November 21, 2013 National Freight Advisory Committee Record of Meeting Minutes

National Freight Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

November 21, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), announced this public meeting of the National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) in a Federal Register (FR) notice published on November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67210).

Committee Members in Attendance

The second meeting of the NFAC was held at U.S. DOT Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on November 21, 2013. Tretha Chromey, DFO, called the meeting to order at 1:23 p.m. and introduced Chair Ann L. Schneider and Vice Chair Mortimer L. Downey. Chair Schneider presided over the meeting. The meeting was open to the public.

Chair Schneider said the NFAC had an aggressive agenda and noted that subcommittees would have time to work during a breakout session. In her opening, Chair Schneider echoed statements made by Deputy Secretary of Transportation John Porcari that when examining the freight system, including its challenges and opportunities, NFAC has an opportunity to establish a framework that supports the economic success and viability of future generations. Chair Schneider thanked U.S. DOT for selecting a varied, talented group of people who are prepared to provide recommendations for a National Freight Strategic Plan. Before turning to Vice Chair Downey, Chair Schneider also thanked the committee members and reminded them that they would have an opportunity during the subcommittee breakout session to discuss actionable items.

Vice Chair Downey also echoed statements made by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari and noted that the workshop, which had occurred over the past two days, made clear that the NFAC is serious about envisioning the future of the Nation’s freight system. Vice Chair Downey heard from some NFAC committee members that they would have preferred if the NFAC had conducted a visioning session six months ago, but that the subcommittee breakout sessions earlier in the week had provided a useful opportunity to flesh out this vision. Vice Chair Downey also reminded members that the U.S. DOT would like the NFAC to produce its recommendations quickly and efficiently.  

Chair Schneider thanked Vice Chair Downey and asked Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari for any additional remarks.

Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari thanked participants and noted that while the NFAC has a lot of work to do, good progress has been made on several early deliverables. Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari also urged NFAC to move forward on its interim recommendations. Given that reauthorization of a surface transportation funding bill is currently under discussion, NFAC’s interim deliverables are timely.

Chair Schneider thanked Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari and asked members to introduce themselves for the record. Chair Ann Schneider also recognized U.S. DOT’s leadership and administrators. She then invited congressional staffers from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to speak.

“Improving the Nation’s Freight Transportation System: Findings and Recommendations of the Special Panel on 21^st Century Freight Transportation”

Shant Boyajian, Counsel for the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Jim Kolb, Staff Director of Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Shant Boyajian thanked NFAC members for the opportunity to address NFAC on important work being conducted by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Special Panel on 21^st Century Freight Transportation. That work will lead toward reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, anticipated next year. Boyajian described Chairman Bill Shuster’s vision to look across all modes of transportation and make recommendations about how the system can function more safely and efficiently and how it can perform at a higher level. Freight is critical to the U.S. economy, businesses, and everyday lives of citizens, but for a variety of reasons freight mobility has been viewed through modal silos rather than from a system perspective.

The panel was charged with examining how the entire freight system functions cohesively and it worked hard over a six-month period to fulfill its charge. The panel held six hearings for a variety of representatives and heard from both traditional and nontraditional stakeholders regarding freight issues, including trucking firms, railroads, unions, as well as individuals who are reliant on the freight system for access to markets. The purposes of these hearings were to educate panel members and to develop a systematic series of recommendations to implement in the next bill that will improve the freight system.

Boyajian referenced the panel’s report: “Improving the Nation’s Freight Transportation System: Findings and Recommendations of the Special Panel on 21^st Century Freight Transportation.” He summarized the goals of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which are to expand the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) program, identify dedicated funds, and use those funds to support projects that will enhance the Nation’s freight system. There are challenges related to identifying revenues and finances for freight projects that are outside the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s jurisdiction, but the committee is working closely on those issues and others with the House Committee on Ways and Means’ Chairman Dave Camp.

Boyajian introduced Jim Kolb, who emphasized that the panel’s process to develop the final report departed from prior experiences. The panel was pleased with the open, bipartisan process used to develop the report, which included developing a joint witness list and participating in joint fieldtrips.  Ranking Member Nick Rahall agreed with Chairman Shuster to pass the transportation reauthorization bill by September 30^th of next year. Kolb also noted that there was overwhelming interest in participating in the panel. This interest reflects the importance of freight issues, the challenges that communities are facing, the impact of goods movement on local communities, and recognition of the importance of the Federal role in goods movement.

Kolb further emphasized that the final report was a consensus document that acknowledges the need for increased, robust investment to maintain and improve the freight system. The report supports legislation across all modes. The panel is also interested in the outcomes of NFAC and in U.S. DOT’s implementation of provisions associated with Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century (MAP-21).

Chair Schneider thanked Boyajian and Kolb for their discussion and opened the floor for questions. She referenced the panel’s six key recommendations, which were based on outcomes of public hearings, and which are very important for NFAC to consider as it moves forward. Boyajian commented that the panel appreciates the Nation’s priority to develop a multimodal national freight policy, as this aligns with one of the panel’s recommendations. Kolb added that a national policy is an overarching framework that both pulls together and feeds into the panel’s remaining five recommendations.

Conditions, Performance, and Data Subcommittee (CPD-SC) Co-Chair Anne Canby expressed interest in any insights or lessons learned from the panel that might inform NFAC as it considers the same issues in approaching freight from a systems perspective rather than individual modes. Boyajian acknowledged the challenge of a systems perspective, especially since modes are generally funded individually. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hopes to expand the PNRS program to fund multimodal projects specifically. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has not yet identified a solution and would be eager to hear NFAC’s recommendations for bridging this gap and for delivering projects. Kolb added that U.S. DOT is organized into modal administrations with separate funding streams and the panel hoped to break down those silos.

Stephen Alterman asked about how appropriators and authorizers have been involved in the panel’s work as it relates to funding issues. Kolb responded that when there has been a dedicated revenue stream for transportation, appropriators have historically supported the authorized funding levels. Those discussions typically occur at the time of legislation.

Project Delivery and Operations Subcommittee (PDO-SC) Co-Chair Fran Inman commended the panel for its six-month turnaround and asked whether the panel will continue to convene since the work is continually evolving. Boyajian noted that the panel was constrained to working within a six-month period. While the panel does not currently exist as a formal entity, the members have continued to discuss the issues in informal settings. Additionally, Boyajian expects that freight mobility will be key priority in the next reauthorization bill. As part of the reauthorization process, there will be several additional hearings and listening sessions during which the freight community will have opportunities to provide input.

Congress called for a comprehensive freight transportation policy that directs U.S. DOT to designate a national multimodal freight network. Vice Chair Downey asked how this policy fits into MAP-21 work that is currently underway. Boyajian noted that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is cognizant of the limitations present in MAP-21 regarding the primary freight network designations. He cited recommendations from the panel’s final report that encourage expanding the network beyond highway modes and identifying key facilities across all modes that facilitate goods movement. It is important to identify those facilities and resources to determine which may be eligible for funding in a future, expanded PNRS program.

José Holguín-Veras asked about how the panel viewed the roles of the first and last miles in a freight system. Boyajian responded that the panel was originally formed to address issues of developing first- and last-mile infrastructure. Some of the panel’s recommendations address first- and last-mile issues, such as congestion at intermodal transfer facilities.

Regarding funding for PNRS, Brad Hildebrand asked about criteria for prioritizing projects and about how the public and private sectors can work together to identify high-priority freight projects across all modes. Kolb recognized the challenge of prioritizing freight projects and stated that Congress has not yet developed a process for evaluating and prioritizing projects. He suggested the following potential selection criteria: financing package, types of facilities, volume of goods moving through, and alignment of project objectives to the objectives of a national, multimodal freight plan. The PNRS program existed in the past as an earmark. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) included effective language on selection criteria. Boyajian added that developing selection criteria is a difficult task and asked NFAC members to either individually or collectively provide input on how PNRS should be selected if they cannot be specifically named in an earmark.

Kristin Decas asked whether Congress shared NFAC’s sense of urgency given competing congressional priorities. Boyajian said the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure achieved consensus on its recommendations because all members recognize the importance of the work. Kolb added that there is agreement regarding the Federal role in freight and constitutional responsibility over freight. The question of how to translate that recognition into funding is a separate discussion.

Genevieve Giuliano noted NFAC’s aim to address technology and how this assists goods movement. She asked where technology fits into the panel’s recommendations. Boyajian said the Subcommittee on Highway and Transit has expressed interest in exploring expanded uses of innovative technologies to facilitate mobility and to increase safety. Even though autonomous trucks are years from development, there are other tactics such as smart ramps and metering that offer lower-cost solutions to congestion and are not being utilized to the full extent that they could be.

Research, Innovation, and Technology Subcommittee (RIT-SC) Co-Chair Terry Button asked about the panel’s short-term solutions for addressing the $132 billion deficit in infrastructure investment. Boyajian responded that Chairman Shuster realizes that it is essential to identify real revenues so that the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) does not run out of funds in 2015. Chairman Shuster meets regularly with the House Committee on Ways and Means to discuss the major issue of addressing the HTF’s solvency. House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Camp recognizes this issue and understands that Congress cannot use the general fund to bail out the HTF.

David Long asked about how the panel’s recommendations relate to global economic performance and exports. Boyajian responded that increasing the safety and efficiency of the network domestically will lower costs of moving products overseas. He welcomed further input from the Department of Commerce in structuring programs to help American businesses that create jobs.

Paul Kelly observed that while the HTF has a deficit, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) has a surplus of funds that are not being spent for their intended use of dredging U.S. ports. Jim Kolb said the panel recommended increasing investments funded through the HMTF, which should spend down its existing surplus as well as incoming revenues.

Canby returned to the discussion regarding the PNRS. She asked whether the panel anticipated any issues in terms of using the HTF to fund non-highway projects. Kolb noted that the language in the original bill allows funding for projects outside of typical highway user benefits and suggested that multimodal projects may be eligible for funding as well.

Chair Schneider thanked Boyajian and Kolb again for their time and thanked the NFAC members for engaging in a lively discussion. She announced that the NFAC would soon disperse for the subcommittee breakout sessions and provided direction for the subcommittee discussions. She asked subcommittees to discuss and report back on the following items:

• Should the NFAC provide collective comments on the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network (PFN), especially if U.S. DOT is able to extend the comment period?
• What are timely, interim recommendations that the subcommittees can make today or between today and the next NFAC meeting?
• What are two or three key focus areas for each subcommittee moving forward?

Chair Schneider reminded the members that in developing their work plans, they should be cognizant that U.S. DOT staff must participate either physically or virtually in all meetings, including in-person meetings that the subcommittees may schedule between full NFAC meetings. The purpose of the work plans is to identify information needs and common areas of interest so that U.S. DOT can coordinate the dissemination of printed or presented materials.

Kevin Brubaker, Safety, Security and Environment (SSE)-SC Co-Chair, asked about what opportunity the subcommittees have for proposing recommendations to the full NFAC during the meeting and about the deadline for deliverables, including the work plan. Chair Schneider clarified that the subcommittees would have the opportunity to present two or three topic areas around which they would later develop recommendations. Once a subcommittee reports its recommendations, the full NFAC can assess whether these are good recommendations to pursue and the subcommittee can then develop the language in advance of the next meeting. Regarding the work plan, subcommittees have until mid-December to submit that deliverable.

Brubaker asked a follow-up question regarding the overall timeline for final products so that the subcommittees can determine what schedule is appropriate for producing those final products. Chair Schneider clarified that NFAC’s final recommendations are due in May 2014. Between now and then, the subcommittees can provide timely, interim recommendations to address the “low-hanging fruit.” Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari added that to the extent that issues arise on a faster timeframe, the subcommittees should not hesitate to move more quickly and make recommendations sooner. Inman stated that the PDO-SC would have at least one draft recommendation to present due to the need for timeliness. Chair Schneider said NFAC could try to reach consensus on any recommendations presented during the meeting.

Chromey provided directions to the NFAC regarding breakout session locations.

Minutes from the subcommittee breakout session are included in Appendix 1: Subcommittee Breakout Session Minutes.

Subcommittees Report Out and Member Discussion

Chair Schneider asked for members to go around the table and to report out from their seats. Vice Chair Downey reminded the subcommittees to present on those items they intend to work on over the next few weeks. Vice Chair Downey also noted that once the subcommittees are ready to make recommendations, they should also share those proposals; if NFAC reaches a consensus, the subcommittee can move forward to further develop that recommendation. If not, then the subcommittee should wait to continue the discussion at a later meeting.

Chair Schneider invited the Conditions, Performance, and Data Subcommittee to begin.

Conditions, Performance, and Data Subcommittee (CPD-SC)

Canby stated that the CPD-SC plans to support the other NFAC subcommittees in their focus areas by assessing current conditions, identifying data gaps, and making recommendations for filling those gaps. She requested that the other NFAC subcommittees submit their goals and areas of focus so that the CPD-SC may focus its efforts on those high-priority topic areas. Canby stated that the CPD-SC will begin to identify data gaps and discontinued data sources, but that the subcommittee has no interim recommendations at this time.

Chair Schneider thanked Canby and turned to the Safety, Security, and Environment Subcommittee.  

Safety, Security, and Environment Subcommittee (SSE-SC)

Brubaker explained SSE-SC’s approach to its charge. The SSE-SC divided into three separate working groups, or sub-subcommittees, to address the areas of safety, security, and environment. Having nearly completed the security focus area’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis and identified a significant overlap between the safety and environment areas, the SSE-SC plans to reconvene as a full subcommittee moving forward.

Brubaker noted that the full subcommittee will focus primarily on three areas of interest:

• Increasing insurance premiums (minimums) on commercial vehicles to regulate truck safety;
• Harmonizing security credentialing; and
• Exploring incentives and policies to encourage off-peak goods movement.

Brubaker next summarized the SSE-SC’s comments to the PFN. SSE-SC appreciates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) answered the question posed by Congress, but the SSE-SC believes that Congress did not ask the right question in the first place. A PFN that considers only highways does not constitute a network, as goods movement relies on a multimodal system and is not reliant only on trucks. Furthermore, the policy implications or intentions of developing a PFN are unclear; what is the appropriate next step once FHWA identifies the locations of the busiest highways?

Chair Schneider thanked Brubaker and turned to Project Delivery and Operations Subcommittee.

Project Delivery and Operations Subcommittee (PDO-SC)

Karen Schmidt, PDO-SC Co-Chair, described the subcommittee’s approach. The PDO-SC identified several interest areas that overlap with the First and Last Mile Subcommittee (FLM-SC) and International Freight Strategies and Operations Subcommittee (IFSO-SC). PDO-SC is hosting a joint meeting with FLM-SC and IFSO-SC on December 6 to discuss border concerns. The PDO-SC is also planning an in-person subcommittee meeting in Chicago in early January. Moving forward, the subcommittee will focus on developing recommendations regarding streamlining project environmental review processes. To assist the PDO-SC’s progress, Schmidt requested information from DOT regarding congressional committees/districts and their respective responsibilities/jurisdictions to better understand freight transportation-related funding and decision-making.

Schmidt turned to Inman to introduce two interim recommendations on behalf of the subcommittee. Inman read the following recommendation:

Be it Resolved, by the Project Delivery & Operations Subcommittee of the National Freight Advisory Committee that the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program be continued and include funding for multimodal freight projects. The Subcommittee appreciates the successful TIGER awards that have brought meaningful transportation projects forward that otherwise may not have been delivered. However, we believe that it is essential for Congress to authorize the U.S. Department of Transportation to administer the TIGER program with a special emphasis for transportation projects that enhance and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of a multimodal freight system. We further recommend that congress appropriate funds accordingly.

Schmidt noted that the resolution had unanimous support within PDO-SC. Chair Schneider reminded NFAC members that they each received a copy of the draft recommendation and asked if there was consensus around the recommendation or if any members strongly opposed it. The discussion that followed focused on the resolution’s timing as well as its references to authorizing and appropriating funds and to “multimodal freight projects.”

Regarding timing, Inman stated that TIGER operates on continuing resolution and therefore the timing of the resolution is essential. Vice Chair Downey added that the TIGER program is signed on a year-to-year basis and that the decision on whether to include TIGER in the next appropriations bill would be made November 2013.

Regarding authorization and appropriation, Polly Trottenberg, Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, clarified that the TIGER program is not authorized by Congress, but that the House and Senate are considering what appropriations to include. She added that asking Congress to approve TIGER is different from asking Congress to authorize it. Brubaker called attention to the draft language “it is essential for Congress to authorize…,” which appears in the third sentence of the draft resolution. Inman suggested either deleting that sentence or changing “authorize” to “continue.”

Regarding the draft language “include funding for multimodal freight projects,” Rick Inclima asked the PDO-SC

Co-Chairs we asked to provide clarification on whether the resolution asks for appropriation of additional funding for multimodal projects or whether the resolution asks for a greater share of TIGER funds to be awarded to multimodal projects. Inman responded that freight has historically been competitive in the TIGER program and clarified that the resolution is meant to encourage a continuation of the program in general, not to pick-and-choose specific projects. Rina Cutler suggested changing “multimodal freight projects” to “multimodal projects” because while many transportation needs are multimodal, not all are freight-specific. Under Secretary for Transportation Policy Trottenberg noted that freight projects have successfully won approximately one-third of TIGER funds on their own merit without any special language. Because the TIGER program has previously funded multimodal projects, Hildebrand suggested ending the first sentence at the word “continued.”

Following the discussion, during which the NFAC members reached consensus, Chair Schneider read the revised version of the PDO-SC’s interim recommendation:

Be it Resolved, by the National Freight Advisory Committee that the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program be continued. The Subcommittee appreciates the successful TIGER awards that have brought meaningful transportation projects forward that otherwise may not have been delivered. We further recommend that Congress appropriate funds accordingly.

The NFAC formally adopted its first resolution. The final resolution is included in Appendix 2: Final Resolutions.

Inman invited Paul LaMarre to read the PDO-SC’s second proposed interim recommendation:

The nation’s ports are vital engines of economic growth for the United States and its citizens. U.S. ports are responsible for generating 13.3 million jobs, $3.2 trillion in annual economic impacts, and generate $212 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. America’s ports move $3.8 billion worth of goods a day, which equals $1.4 trillion, equivalent to 25 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.

The Harbor Maintenance Tax is a user fee collected by the U.S. Government to ensure the adequate maintenance and operations of the nation’s waterway infrastructure. Among the chief intended purposes of the Harbor Maintenance Tax is the dredging of the nation’s channels and harbors to their maximum federally-authorized depth. In recent years, more fees have been collected than expended and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund contains a surplus of $8.2 billion. At the same time, there is a growing backlog of dredging needs throughout the nation’s harbors and channels.

As a result, the National Freight Advisory Committee urges passage of legislation to ensure the Harbor Maintenance Tax fees collected and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund surplus be expended for their intended purpose and that the nation’s harbors and channels are dredged to and maintained at their maximum federally-authorized depth.

Chair Schneider invited NFAC members to discuss the proposed recommendation. Decas, a member of the American Association of Port Authorities, stated that the draft language has consensus within that organization. Cutler expressed her support and asked whether the HMTF could be used for port-related infrastructure needs beyond dredging. LaMarre responded that ports cannot be concerned about other infrastructure needs if they are unable to receive a ship. Furthermore, spending the HMTF on other infrastructure needs may raise concerns within the international community that pays the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). He cited the following statistic: only 35 percent of channels are dredged to their federally authorized depth at any given time. Alterman expressed his support for the draft resolution and asked an administrative question regarding the recommendation process. Porcari responded that he would present the NFAC’s interim recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation, who would in turn present them to Congress.

Chair Schneider asked if any NFAC members opposed the resolution; hearing none, she acknowledged consensus and formally recorded the NFAC’s second recommendation. The final resolution is included in Appendix 2: Final Resolutions.

Chair Schneider thanked the PDO-SC and turned to the Research, Innovation and Technology Subcommittee.

Research, Innovation and Technology Subcommittee (RIT-SC)

Button referenced the seven core goals that NFAC and U.S. DOT developed earlier in the week. He stated that the RIT-SC will consider research and development within those core goals and evaluate how investment in technology will impact those goals, especially related to dredging, congestion, and multimodal connections. He cited off-peak deliveries as one innovation in congestion management and suggested that RIT-SC consider what incentives or penalties could be implemented to encourage shipper and receivers to rely on off-peak schedules. Button concluded by stating opposition to increasing insurance premiums in the trucking industry as proposed by SSE-SC; he commented that there is no correlation between insurance premiums and safety.

Chair Schneider thanked Button and turned to the International Freight Strategies and Operations Subcommittee.

International Freight Strategies and Operations  Subcommittee (IFSO-SC)

Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, IFSO-SC Co-Chair, expressed concern about supporting the PFN given that it does not include an overlay of all transportation modes. She stated that she believes global competitiveness is the key to success and encouraged the NFAC to take a broader look at other countries as case studies. Hamm-Niebruegge covered topics including HMT, speed of transit across all borders via all modes (U.S. Customs and Border Protection staffing, 24-hour staffing), electronic clearance system enhancements, increased focus on secondary airports to allow incoming air cargo, increased competitiveness of U.S. freight movements; the future of ocean shipping, and the Panama Canal expansion and its implications. The IFSO-SC requested that U.S. DOT staff supply several additional studies/reports to understand those issues.

Vice Chair Downey commented that a Maritime Administration (MARAD) study regarding the implications of the Panama Canal expansion will soon be published and that MARAD will hold a session on national maritime policy. Regarding ocean shipping, Chair Schneider asked if the IFSO-SC is considering arctic lanes. Hamm-Niebruegge responded that the subcommittee is concerned about not having a full understanding of what the future of shipping will look like and that it needs to have projections.

Chair Schneider thanked Hamm-Niebruegge and turned to the First and Last Mile Subcommittee.

First and Last Mile Subcommittee (FLM-SC)

Michelle Livingstone, FLM-SC Co-Chair, noted that the FLM-SC would address three points during its presentation. John Gray provided the subcommittee’s input on the PFN, then Chris Rodgers presented one immediate recommendation; finally, Stacey Hodge provided input on the work plan moving forward.

Gray acknowledged that Congress constrained the U.S. DOT to 27,000 miles for the highway PFN. Congress therefore did not allow U.S. DOT the necessary latitude to address the full import of the National Highway System that is essential to freight; as U.S. DOT proposed, 41,000 miles would probably not provide a complete descriptor of what the highway system should be. Additionally, the draft highway PFN map is essentially rural. In turn, the map does not reflect very critical routes that connect the national network to local logistics centers and industrial centers, intermodal yards, and ports. Gray noted that the intermodal connectors are not necessarily interstate routes, but could be the most expensive in terms of freight movement and also the most densely used.

The subcommittee believes it is important that any further development involve urban routes that are critical connectors to the national network. It is also important to understand how this system exists in conjunction with the remainder of the freight network. On page 12 of the report by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Panel on 21^st Century Freight Transportation, there is a similar map that the subcommittee believed provided a better representation of how the highway network fits into the broader transportation network. Finally, Gray noted the subcommittee’s concern with the review process, expressing their belief that 30 days is inadequate, especially given the complex topic area and the fact that the data are difficult to understand and in many cases unavailable. A 60-day review period would be more appropriate, particularly given the holidays. Comments during the review period could include a request that data supporting conclusions be provided as part of the review process.

Chair Schneider asked the NFAC if it wanted to provide comments as a whole. One formal recommendation could be to extend the review period. She asked if anyone had any comments or if all were in favor of recommending an extension of the review period for the PFN. Hamm-Niebruegge requested that the PFN also include an overlay of other modes.

Chair Schneider asked to collect comments and re-circulate them in an iterative process so that NFAC could reach a consensus on what comments it could submit. To begin that process, members could provide comments and suggestions for collection in subcommittee meeting minutes. Then, co-chairs could submit information to the full NFAC. Finally, everything could be captured and consolidated and the whole committee could provide final approval.

Rodgers presented a proposed recommendation to continue the tax exemption for municipal bonds. Without this tax exemption, local governments would not be able to finance infrastructure projects to the extent that they currently do. Cutler supported the recommendation and requested that the language tie into the NFAC’s efforts. Without the tax exemption, local governments will be inhibited from making infrastructure improvements to the freight network. Rodgers agreed. Committee members continued the discussion of the tax exemption on municipal bonds, concluding that they would support Rodger and the FLM-SC in their recommendation. Chair Schneider stated that she and Vice Chair Downey will type and circulate the recommendation and then ask for consensus to move forward so that freight investments could continue at the State and local levels.

Alterman asked for clarification on the process and whether the Administration is in support of removing the tax exemption as a way to generate additional revenue. Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari said that U.S. DOT would faithfully represent any positions that the NFAC makes, even if it is not a U.S. DOT or Administration position.

Gray noted that local municipalities take advantage of tax exempt municipal bonds to support projects where they are pursuing public-private partnerships. Many local governments leverage the inclusion of private money in projects. If this source is cut off, then it impacts the investment of private money as well.

Holguín-Veras advocated that the NFAC provide strong support of the tax exemption given its impact on the final consumption of freight and to ensure the lifeblood of local economies.

Chair Schneider opened the public comment period, inviting public representatives to form a line by the microphone.

Chromey said that if no one from the public wanted to address the NFAC, then it would continue its discussion. Chair Schneider closed the public comment period and invited FLM-SC to continue its report out to the committee.

Livingstone turned to Hodge to continue the discussion. Hodge referenced Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx’s address to NFAC in which he cited examples of how jobs can be tied to a particular port’s capacity. After drafting its SWOT analysis, the FLM-SC decided to focus on gathering evidence of freight’s significance. On October 29, 2013, Hodge teamed with three other NFAC members, including Holguín-Veras, Andrew Lynn, and Button, to host a listening session for freight stakeholders in the New York-New Jersey area. The New York State Department of Transportation will next host a similar listening session in rural New York and then report back on the outcomes.

FLM-SC will also participate in a joint subcommittee meeting with IFSO-SC and PDO-SC on December 6, 2013, to discuss common issues. Additionally, FLM-SC will host an in-person meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, to visit warehouses there and better understand land use issues from the first and last mile perspective. Through webinars, listening sessions, and site visits, FLM-SC will develop and execute its work plan.

Chair Schneider thanked Hodge and asked if there were any additional items discussed during the subcommittee breakout session that members would like to discuss with the full committee. Upon hearing no additional comments, she stated that the NFAC could move to the closing remarks portion of the agenda. She also noted that Chromey would facilitate an electronic vote (either online or by email) on the draft bylaws, which U.S. DOT staff revised to reflect members’ comments.

Following the subcommittee report outs, Chair Schneider asked for consensus to prepare a joint comment on the designation of the primary freight network.  There was consensus from the members that were present. 

Chair Schneider noted that over past three days, NFAC engaged in significant work and demonstrated that having a diversity of viewpoints is critical to the conversation about a National Freight Strategic Plan. She was glad that members were able to take broader perspectives than those of their individual organizations and work together towards recommendations for the strategic plan. She emphasized that being involved in the process for developing the National Freight Strategic Plan is not only an honor but a responsibility, and she stated her appreciation for members’ commitment and that of the U.S. DOT to NFAC’s work. Chair Schneider asked Vice Chair Downey for additional comments and for Chromey to review NFAC’s upcoming schedule.

Vice Chair Downey echoed Chair Schneider’s thanks to all the committee members for getting to the heart of issues and extended thanks to the U.S. DOT for organizing the workshop, listening to NFAC members, and accepting NFAC’s recommendations.

Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari thanked Chair Schneider and Vice Chair Downey for leading NFAC. He said that NFAC’s adoption of resolutions showed how well the members understood the timeliness of the conversation. He also emphasized the importance of having a diversity of perspectives around the table, as U.S. DOT’s goal is to develop a National Freight Strategic Plan that has strong consensus and can lead to a comprehensive freight system.

Chair Schneider asked Jennifer Villarreal of the U.S. DOT/Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, to read a draft resolution regarding NFAC’s opposition to the elimination of tax exemptions for municipal bonds. Hamm-Niebruegge asked if the language needed to tie into the national freight system or whether that would hamper the ability to make improvements to the multimodal system. For example, an alternative phrasing may be “to continue to support investment in freight infrastructure in the Nation at the [S]tate and local level[s].” Holguín-Veras also emphasized a connection to local jobs.

Chair Schneider asked if there was consensus among the NFAC members to support the recommendation or whether any members opposed it. Hearing no opposition, she announced the formal adoption of the fourth resolution. The final resolution is included in Appendix 2: Final Resolutions.

Chair Schneider clarified that the resolutions related to TIGER and to the HMTF would be officially submitted to Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari and that the resolutions regarding the extended comment period and tax exemption would be submitted to him as well once Chair Schneider and Vice Chair Downey had an opportunity to sign them.

Chromey reiterated that the NFAC meets on a quarterly basis and consequently the U.S. DOT would coordinate the following meeting to occur in February 2014. She noted that the U.S. DOT would like to coordinate with the Department of Commerce so that NFAC could meet with the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness. In the interim, she noted that she was unable to give the CPD-SC and PDO-SC tutorials on using the Collaborative Workspace earlier in the week and suggested that members ask her for that information as needed.

Regarding scheduling, Vice Chair Downey stated that not all the meetings should be located in Washington, D.C., and reminded members to attend “freight day” at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting in January 2014. Chromey also noted that the U.S. DOT would assist subcommittees in coordinating any meetings that overlapped with the TRB Annual Meeting.

Inclima commented that it would be helpful to determine successive meeting dates at each meeting so that members could reserve time on their calendars and make travel arrangements. Chair Schneider asked the members to reserve the week of February 17, 2014 as a placeholder for the next NFAC meeting.

Chair Schneider asked for final comments and adjourned the meeting at 4:34 p.m.

Appendix 1: Subcommittee Breakout Session Minutes

Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff in Attendance

Call to Order

Tasks

Key Milestones and Action Items

Adjournment

Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff in Attendance

Ex-Officio Members

Welcome

Discussion of Draft Highway Primary Freight Network

Preliminary Recommendations

Next Steps

Adjournment

Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff in Attendance

Subcommittee Members Designees

Welcome

Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Speakers

SWOT Analysis

Preliminary Recommendations

Draft Highway Primary Freight Network

Other Business

Next Steps

Action Items

Adjournment

Attendance – Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff 

Call to Order          

Background Issues for Consideration

Research, Technology, and Challenges

Other Issues

Action Items

Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff in Attendance

Subcommittee Members Designees

Ex-Officio Members and Meeting Guests

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Primary Freight Network

Subcommittee Recommendations

Other Resources

Next Meeting

Adjournment

Subcommittee Members and DOT Staff in Attendance

Roll Call and Quorum

Primary Freight Network

Tax Exemption for Municipal Bonds

Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund

Action Items

Current Needs

Adjournment         

Appendix 2: Final Resolutions