
waterways, pipeline terminals, smaller airports, etc. It also could
include warehousing, freight transfer facilities, and foreign trade
zones located in the State.
    4. A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the
State to meet the national multimodal freight policy goals described in
section 70101(b) of title 49 and the national highway freight program
goals described in section 167 of title 23;
    DOT notes that the goals of the National Multimodal Freight Policy
are extensive and pertain to the National Multimodal Freight Network
(49 U.S.C. 70103). These goals are to:
    (1) Identify infrastructure improvements, policies, and operational
innovations that strengthen the contribution of the National Multimodal
Freight Network to the economic competitiveness of the United States,
reduce congestion and eliminate bottlenecks on the National Multimodal
Freight Network, and increase productivity, particularly for domestic
industries and businesses that create high-value jobs;
    (2) Improve the safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of
multimodal freight transportation;
    (3) Achieve and maintain a state of good repair on the National
Multimodal Freight Network;
    (4) Use innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability of the National Multimodal Freight Network;
    (5) Improve the economic efficiency and productivity of the
National Multimodal Freight Network;
    (6) Improve the reliability of freight transportation;
    (7) Improve the short- and long-distance movement of goods that
travel across rural areas between population centers, travel between
rural areas and population centers, and travel from the Nation's ports,
airports, and gateways to the National Multimodal Freight Network;
    (8) Improve the flexibility of States to support multi-State
corridor planning and the creation of multi-State organizations to
increase the ability of States to address multimodal freight
connectivity;
    (9) Reduce the adverse environmental impacts of freight movement on
the National Multimodal Freight Network; and
    (10) Pursue the goals described in this subsection in a manner that
is not burdensome to State and local governments.
    The goals of the NHFP (23 U.S.C. 167(b)) are similar, but focus on
investing in infrastructure improvements and implementing operational
improvements on the highways of the United States.
    It is noteworthy that the National Multimodal Freight Policy goals
are more comprehensive of freight transportation issues than are the
required elements of State Freight Plans. States should strongly
consider emphasizing aspects of their State goals and strategies
intended to improve safety, security, and resiliency of the freight
system, including through the use of enhanced designs, technologies,
and multimodal strategies. Safety in particular is of paramount concern
to the public and policy makers with more than 4,500 freight-related
fatalities nationally in 2013.\14\ New technologies offer great
potential to reduce or even eliminate fatalities over the next several
decades, but more conventional investments in safety are also highly
effective in reducing accident risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Table 6.1 in Freight Facts and Figures 2015, http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/data_and_statistics/by_subject/freight/freight_facts_2015/chapter6/table6_1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It would be particularly informative to address how the State is
addressing the role of climate change, which is increasingly likely to
adversely affect the safety, reliability, and resiliency of the freight
transportation system. Similarly, strong consideration should be given
to describing how the State plans to mitigate the effects of freight
transportation on communities, particularly minority and low-income
communities, and the environment. They are encouraged to discuss plans
to reduce noise, vibration, air, light pollution, barriers to movements
in communities, etc. and provide information on freight investments
that are intended to support economic opportunities for disadvantaged
and low-income individuals, veterans, seniors, youths, and others with
local workforce training, employment centers, health care, and other
vital services.
    Although not cited as a component of the National Multimodal
Freight Policy or the NHFP goals, States are invited to provide
information on how they will seek to develop and maintain an adequate
workforce for the freight transportation industry, including
opportunities for small and disadvantaged business enterprises.
    DOT recommends that these goals be addressed sequentially in the
State Freight Plan, but this is not mandatory. Where possible, DOT
recommends that State goals and policies (addressed under Item 2, ``A
description of freight policies, strategies, and performance
measures,'' above) should be associated with comparable components of
the National Multimodal Freight Policy and the NHFP. DOT also
recommends that each State identify which goals it believes to be most
important and merit the largest focus. DOT acknowledges that a State
may not have specific goals or investments pertaining to all elements
of the National Multimodal Freight Policy or the NHFP and notes that
this is not required for a compliant State Freight Plan.
    5. A description of how innovative technologies and operational
strategies, including freight intelligent transportation systems, that
improve the

safety and efficiency of freight movement, were considered;
    In the last few years, the deployment of advanced driver assistance
programs has accelerated rapidly. Connected autonomous vehicles,
including trucks, will become increasingly common in the coming
decades. Intermodal transfers will increasingly be automated at ports
and inland facilities. These and other technologies, including
intelligent transportation systems, promise to greatly improve the
safety and efficiency of freight and passenger movements. They will
enable freight carriers of all modes and passenger cars and trains to
make safer and more efficient use of existing infrastructure capacity
due to fewer collisions, more efficient and coordinated vehicle
operations, and the ability to rapidly route around congested
locations, including corridors with significant transit lines and high
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Freight mobility integration into
communities with Complete Streets policies can reduce bicycle and
pedestrian fatalities and injuries, and aid States in meeting new
Safety Performance Measures. Safety improvements are already being
realized through features such as automated braking and lane departure
warning systems, but impacts will become much more pronounced over the
next 10-20 years. As such, DOT strongly encourages States, when
developing or updating their State Freight Plans, to thoroughly explore
the abilities of these new technologies and how they will affect the
need to modify or expand existing infrastructure.
    The private sector has been leading the way with regard to
applications of advanced driver assistance systems, large data sets to
plan and coordinate vehicle and freight logistics, new vehicle and
engine technologies, unmanned aircraft and ground systems, and many
other innovative applications of technology. As such, it would be
remarkably difficult to develop a credible forecast of the use of
innovative technologies and operational strategies within a State or
across its borders without extensive consultation with private terminal
operators, freight carriers, third party logistics providers, academic
institutions, and other participants in the freight transportation
system. Forums such as State Freight Advisory Committees provide
excellent opportunities for State and other public entities to consult
with private interests to acquire information on their expected rate of
adoption of new technologies, how these technologies will impact the
freight system, and the means by with the public sector can best
accommodate them with infrastructure investments, intelligent
transportation system deployment investments, and regulatory support.
    Special studies done by agency experts, consultants, and State
academic institutions are a valuable source of information in the
development and deployment of Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle to
Infrastructure (V2I) technologies.\15\ Familiarity with the technology
plans of other neighboring States, including through participation in
their State Freight Advisory Committees or regional or corridor-based
freight groups, will help to promote the use of compatible intelligent
transportation systems for multistate system users. Ultimately,
however, consultation with private sector interests about these
technologies will help to ensure that public investments support
private needs both within the State and across multistate regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example: http://www.its.dot.gov/evaluation/evaluation_deployment.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles
(including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber
vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of
the roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to
reduce or impede the deterioration;
    The recent energy boom in the United States led to a tremendous
increase in the exploration and production of energy resources. The
heavy trucks and freight flows necessary to support the energy boom
have in some cases led to accelerated deterioration of roads and
bridges not originally built for large volumes of heavy trucks. These
adverse impacts can be significant. Movement of agricultural products,
lumber, and coal by trucks at overweight conditions can also contribute
to road and bridge damage, as can some heavy containers handled through
U.S. ports. Of course, not all States will be impacted in similar ways.
DOT recommends that State Freight Plans make use of existing research,
to the extent possible, to address the impacts of heavy vehicles.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, Texas DOT made use of information developed by
its Energy Sector Impacts Task Force and other sources to inform its
State Freight Plan. See the following for more information: Texas
Department of Transportation, Task Force on Texas' Energy Sector
Roadway Needs, Report to the Texas Transportation Commission,
December 13, 2012, http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/energy/final_report.pdf; Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Freight
Mobility Plan, Final, January 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the State Freight Plan should address the problems and
strategies to manage heavy freight vehicles on roadways. This analysis
can also consider the viability of shifting heavy freight to modes
other than highways. DOT recommends, but does not require, that the
State Freight Plan address special needs of waterways, ports, and
railways to accommodate vessels and trains used to move very heavy
resource-related materials.
    7. An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as
bottlenecks, within the State, and for those facilities that are State
owned or operated, a description of strategies the State is employing
to address the freight mobility issues;
    The statute does not provide specific instructions as to what
qualifies as a significant mobility impediment or bottleneck, leaving
this determination to the State. States have a significant degree of
flexibility to determine which facilities most concern them based on
methods they employ to measure mobility. State Freight Plans may
emphasize the identification of freight facilities that will likely be
on the National Highway Freight Network and the National Multimodal
Freight Network, but States are encouraged to identify any significant
intermodal connector/first- and last-mile or other mobility problems
even if not on these networks. States are strongly encouraged to
describe mobility issues associated with non-highway modes,
particularly when occurring on the National Multimodal Freight Network
established under the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. 70103). States are also
strongly encouraged to consider freight mobility areas occurring in
urban settings that affect multiple transportation users including
transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
    Performance measurement to understand freight flows and bottlenecks
is important for understanding where investments, both operational and
capital, could best help improve the freight network. In the discussion
of Item 1, ``An identification of significant freight system trends,''
DOT describes various forms of performance metrics available to States.
However, with regard to measuring freight mobility, DOT also recommends
consideration of methods that address the fluidity of freight movement
through the use of multimodal data and analysis to understand source to
destination freight trips. Many States have used truck probe data and
truck counts to evaluate freight performance at the facility level. DOT
and partners are making available resources for data and approaches to
help with fluidity analyses that better illuminate freight bottlenecks
at the system level, including through use of data provided

by the private sector. As of yet, however, applications of fluidity
measures are limited by a lack of data.
    Until consistent national-level freight fluidity data are
available, DOT notes that there are numerous potential sources of
information on facilities with freight mobility issues. One
particularly valuable resource is the State Freight Advisory Committee.
Public and private participants in the State Freight Advisory committee
will often have first-hand, specific data about freight mobility
problems in and on public and private facilities throughout the State.
A number of States, MPOs, and regional or corridor coalitions have
developed detailed studies of mobility problems and solutions. States
may also consult reports about the locations of major highway freight
bottlenecks issued periodically by the American Transportation Research
Institute (ATRI).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ATRI, Congestion Impact Analysis of Freight Significant
Highway Locations--2015, http://atri-online.org/2015/11/18/congestion-impact-analysis-of-freight-significant-highway-locations-2015/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information about railroad bottlenecks may be available in State
Rail Plans, or through consultation with railroads serving the State.
Similarly, MPOs can provide information about locations where railroad-
highway crossings or railroad-railroad crossings create congestion for
vehicles, trains, pedestrians, and non-motorized vehicles, including
bicycles. Railroad unions may be able to share important concerns about
bottlenecks. DOT notes that, because railroad freight and railroad-
highway grade crossing and separation projects are eligible for funding
under the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (FASTLANE
Grants) program and the NHFP, railroads will have significant new
incentives to participate in multimodal freight planning at a State,
MPO, and local level.
    Port authorities, either participating through State Freight
Advisory Committees, MPOs, or in direct consultation with the State,
can provide valuable information about mobility and other constraints
facing the port, including landside connections to highway and railroad
systems, as well as connections to inland waterway systems and
pipelines. Their Master Plans and other planning documents can also
provide forecasted volumes that are useful for predicting where future
mobility and other constraints may occur. In some States, the State DOT
is responsible for port investments and will already have mobility
issues identified. Port and maritime labor organizations, marine
terminal operators, barge and vessel operators, and maritime and port
industry associations can be accessed directly to identify facilities
with mobility constraints or collectively through State Freight
Advisory Committees.
    All aspects of the energy transportation pipeline industry are
regulated to some extent by Federal and State agencies, which may be
able to provide information on congested segments and facilities.
Similarly, pipeline operators and their associations may contribute
useful information. Potential methods to present solutions to the
mobility problems are identified in the next section, immediately
below.
    8. Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by
freight movements and any strategies to mitigate that congestion or
delay;
    Once locations of facilities with mobility impediments to freight
movement are identified, State DOTs may make quantitative or
qualitative assessments of delay to freight movements on both local and
network bases and the extent to which freight is a major contributor to
the delay. Strategies to address congestion and delay can be drawn from
any source preferred by the State, including pre-existing evaluations
and plans, but States are encouraged to consider network effects of
mitigation actions, and where possible, to look to a broad mix of
solutions, including adding multimodal capacity, improved intelligent
transportation systems and technological solutions, changed operating
procedures (e.g., longer port gate hours), incentives to use off-peak
delivery times, regulatory changes to eliminate impediments to improved
efficiency (e.g., removing regulatory barriers to connected autonomous
vehicles), and multimodal approaches to resolve freight congestion
problems.
    Consultation with the various parties participating in the State-
wide assessment of mobility impediments can yield essential information
about alternatives not previously considered, and, as noted earlier,
can inform States about rapidly emerging technology deployments in the
private sector. Private freight carriers may also share their plans to
address rail, port, waterway, pipeline, and air cargo capacity
problems, which may affect State plans for highway capacity projects
linked to these facilities or otherwise affected by them.
    9. A freight investment plan that, subject to 49 U.S.C.
70202(c)(2), includes a list of priority projects and describes how
funds made available to carry out section 167 of title 23 would be
invested and matched;
    As required in 49 U.S.C 70202(c)(2), the freight investment plan
component shall include a project, or identified phase of a project,
only if funding for completion of the project can be reasonably
anticipated to be available for the project within the time period
identified in the freight investment plan. In the State Freight Plan,
the term ``fiscally-constrained'' has the same meaning as is applied to
TIPs and STIPs. Multi-state projects would require coordination of the
States involved such that the project is accurately and consistently
reflected in each State's Freight Plan.
    All freight projects that are included in the State Freight Plan
and which involve the expenditure of public funds should necessarily be
included in TIPs, STIP, and be consistent with Long-Range Metropolitan
and Statewide Transportation Plans. To the extent that States have
prepared economic analysis for specific projects, DOT encourages States
to consider the results of those analyses when determining which
projects are included on their freight investment plan, and also to
refer to the results of benefit-cost analyses, as appropriate, when and
if the project is mentioned in the State Freight Plan.
    10. Consultation with the State Freight Advisory Committee, if
applicable.
    Each State should provide information summarizing its consultation
efforts with their State Freight Advisory Committee (if one has been
established). Possible methods of doing this are to reference or
summarize minutes of the meetings of the Committee with regard to
discussions of the State Freight Plan. Other methods are acceptable,
including the incorporation of a written position paper from the State
Freight Advisory Committee. DOT notes that there is no statutory
requirement that a State Freight Advisory Committee must approve a
State Freight Plan.

VII. Other Encouragements

    DOT encourages each State to designate a freight transportation
coordinator to facilitate effective communication with the FHWA
Division Office in that State regarding the submission of State Freight
Plans and freight investment plans. A point of contact can help
streamline information exchange with the operating administrations of
DOT and freight stakeholders, and help ensure that freight
transportation needs are given adequate consideration in the
transportation planning process. Within

a State Freight Plan, States may provide DOT with information as to how
they are organized to plan and implement freight programs across the
network of highways, rail lines, waterways, airports, maritime ports,
and distribution centers that constitute the multimodal freight system
in their State.
    This point of contact would also be useful in managing the flow of
information between the State and DOT on other FAST Act elements, such
as the designation of critical urban freight corridors, critical rural
freight corridors, changes to the Primary Highway Freight System, and
inputs to the National Freight Strategic Plan and National Multimodal
Freight Network. The DOT-designated Marine Highway Network is also
included on the Interim National Multimodal Freight Network, and the
State points of contact can request edits or amendments to that network
by contacting the Maritime Administration's Gateway Directors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Contact information for the Gateway Directors is available
at http://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/gateway-offices/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Data and Analytical Resources for State Freight Planning

    The operating administrations of DOT and other departments in the
U.S. Government provide a wide range of data and analysis resources 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

DOT Freight Web site: http://www.freight.dot.gov/
Freight Analysis Framework, incorporating data from the BTS Commodity
Flow Survey and TransBorder Freight Data; Census Foreign Trade
Statistics; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce
Statistics; and other sources: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/freight_transportation/faf and
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/index.htm
Commodity Flow Survey: http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/

Data on Demographics and Economic Censuses

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
National Transportation Atlas Database, GIS files across all modes:
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/index.html
State Statistics: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/state_transportation_statistics and http://gis.rita.dot.gov/StateFacts/
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
Data Sources Related to Freight Transportation: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/data_sources/index.htm
and http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/data_and_statistics/by_subject/freight.html
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
Examples of existing State Freight Plans (none are compliant with the
FAST Act as of the issuance of this draft guidance): http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/resources/frt_solutions/index.htm#freight_plans
Truck Parking Information and Metrics for Assessing Truck Parking
Capacity (Jason's Law): http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/truck_parking/index.htm

International Statistics

USA Trade Online--Census Foreign Trade Statistics: https://usatrade.census.gov/

International Trade Data and Analysis

http://trade.gov/data.asp
North American Transborder Freight Data: http://transborder.bts.gov/
programs/international/transborder/
Border Crossing/Entry Data: http://transborder.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_Index.html

Maritime Data and Statistics

Navigation Data Center, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/About/TechnicalCenters/WCSCWaterborneCommerceStatisticsCenter.aspx
Navigation Data Center, Vessel Entrances and Clearances, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers: http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/
Maritime Data and Statistics, U.S. Maritime Administration: http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm
St. Lawrence Seaway, under bilateral American and Canadian management:
https://www.seaway.dot.gov/publications/annual-reports and http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/seaway/facts/index.html

Rail Freight Resources and Statistics

The Preliminary National Rail Plan: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02695
The National Rail Plan Progress Report: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02696
Final State Rail Plan Guidance: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04760
Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive
Corridors: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04317
Discussion of the confidential Carload Waybill Sample and State access:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_waybill.html
Online highway-rail grade crossing investment analysis tool: http://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/
Web-Based Screening Tool for Shared-Use Rail Corridors: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0702

Safety Data

FRA Office of Safety: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx
Interactive mapping application that allows users to view aspects of
railroad infrastructure: http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/

Air Freight Statistics

FAA Aerospace forecasts: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/
Office of Airline Information: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/airline_information/index.html

Community Impacts

OST Ladders Site: https://www.transportation.gov/opportunity
FHWA Bicyclist/Pedestrian Design Resources: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/
EJ Screen: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016.
Anthony Foxx,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24862 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P