Federal Register Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.

Department of Transportation will
identify and recommend solutions to
impediments to expanded use of marine
highways and lays the groundwork for
coordinating with States, private
transportation providers, and local and
Tribal governments, and conducting
research related to marine highway
development. The program should
improve system capacity and efficiency,
air quality, highway safety, and national
security.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Gordon, Office of Intermodal
System Development, Marine Highways
and Passenger Services, at (202) 366–
5468, via e-mail at
[email protected], or by writing
to the Office of Marine Highways and
Passenger Services, MAR–520, Suite
W21–315, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

SUMMARY: On October 9, 2008, the
Department of Transportation published
an interim final rule that established
America’s Marine Highway Program,
under which the Secretary will
designate marine highway corridors and
identify and support short sea
transportation projects to expand
domestic water transportation services
as an alternative means of moving
containerized and wheeled freight
cargoes; mitigate the economic,
environmental and energy costs of
landside congestion; integrate the
marine highway into the transportation
planning process; and research
improvements in efficiencies and
environmental sustainability. This
action is required by Public Law 110–
140, the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. The interim final
rule solicited comments, which are
discussed in the ‘‘Section by Section
Review’’ below and incorporated in this
final rule. In addition, the interim final
rule sought recommendations for
designation of Marine Highway
Corridors. This rule adopts the interim
final rule, addresses Marine Highway
Corridors (and continues to solicit
recommendations for Marine Highway
Corridor recommendations), and
establishes eligibility requirements,
criteria and information necessary to
apply for designation as a Marine
Highway Project by the Secretary of
Transportation. Solicitations from
applicants desiring Marine Highway
Project designation will be initiated
through notification in the Federal
Register at a future date. This rule also
sets forth the manner in which the

Background
Following the current economic
slowdown, experts project that cargoes
moving through our ports will return to
pre-recession levels. In fact, freight
tonnage of all types, including exports,
imports, and domestic shipments, is
expected to grow 73 percent by 2035
from 2008 levels [‘‘Freight Facts and
Figures 2009’’, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Freight
Management and Operations; Table 2–1;
November 2009]. The development of a
capable, cost-effective, safe and resilient
transportation system is essential to
handling the movement of this cargo in
a manner that is efficient with respect
to cost, energy usage, and
environmental consequences. Since
nearly all international cargos move
along our surface transportation
corridors to access or depart from
seaports, which are major gateways for
commerce, getting such cargoes to and
from the major seaports could involve
more usage of marine corridors to and
from smaller and medium-sized
maritime ports.
The challenges faced by our nation’s
transportation planners and
policymakers involve making better use
of existing infrastructure, addressing the
need for more capacity in our freight
corridors, and reducing the
environmental impacts of
transportation. In recent years, it has
become increasingly evident that the
Nation’s existing road and rail
infrastructure cannot adequately meet
our future transportation needs. Landbased infrastructure expansion

Dated: March 26, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administrator, Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010–8059 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
46 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. MARAD–2010–0035]
RIN 2133–AB70

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

America’s Marine Highway Program

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18095

opportunities are limited in many
critical bottleneck areas due to
geography or very high right-of-way
acquisition costs. This is particularly
severe in urban areas where there are
additional concerns about emissions
from transportation sources.
Investments in additional infrastructure,
particularly highways, must consider
the full costs to society of more
greenhouse gas emissions and
pollutants and, potentially, the need to
pay for such emissions in future
transportation fees. Accordingly, new
road and rail investments may not be
feasible, desirable, or cost-beneficial in
many instances.
The cost of expanding our existing
land-based transportation systems,
along with transportation efficiency and
environmental concerns, has caused
many policymakers to re-focus on the
underutilized transportation capacity of
the Nation’s waterways. To help address
these challenges, America’s Marine
Highways can represent a viable
alternative where water transportation is
an option. Expanding the Marine
Highways can be done in a way that
reduces emissions, will require less new
infrastructure than land transportation
alternatives, generates significant fuel
savings, and can increase resiliency in
the surface transportation system. The
Marine Highways, consisting of more
than 25,000 miles of inland,
intracoastal, and coastal waterways,
have considerable room for expansion.
[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
‘‘Waterborne Commerce of the United
States’’ (2005).] In fact, while the inland
river system, Great Lakes, and coastal
fleets still move a billion metric tons of
cargo each year, less than 4 percent of
the Nation’s domestic freight (by
volume) now moves by water. However,
this is down from 1957 levels, when
over 31 percent moved by water
[‘‘National Transportation Statistics
2009,’’ U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research and Innovative
Technology Administration—Bureau of
Transportation Statistics; Table 1–52:
Freight Activity in the United States:
1993, 1997, 2002, and 2007].
Water transportation can be expanded
quickly and at little incremental cost to
meet freight traffic needs. In addition to
offering abundant and reliable capacity
under normal conditions, waterways
provide critical resiliency to the
transportation system during
emergencies when land-based freight
and passenger delivery systems are
damaged. Especially in urban areas, the
movement of both freight and
passengers by waterway can represent
an excellent opportunity to improve

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

18096

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

livability and quality of life for
communities.
In recognition of the growing need to
address concerns about land-based
transportation efficiencies and
sustainability, Congress enacted the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (Energy Act), a sub-title of
which requires the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to ‘‘establish
a short sea transportation program and
designate short sea transportation
projects to be conducted under the
program to mitigate surface congestion’’
[Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, Subtitle C—Marine
Transportation; Sec. 1121 Short Sea
Transportation Initiative]. Among the
primary program objectives listed in the
Energy Act is to reduce surface
congestion to maximize public benefits
that include, but are not limited to,
improved air quality, highway safety,
and national security. Of principal
concern to the Energy Act is the
movement of intermodal containerized
and wheeled cargos which currently
move largely by rail and truck, often
under congested surface conditions.
The America’s Marine Highway
Program envisioned by the Department
of Transportation will implement the
Energy Act’s requirements for short sea
shipping by working to bring about a
seamless, energy-efficient, and climatefriendly transportation system through
the creation and expansion of domestic
water transportation services. To
achieve these overall objectives, the
program will include the development
of marine highway corridors,
identification and support of specific
marine highway projects, the integration
of the marine highway into the
transportation planning process, and
research to improve efficiencies and
environmental sustainability. This will
be accomplished through an organized
outreach effort to State and local
governments, private transportation
providers and Tribal governments, by
leveraging recent discretionary Federal
transportation grants (the
Transportation Investments Generating
Economic Recovery, or ‘‘TIGER,’’
Program) to realize the inherent
advantages of these types of services,
and working to remove impediments
and identify incentives to optimize
system performance.
The goal of America’s Marine
Highway Program is to develop and
integrate these services into the overall
transportation system in a selfsustaining, commercially-viable manner
that also recognizes the public benefits
these services create. The Marine
Highway will enable more goods and
people to travel by water where

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

possible, striking a more equitable
capacity balance between highway, rail
and Marine Highway surface routes,
making it more likely our country will
realize the benefits sought by the
Congress.
Discussion of Comments Received
The Department of Transportation
received 95 documents reflecting 319
comments, including almost 60 corridor
recommendations, to the interim final
rule during the public comment period
ending February 6, 2009. The largest
group of commenters was 32 port
authorities, followed by 21 private
interests representing various types of
carriers, 14 organizations representing
maritime and environmental interests
and 12 State departments of
transportation. The remaining
comments came from Congressional
representatives, individual private
interests, and city/county transportation
and planning entities. The vast majority
of comments were supportive of the
Marine Highway Program.
Generally speaking, comments
received can be separated into five
categories:
The first category of comments
consisted of more than 60 comments in
general agreement with the rulemaking
and did not propose any changes to the
rule.
The second category of comments
contained nearly 40 suggestions that
would require changes to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
United States Code or other Federal
Statutes and, therefore, could not be
incorporated into the rule. Where
appropriate, these comments are
summarized in the section-by-section
discussion.
The third category of comments
consisted of more than 100 corridor
recommendations, endorsements of
recommendations, or comments that
addressed specific services, systems,
proposals or geographic areas. Of these,
30 are related either to the definition of
Marine Highway Corridors, or
suggestions on how to interpret
corridors as they are defined in the
Interim Final Rule. Ten comments
supported corridor recommendations
made by other entities. Corridor
recommendations are addressed in
section 393.3 (Marine Highway
Corridors) of this rule. Another ten
comments in this grouping were
deemed more appropriate to the
development of potential future Marine
Highway Project applications and are
not addressed in this rule.
The fourth category of about 40
comments consisted of remarks and
suggestions that are either beyond the

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

scope of the Marine Highway Program,
or determined not appropriate
incorporation for incorporation in the
final rule. However, because these may
be helpful to other programs, they have
been provided to appropriate Federal
entities and summarized in the
applicable section-by-section
discussion.
Six comments in this category
proposed that the Marine Highway
Program be fully funded through
upcoming Surface Transportation
Reauthorization. One comment
proposed that the Department of
Transportation receive funding to
execute the research component of the
program in order to establish a
nationwide approach to the challenges
facing vessel and terminal design,
construction, and other system needs.
Another suggested that the Department
of Transportation identify research
funding to examine issues related to
Marine Highway Implementation. Nine
other comments proposed inclusion of
Canadian Maritime Provinces and
Mexico in the program. Other
suggestions addressed worker
compensation rights, maritime
academies, and other activities beyond
the scope of the Marine Highway
Program. Numerous comments (40)
proposed specific incentives or
solutions to perceived impediments to
expansion of the marine highways. Of
these, the greatest number of comments
(13) focused on the degree to which
collection of Harbor Maintenance Tax
acts as an impediment to the
development of the Marine Highway
Program and all proposed waiving the
tax for domestic waterborne freight and
passenger movements. This ad valorem
tax is charged on cargoes imported to
the U.S. and pays for channel dredging
that allows access for deep draft ships
to U.S. ports. However, in its current
form, the same cargo is subjected to the
tax a second time if it moves from the
port of arrival to another U.S.
destination by water. The tax is not
charged if this second movement of the
cargo is by landside modes.
The final category of comments
contained more than 75 suggestions that
could be implemented at the discretion
of the Secretary of Transportation. The
Department of Transportation was open
to all suggestions in this category and
gave them careful consideration. These
comments, along with the Department
of Transportation’s response, are
captured in the section-by-section
discussion that follows.
Section-by-Section Discussion
This section discusses comments
submitted on each section of the rule

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
along with an explanation of any
changes that have been made from the
Interim Rule to the Final Rule. All
references to revisions or changes
refer/pertain to language that was
originally proposed in the Interim Final
Rule, as amended.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Section 393.0
The Department of Transportation
received 28 comments specifically
pertaining to the summary and
environmental assessment portions of
the program introduction. Six comments
related to types of cargo covered by the
Marine Highway Program and nine
comments pertained to the inclusion of
Mexico and Canada’s Maritime
Provinces. These comments will be
addressed in section 393.2 (Definitions).
While many comments asserted that
expanding Marine Highway use will
have positive impacts on the
environment, five commenters made
specific recommendations regarding this
section. These comments are discussed
below.
Environmental Considerations
The Department of Transportation
received comments from five
respondents on this section regarding
three general areas: National
Environmental Policy Act compliance,
the Endangered Species Act, and the
Clean Air Act, which are addressed
individually below:
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA): Commenters suggested that a
programmatic environmental review be
conducted for the America’s Marine
Highway Program prior to issuance of
the final rule to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
The proposed rule for the America’s
Marine Highway Program is
promulgating procedural rules for how
Marine Highway Corridors will be
designated, and the procedure for
proposing Marine Highway Projects.
These new regulations do not amount to
a major Federal action requiring NEPA
analysis because the regulations are
procedural in nature and only set forth
protocol for future actions that would be
subject to NEPA. See Piedmont
Environmental Council v. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 558
F.3d 304, 315–17 (4th Cir. 2009).
Designation of Marine Highway
Corridors will only identify existing
landside corridors that could, in the
future, benefit from marine
transportation. The location, scope and
nature of any new or expanded services
are not yet known. In addition, the
extent of any Federal action, including
funding (if any) is not yet known.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

Conducting an environmental review
pursuant to NEPA will not provide a
meaningful analysis until: (1) There is a
concrete determination of what role the
Federal government might play in
encouraging such services, (2) the
geographic footprint of the program is
determined and; (3) potential Marine
Highway projects are proposed. Without
this information, a NEPA analysis
would not present a credible forward
look and would therefore not be a useful
tool for basic program planning. Once
project applications are received, an
environmental review under NEPA will
be conducted to assess the
environmental effects of the proposed
project(s). See Piedmont, 558 F.3d at
317 (4th Cir. 2009). The Environmental
Considerations and other sections of the
rule were revised to reflect this and to
clarify the topic.
—Part of section 393.3(d) was separated
into section 393.3(c) in order to more
clearly note the procedural
requirements for submitting requests
for corridor designations and the
actions which may be taken by the
Department of Transportation after a
corridor has been designated.
—Section 393.4(d) has been
supplemented to include language
that indicates the Department of
Transportation will also evaluate
projects or groups of projects along a
corridor based on the results of an
environmental review.
—Section 393.4(e)(3) has been
supplemented to include language to
provide greater guidance on the
information necessary for the
Department of Transportation to
conduct the environmental review of
the proposed project or groups of
projects along a corridor.
One commenter noted that the
Maritime Administration is required to
comply with its own Administrative
Order 600–1 (Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts). As
required by the order, the Coordinator of
Environmental Activities has been, and
will continue to be consulted regarding
the program to ensure appropriate and
timely actions and compliance with the
Agency order. Additionally, to ensure a
continuing dialogue with environmental
interests, the Department of
Transportation is establishing a new
advisory board under section 393.5(e) to
identify impediments and recommend
solutions to increased use of the Marine
Highway.
These respondents also noted that, in
evaluating the overall benefits or
impacts on the public and the
environment and other factors, all
aspects should be considered, including

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18097

shifts in routes and congestion,
redistribution of land-based
transportation and cargo handling
infrastructure, and negative impacts of
new or increased waterway use. The
Department of Transportation agrees
that there are a number of factors that
will have to be considered and
appreciates the respondents’
suggestions. The Department intends to
use the Marine Highway Project
application and review process to
identify the appropriate factors and
collect relevant information for the
assessment including whether or not
some individual projects should be
grouped (e.g., along a corridor) under a
single NEPA analysis as appropriate.
Endangered Species Act: Two
respondents recommended that the
Department of Transportation take
actions, as appropriate under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA),
including commencement of the
consultation process under section 7 of
the ESA. Without specific project
proposals, however, this action would
be premature for this rulemaking.
Clean Air Act: Two commenters noted
that approval of individual Marine
Highway Projects may involve specific
actions under the Clean Air Act in cases
where State Implementation Plans are
required. The Department of
Transportation notes the comment and
continues to work closely with the EPA
in development of this program.
Green Shipping Design and
Operation: Two commenters noted that
there are a number of affirmative actions
that the Department of Transportation
can take to maximize the benefits and
minimize any adverse impacts of
Marine Highway services, both in the
short and long term. The Department of
Transportation agrees. The Department
of Transportation has engaged
government and academia to begin
development of a program that
recognizes the activities of Marine
Highway service providers (both afloat
and shoreside) that exceed current
standards of responsibility in emissions
reduction, energy conservation, ballast
and discharge water management,
endangered species protection, and
other categories. Several elements of
projects are also intended to address
environmental responsibility, including
potential relief for surface transportation
congestion related environmental,
energy or safety benefits (in the form of
reduced vehicle miles traveled). In
addition, language in Section 393.4(e)
(Application for Designation as a Marine
Highway Project) has been revised to
both encourage participation in and
provide documentation of participation

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

18098

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

in environmental or other conservation
programs.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Section 393.1 Purpose
The Agency received only one
comment regarding this section. The
commenter suggested expanding the
statement regarding the goals of Marine
Highway Project Designations (Section
393.1(b)(2)) to go beyond designating
Marine Highway Projects solely to
‘‘mitigate landside congestion,’’ arguing
that the summary goes on to further
identify the goal of providing ‘‘greatest
benefit to the public.’’ While the Act
specified the purpose of project
designation, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), in a report
on this topic entitled, ‘‘Freight
Transportation: Short Sea Shipping
Option Shows Importance of Systematic
Approach to Public Investment
Decisions (July 2005)’’ (GAO–05–768,
July 2005), proposed that public
involvement should be determined
based on ‘‘public benefits,’’ with which
the Department of Transportation
concurs. This paragraph (and the
Purpose statement in Section 393.4(b))
was revised to more clearly articulate
these complementary objectives.
Section 393.2 Definitions
The Agency received more than 30
comments that are best addressed in this
section. Comments focused on the
definition, scope or application of
Marine Highway Corridors, proposed
means of configuring or grouping
corridors and water routes that have no
corresponding landside transportation
corridors, the inclusion of Mexico as
well as expanded portions of Canada in
the program, cargos to be included
within the scope of the program, and
entities eligible to be Project Sponsors.
Marine Highway Corridor: The
Department of Transportation received
11 comments addressing the definition
of a Marine Highway Corridor, or
suggesting how corridors should be
viewed. Comments included whether a
port/terminal is included in a ‘‘Marine
Highway Corridor,’’ and suggested that
smaller ports and terminals, including
niche ports that handle specific
commodities and passengers should be
included in corridors. After further
consideration of these comments and
the intended purpose of Marine
Highway Corridors, the Department of
Transportation amended the definition
to be broader and more descriptive of
the land route that Marine Highway
expansion would benefit than the
waterways, ports and terminals that
actually provide the relief. This is more
consistent with the Act’s language that
calls for the designation of short sea

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

transportation routes as ‘‘extensions of
the surface transportation system,’’ and
its purpose to ‘‘focus public and private
efforts to use the waterways to relieve
landside congestion along coastal
corridors.’’
Several comments suggested
delineation of routes by either National
or Regional significance, and proposed
that short distance, cross harbor or interterminal services can also provide
significant relief. The Department of
Transportation concurs that both short
and long distance services could offer
considerable benefit, and amended the
definition of Marine Highway Corridors
to include ‘‘crossings’’ and ‘‘connectors’’
to address short-distance or regionally
significant routes.
Additionally, several comments were
received that indicated either an
assumption or a recommendation to
include routes or services that do not
have a landside alternative, and cannot
therefore relieve landside congestion.
These include routes and services to
Hawaii, Guam and other territorial
islands. Because these routes (and
services) cannot meet the program’s
stated purpose of relieving landside
congestion, the Department of
Transportation believes the inclusion of
these routes or associated services falls
outside the scope of the Act, and cannot
be part of the Marine Highway Program.
This clarification has been incorporated
in the definition of Marine Highway
Corridor.
Marine Highway (or Short Sea
Transportation): The Department of
Transportation received nine comments
recommending the inclusion of Mexico
and the Maritime Provinces of Canada
in the definition of Marine Highway
under this program. In crafting this
definition, the Department of
Transportation was mindful of the Act
that authorized this program, which did
not include Mexico, or these portions of
Canada in its language. Therefore the
international portion of the definition
was not changed. However, it is worth
noting that—outside the scope of this
program—the Department of
Transportation entered into a tri-lateral
agreement in May 2006 with Canada
and Mexico to seek opportunities to
work together and expand short sea
shipping services where practicable,
and this initiative will continue to
receive the Department of
Transportation support outside of this
program. Six comments were received
proposing that eligible cargos be
expanded to include bulk, break-bulk
and heavy lift cargo. However, Section
55605 of the Energy Act defines short
sea transportation as ‘‘carriage by vessel
of cargo that is contained in intermodal

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

cargo containers and loaded by crane on
the vessel or loaded on the vessel by
means of wheeled technology’’ (also
reflected in ‘‘Summary’’ section of the
Interim Final Rule). The Department of
Transportation believes that the
addition of bulk, break-bulk or heavy lift
cargos would go beyond the scope of the
authorizing legislation. However, three
comments suggested that car floats or
rail ferries (vessels equipped with
railroad track sections to accommodate
wheeled rail cars) be included in the
program and the Department of
Transportation agrees this meets the
scope of the Energy Act. The definition
of Roll-on/Roll-off (RO/RO) vessel was
expanded to include rail floats.
Project Sponsor: Two comments
proposed that private entities be eligible
as project sponsors based on the
assertion that not doing so adds a layer
of difficulty that does not advance the
purpose of the rule. The purpose of
requiring that project sponsors be public
sector entities is that the Department of
Transportation believes that, should
Federal funding later become available,
it is not generally appropriate for the
Federal government to select individual
companies as the recipient of public
funds. Rather, it is appropriate for the
Federal government to identify those
projects whose stated public benefits,
offsetting savings to Federally-funded
infrastructure, and likelihood to be
sustainable in the long term, represent
the best potential for return on public
investment. It is up to the regional, State
or local public sector project sponsor
(including Tribal governments) to
identify—through open competition—
the private sector entity or entities most
able perform the proposed service(s). In
light of this approach, the final rule
remains unchanged and reflects public
sector sponsorship for both marine
highway corridors and projects.
Marine Highway Project: One
comment suggested that projects should
include services that facilitate transfer
from international-to-domestic maritime
services. Others were unsure if
transportation of passengers by water is
eligible under the program. The
Department of Transportation added
language to include a definition of
Marine Highway Projects under this
section to better clarify the intent and
eligibility criteria for projects.
Where appropriate, language
elsewhere in the rule was changed to be
consistent with these definitions.
Section 393.3 Marine Highway
Corridors
The agency received more than 100
comments regarding Marine Highway
Corridors. Of these, 59 were

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
recommendations for designation of
specific corridors and several others
endorsed a recommendation made by
another entity. Other comments
addressed the process of corridor
designation, noted the benefits of
designating corridors, and proposed
options that could provide regional,
local and border crossing benefits.
Generally speaking, respondents
supported designation of Marine
Highway Corridors, although one
commenter indicated corridors may
become a ponderous process with
limited benefit. Conversely, another
respondent believes it is a valuable way
to enlarge the circle of support and
engagement and facilitates cooperative
arrangements. One commenter
expressed concern that both Corridor
recommendations and Project
applications could require onerous and
costly research for entities ill equipped
to do so.
Ten comments cited the public
benefits of marine highways, including
reduced emissions per ton-mile of
commercial carriage on the water in
contrast to truck or rail. Another ten
comments focused on the various
consortiums that are, or should be,
engaged in the development of marine
highways, citing the need for public
involvement at the local/State and
Federal levels as well as from Tribal
governments for private service
providers (i.e., carriers), or publicprivate partnerships. No changes to the
rule were necessary in response to these
comments, as public benefit and the
development of stakeholder coalitions
are already key elements of the program.
Numerous comments endorsed the
concept of corridor designation and
incorporation of DOT’s Corridors of the
Future and proposed that corridors
include ports (both large and small), or
‘‘marine exits,’’ harbor crossings and
sub-corridors. The Department of
Transportation recognizes that major
arteries alone, such as the ‘‘Corridors of
the Future’’ and others, might not fully
encompass these concepts and added
the terms ‘‘connectors’’ and ‘‘crossings’’
to Section 393.2 (Definitions).
Connectors will provide substantial
linkages to the larger corridors and
crossings will be defined as shortdistance routes that provide relief to
congested border crossings, bridges or
tunnels or offer a much shorter route
than the landside alternative. Section
393.3 was revised to clarify how Marine
Highway Corridors will be described
and defined and the roles connectors
and crossings will play in conjunction
with the larger Marine Highway
Corridors.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

Fifty-nine Marine Highway Corridor
recommendations were received in
response to the Interim Final Rule. The
Department of Transportation is
working closely with potential Corridor
sponsors to combine complimentary
and interconnecting corridor proposals
and develop recommended Marine
Highway connectors and crossings that
offer shorter, but potentially significant,
water-bridges and linkages that can
relieve significant bottlenecks at the
local and regional level. Corridors,
connectors and crossings that receive
designation by the Secretary will be
published on the Maritime
Administration’s Marine Highway Web
site (http://www.marad.dot.gov/
ships_shipping_landing_page/
mhi_home/mhi_home.htm).
Section 393.4 Marine Highway Projects
While several comments received
were specific to a single project, marine
highway service or geographic area,
more than 30 comments related to the
content, designation process, or
evaluation criteria for Marine Highway
Projects. These comments are addressed
in this section.
Three commenters noted the
complexity of coordinating multiple
agencies and entities when projects
involve origins and destinations
separated by relatively long distances
and involving numerous jurisdictions.
The Department of Transportation
acknowledges this challenge and
believes that the proposed approach of
designating project sponsors and
developing coalitions is an appropriate
way to address multi-jurisdictional
coordination.
Four comments recommended that
the Department of Transportation
recognize the benefits of dual-use
vessels in Marine Highway Projects.
This capability would allow vessels in
commercial service to be available to the
Department of Defense (DOD) should
the need arise. While the Departments
of Transportation and Defense recognize
the considerable potential for this
concept to provide sealift capacity, and
are working together toward a dual-use
capability with the limited funding that
the Department of Defense has available
for the incorporation of National
Defense Features, policy and protocols
are not yet in place to develop a dualuse capability. No changes to the rule
are currently warranted, however, future
development of the America’s Marine
Highway Program will incorporate dualuse programs when feasible.
Several comments pertained to
Marine Highway Project Applications
and the criteria by which they will be
evaluated. Five commenters

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18099

recommended that the Department of
Transportation recognize the public
benefits that new or expanded services
offer in terms of transportation system
resiliency and redundancy, especially
following natural or man-made events
that can cripple landside corridors. The
Department of Transportation has
modified both the information required
in the application (Section 393.4(e)) and
the evaluation criteria to reflect this
public benefit. Another comment
pointed out the additional public
benefit that shifting oversize and
overweight containerized or trailerized
cargo from roadways can offer because
these cargos cause a disproportionate
amount of damage to road surfaces,
bridges and tunnels. Language was
added to Section 393.4(e)(1)(D) and the
evaluation criteria to address this
benefit.
One commenter asserted that project
designation should be based primarily
on the ability to demonstrate a clear
path to profitability. While the
Department of Transportation agrees
that the ability of a project to ultimately
become self supporting is an important
criterion, a path to profitability alone
does not establish a rationale for
governmental involvement in the
project, which should instead be based
on the potential to produce public
benefits. This is also consistent with a
public investment approach proposed
by the Government Accountability
Office report, entitled, ‘‘Freight
Transportation: Short Sea Shipping
Option Shows Importance of Systematic
Approach to Public Investment
Decisions (July 2005)’’ (GAO–05–768,
July 2005). However, to better clarify
this methodology, both the information
required in project applications and the
weight-based criteria were reorganized
in the final rule. Additionally, in
recognition that confidential business
information may be required to
adequately describe the finance plan, a
section was added to protect
confidential business information.
Two commenters believe that the
Marine Highway Program needs strong
support throughout DOT’s leadership
and inquired about the process and
means by which Marine Highway
Project applications will be evaluated,
designated and supported by the
Federal government. An inter-agency
review team, consisting of both the
Department of Transportation and nonDepartment of Transportation
representation will be established for
this purpose. Section 393.4(e)(6) titled
‘‘Evaluation Process’’ was inserted into
the final rule to address this.
Nine comments were received that
recommended the Department of

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

18100

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Transportation establish standard
measures to quantify benefits of
proposed Marine Highway Projects.
Suggestions included specifying the use
of ‘‘ton-miles’’ and including a formula
to convert to/from twenty-foot
equivalent unit (TEU) and forty-foot
equivalent unit (FEU) using standard
weights. Commenters recommended
including standards for diesel
emissions, fuel savings, and standards
to quantify savings in highway
maintenance and bridge maintenance,
as well as safety benefits on a per-mile
basis. The Department of Transportation
believes that development and use of
uniform measures, to the extent
practicable, would benefit applicants,
improve objective review of
applications and set the stage for
consistent performance measures for
projects that receive designation by the
Secretary. The Department of
Transportation concurs that standards of
measure and some basic baseline
measures would be beneficial, but
applicants should be encouraged to use
more accurate or localized data and
measures, when available. Section
393.4(e)(3) was added in the final rule,
addressing this issue, but the actual
standards and measures will be posted
on the Maritime Administration’s Web
site to enable refinement and updating
over time.
One commenter noted that, after
initial designation, a corridor could
expand beyond the original scope in the
designation. While the Department of
Transportation intends that the Marine
Highway Corridors be broadly defined
and inclusive of all related ports, both
large and small, it is recognized that
specific projects could (and hopefully
will) find expansion opportunities after
designation by the Secretary of
Transportation. To address this
possibility, Section 393.4(e)(5) was
amended to establish a process by
which this can be achieved.
Section 393.5 Incentives, Impediments
and Solutions
A total of 60 comments were received
that either recommended incentives, or
identified and recommended solutions
for impediments to increased use of
America’s Marine Highway. Many of
these comments could be interpreted as
proposing an incentive or addressing
specific impediments. Commenters
proposed incentives including tax
credits, reduced emissions incentives,
accelerated depreciation and other
mechanisms for shippers, service
providers, shipyards and other
stakeholders. Other comments
recommended subsidies to reduce startup risk, use of Congestion Mitigation

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding, and
other vehicles to stimulate new services
and vessel construction. While no
changes to the rule were warranted by
these comments, the Department of
Transportation appreciates the
thoughtful suggestions and will take
them into consideration in meeting the
Energy Act’s requirement to develop
and propose short-term incentives that
would encourage the use of the Marine
Highway.
Comments that identified or
recommended solutions to impediments
to increased use of the Marine Highway
had several areas of focus. The greatest
number of comments (13) identified the
Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) as an
impediment and recommended waiving
HMT for domestic waterborne
shipments. One commenter noted that
with 18 Federal departments and
agencies playing a role in marine
transportation policy and operations,
the lack of a comprehensive regulatory
structure in general represents an
impediment to marine highway growth.
The 24-hour advance notice
requirement for U.S.-Canada services
was also identified as an impediment, as
the duration of most of these voyages is
well under 24 hours. Other comments
proposed funding mechanisms for
infrastructure, weight handling
equipment and port-connectors,
increased dredging in the Great Lakes,
short-term or temporary modifications
to the Jones Act, streamlining or
modification of the Title XI loan
guarantee program, and changes to
worker compensation policy, among
other items. No statutory authority
currently exists to implement these
recommendations. Therefore, no
changes to the rule were warranted by
these comments, however, the
Department of Transportation
appreciates this input and will provide
these comments to the advisory board
that the Energy Act calls for to examine
these issues.
One commenter indicated that the
program needs to be incorporated into
the policies and programs of several
Federal departments to address various
impediments to marine highway
expansion. The Department of
Transportation intends to include
several key governmental agencies on
the advisory board to address these
issues, but no change to the rule is
needed to achieve this outcome.
Section 393.6 Research on Marine
Highway Transportation
The Department received one
comment specific to section 393.6. The
commenter recommended that the
Department of Transportation direct

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

funding for the Maritime
Administration to sponsor Marine
Highway Research and Development
centers that would be provided through
Surface Transportation Reauthorization,
and be primarily aimed at vessel design
(including dual-use DOD/commercial
capabilities) and interfacing port/
terminal design with emerging vessel
characteristics. This comment is beyond
the scope of the rulemaking and does
not impact the final rule.
Program Description
In this rulemaking, the Department of
Transportation adopts as final, with
some minor and clarifying changes, the
America’s Marine Highway Program
established by the October 9, 2008,
Interim Final Rule. This rulemaking also
sets forth more specific procedures for
recommendations for designation of
Marine Highway Corridors, and separate
procedures for applications for Marine
Highway Projects.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and Department
of Transportation Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
This rulemaking is not significant
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, and as a consequence, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) did
not review the rule. This rulemaking is
also not significant under the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures of the
Department (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979). It is also not considered a major
rule for purposes of Congressional
review under Public Law 104–121.
Designation of Marine Highway
Corridors and Marine Highway Projects
does not have an immediate economic
impact. Following designation,
individual Corridor and Project
components that may have an economic
impact will be determined as they are
identified.
Executive Order 13132
We analyzed this rulemaking in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’) and have
determined that it does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. The
regulations herein have no substantial
effects on the States, the current
Federal-State relationship, or the
current distribution of power and
responsibilities among local officials.
No State, local government or Tribal
government raised concerns about
federalism in comments regarding the
interim final rule. Therefore, we did not
consult with State and local officials on

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
this procedural rule. However, we will
act as partners with States and local
officials in transportation planning and
supporting individual projects under
this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires us to assess the impact that
regulations will have on small entities.
After analysis of this final rule, the
Department of Transportation certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, because this
rule merely sets forth procedures.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Environmental Impact Analysis
We have analyzed this final rule for
purposes of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
and we have concluded that designation
of Marine Highway Corridors does not
have an immediate environmental
impact. Designation of Marine Highway
Corridors will only identify existing
landside corridors that could, in the
future, accommodate and benefit from
expanded marine transportation. The
location, scope and nature of any new
or expanded services is not yet known.
The promulgation of these procedural
rules does not therefore significantly
affect the environment. In addition, the
extent of any Federal action, including
funding (if any) is not yet known. NEPA
analysis will be conducted when: (1)
There is a concrete determination of
what role the Federal government might
play in encouraging such services, (2)
the geographic footprint of the program
is determined and; (3) potential Marine
Highway projects are proposed. Until
this information is available, a NEPA
analysis would not present a credible
forward look and would therefore not be
a useful tool for basic program planning.
NEPA analysis will be commenced as
soon as sufficient information is
available.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation establishes new
requirements for designation of a
Marine Highway Project and
republishes the requirements in
MARAD–2008–0096 for designation of a
Marine Highway Corridor. Persons
seeking designation of a Corridor or
Project (if within a designated Marine
Highway Corridor) under America’s
Marine Highway Program are required
to submit a written application via U.S.
Mail or electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov (MARAD–2010–
0022). Measurements and standards
(criteria) for designation of a Marine
Highway Project will be published on

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

the Maritime Administration’s Web site
(http://www.marad.dot.gov/
ships_shipping_landing_page/
mhi_home/mhp_trans_planning/
mhp_trans_planning.htm). The format
will also be provided.
The information collected will be
used to review recommendations for
designation as a Marine Highway
Corridor or Project and evaluate
applications for designation as
‘‘America’s Marine Highway Corridor’’
or ‘‘America’s Marine Highway Project.’’
(The Department of Transportation will
keep business information confidential
if marked accordingly.) Designated
projects will also be published on the
Maritime Administration’s Web site
(http://www.marad.dot.gov/
ships_shipping_landing_page/
mhi_home/
mhp_project_recommendations/
mhp_project_recommendations.htm).
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) will be requested to review and
approve the information collection
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Sec.
3501, et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rulemaking does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It does not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more to either State,
local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and
is the least burdensome alternative that
achieves this objective of U.S. policy.
Department guidance requires the use of
a revised threshold figure of $141.3
million, which is the value of $100
million in 1995 after adjusting for
inflation.
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments, dated November 6, 2000,
seeks to establish regular and
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with Tribal officials in the
development of Federal policies that
have Tribal implications, to strengthen
the United States government-togovernment relationships with Indian
Tribal Governments, and to reduce the
imposition of unfunded mandates upon
Indian Tribes. At this time we believe
that designation of Marine Highway
Corridors and Marine Highway Projects
does not have an impact on Indian
Tribal Governments. Following
designation, individual Corridor and
Project components that may have an
impact on Indian Tribes will be
determined as they are identified. The

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18101

Department of Transportation will
consult with those Indian Tribal
Governments that may be affected by
these designations on factors pertaining
to program implementation.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. The RIN number contained in the
heading of this document can be used
to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 393
Marine Highway, Short sea
transportation, Vessels.
■ Accordingly, the Department of
Transportation amends 46 CFR Chapter
II by revising part 393 to read as follows:
PART 393—AMERICA’S MARINE
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Sec.
393.1 Purpose.
393.2 Definitions.
393.3 Marine Highway Corridors.
393.4 Marine Highway Projects.
393.5 Incentives, Impediments and
Solutions.
393.6 Research on Marine Highway
Transportation.
Authority: Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, Sections 1121, 1122,
and 1123 of Public Law 110–140, enacted
into law on December 19, 2007 (121 Stat.
1492).
§ 393.1

Purpose.

(a) This part prescribes final
regulations establishing a short sea
transportation program as set forth in
Sections 1121, 1122, and 1123 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, enacted into law on December
19, 2007.
(b) The purpose of America’s Marine
Highway Program is described in
Section 1121. Section 1121 states that
‘‘[t]he Secretary shall designate short sea
transportation routes as extensions of

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

18102

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

the surface transportation system to
focus public and private efforts to use
the waterways to relieve landside
congestion along coastal corridors.’’
America’s Marine Highway Program
consists of four primary components:
(1) Marine Highway Corridor
Designations. This regulation
establishes the goals and methods by
which specific Marine Highway
Corridors (including Connectors and
Crossings) will be identified and
designated by the Secretary of
Transportation. The purpose of
designating Marine Highway Corridors
is to integrate America’s Marine
Highway into the surface transportation
system. The Marine Highway Corridors
will serve as extensions of the surface
transportation system. They are
commercial coastal, inland, and
intracoastal waters of the United States,
described in terms of the specific
landside transportation routes (road or
rail line) that they supplement. They
support the movement of passengers
and cargo along these specified routes
and mitigate the effects of landside
congestion, such as increased emissions
and energy inefficiencies. In addition to
corridors, the Secretary may designate
Marine Highway ‘‘Connectors’’ and
‘‘Crossings’’ as described in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of § 393.2. Through
America’s Marine Highway Program, the
Department will encourage the
development of multi-jurisdictional
coalitions and focus public and private
efforts and investment on shifting
freight and passengers from at- or near
capacity landside routes to more
effectively utilize Marine Highway
Corridors.
(2) Marine Highway Project
Designations. This regulation
establishes the goals and methods by
which specific Marine Highway Projects
will be identified and designated by the
Secretary of Transportation. The
purpose is to designate projects that, if
successfully implemented, expanded, or
otherwise enhanced, would reduce
external costs and provide the greatest
benefit to the public. Closely linked to
congestion relief, public benefits can
include, but are not limited to, reduced
emissions, including greenhouse gases,
reduced energy consumption, reduced
costs associated with landside
transportation infrastructure
maintenance savings, improved safety
and transportation system resiliency
and redundancy. Additional
consideration will be given to Marine
Highway Projects that represent the
most cost-effective option among other
modal improvements. Designated
Marine Highway Projects may receive

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

direct support from the Department as
described in this section.
(3) Incentives, Impediments and
Solutions. This section outlines how the
Department, in partnership with public
and private entities, will identify
potential incentives, seek solutions to
impediments to encourage utilization of
America’s Marine Highway and
incorporate it, including ferries, in
State, regional, local, and Tribal
government transportation planning.
(4) Research. This section describes
the research that the Department,
working with the Environmental
Protection Agency, will conduct to
support America’s Marine Highway,
within the limitations of available
resources, and to encourage multi-State
planning. Research would include
environmental and transportation
impacts (benefits and costs), technology,
vessel design, and solutions to
impediments to the Marine Highway.
(c) In addition, vessels engaged in
Marine Highway operations may apply
for Capital Construction Fund (CCF)
benefits. This program was created to
assist owners and operators of U.S.-flag
vessels in accumulating the capital
necessary for the modernization and
expansion of the U.S. merchant marine
by encouraging construction,
reconstruction, or acquisition of vessels
through the deferment of Federal
income taxes on certain deposits of
money placed into a CCF.
§ 393.2

Definitions.

For the purposes of this part:
(a) Administrator. The Maritime
Administrator, Maritime
Administration, U.S. DOT, who has
been authorized by the Secretary of
Transportation to administer America’s
Marine Highway Program.
(b) Applicant. An entity that applies
for designation of a Marine Highway
Corridor or Project under this
regulation.
(c) Coastwise Shipping Laws. Laws,
including the Jones Act, as set forth in
Chapter 551 of Title 46, United States
Code.
(d) Corridor Sponsor. An entity that
recommends a Corridor (including a
Connector or Crossing, as described
below) for designation as a Marine
Highway Corridor. Corridor sponsors
must be public entities, including but
not limited to, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, State governments
(including Departments of
Transportation), port authorities and
Tribal governments, who may submit
recommendations for designation as a
Marine Highway Corridor.
(e) Department. The U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT).

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

(f) Domestic Trade. Trade between
points in the United States.
(g) Lift-on/Lift-off (LO/LO) Vessel. A
vessel of which the loading and
discharging operations are carried out
by cranes and derricks.
(h) Marine Highway Corridor. A water
transportation route that serves as an
extension of the surface transportation
system that can help mitigate
congestion-related impacts along a
specified land transportation route. It is
identified and described in terms of the
land transportation route that it
supplements, and must, by transporting
freight or passengers, provide
measurable benefits to the surface
transportation route in the form of
traffic reductions, reduced emissions,
energy savings, improved safety, system
resiliency, and/or reduced infrastructure
costs. Routes that cannot relieve
landside congestion (i.e.; those to/from
islands) are not eligible for designation
under this program. In addition to
‘‘Corridors,’’ prospective sponsors can
recommend Marine Highway
‘‘Connectors’’ and ‘‘Crossings’’ for
designation as described in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this section:
(1) Marine Highway Connectors are
routes that will provide substantial
linkages to or between the larger
corridors, and serve, in conjunction
with a corridor, to move freight and/or
passengers into, out of or within a
region.
(2) Marine Highway Crossings are
routes that provide relief to congested
border crossings, bridges, and tunnels or
offer a shorter route than the landside
alternative. Although they may not
parallel a corridor or connector,
crossings may provide relief to a
corridor or connector, or to local or
regional passenger and freight
transportation systems. Crossings may
include cross-harbor and inter-terminal
passenger and/or freight services.
(i) Marine Highway Project. A new
Marine Highway service, or expansion
of an existing service, that receives
support from the Department and
provides public benefit by transporting
passengers and/or freight (container or
wheeled) in support of all or a portion
of a Marine Highway Corridor,
Connector or Crossing. Projects are
proposed by a project sponsor and
designated by the Secretary under this
program.
(j) Marine Highway (or Short Sea
Transportation): The carriage by vessel
of passengers and/or cargo (intermodal
containers, trailers, car floats, rail ferries
and other cargoes loaded by wheeled
technology) that is loaded at a port in
the United States and unloaded either at
another port in the United States, or that

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
is loaded at a port in the United States
and unloaded at a port in Canada
located in the Great Lakes-Saint
Lawrence Seaway System, or loaded at
a port in Canada located in the Great
Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway System
and unloaded at a port in the United
States. For the purposes of this specific
program, routes and services that do not
offer potential relief to a landside
transportation route (i.e.; to/from
islands) do not fall within this
definition.
(k) Project sponsor. Project sponsors
must be public entities, including but
not limited to, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, State governments
(including State Departments of
Transportation), port authorities and
Tribal governments, who may submit
applications for designation as a Marine
Highway Project.
(l) Roll-on/Roll-off (RO/RO) Vessel.
Any vessel that has ramps allowing
cargo to be loaded and discharged by
means of wheeled vehicles so that
cranes are not required. This includes,
but is not limited to trailers, car floats
and ferries, including rail ferries.
(m) Secretary. The Secretary of
Transportation.
(n) United States Documented Vessel.
A vessel documented under 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 121.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

§ 393.3

Marine Highway Corridors.

(a) Summary. The purpose of this
section is to designate specific routes as
Marine Highway Corridors (including
Connectors and Crossings). Corridors
will be designated by the Secretary. The
goal of this designation process is to
accelerate the development of multiState and multi-jurisdictional Marine
Highway Corridors to relieve landside
congestion. Designation will encourage
public/private partnerships, and help
focus investment on those Marine
Highway Corridors that offer the
maximum potential public benefit in
congestion-related emissions reduction,
energy efficiency, safety and other areas.
Corridors already designated as
‘‘Corridors of the Future’’ under DOT’s
National Strategy to Reduce Congestion
that have commercial waterways that
parallel or can otherwise benefit them
will be fast-tracked for designation as
Marine Highway Corridors.
(b) Objectives. The primary objectives
of the designation of Marine Highway
Corridors are to:
(1) Establish Marine Highway
Corridors as ‘‘extensions of the surface
transportation system’’ as provided by
Section 1121 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
(2) Develop multi-jurisdictional
coalitions that focus public and private

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

efforts to use the waterways to relieve
congestion-related impacts along land
transportation routes for freight and
passengers.
(3) Obtain public benefit by shifting
freight and passengers in measurable
terms from land transportation routes to
Marine Highway Corridors. In addition,
public benefits can include, but are not
limited to, reduced emissions, including
greenhouse gases, reduced energy
consumption, landside infrastructure
maintenance savings, improved safety,
and added system resiliency. Additional
consideration will be given to Marine
Highway Projects that represent the
most cost-effective option among other
modal improvements and projects that
reduce border delays.
(4) Identify potential savings that
could be realized by providing an
alternative to land transportation
infrastructure construction and
maintenance.
(c) Designation of Marine Highway
Corridors. The Department will
continue to accept Marine Highway
Corridor recommendations from
prospective Corridor sponsors. Corridor
sponsors must be public entities,
including but not limited to,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
State governments (including State
Departments of Transportation), port
authorities and Tribal governments. In
addition to ‘‘Corridors,’’ prospective
sponsors may recommend Marine
Highway ‘‘Connectors’’ and ‘‘Crossings’’
for designation by the Secretary (see
definitions). The Secretary will make
Marine Highway Corridor designations.
In certain cases the Secretary of
Transportation may designate a Marine
Highway Corridor, Connector or
Crossing without receipt of a
recommendation. The Department will
publish all Marine Highway Corridors
that receive designation by the Secretary
on the Maritime Administration’s Web
site. Interested parties are encouraged to
visit http://www.marad.dot.gov/
ships_shipping_landing_page/
mhi_home/mhi_home.htm for the
current list of Designated Corridors.
When responding to specific
solicitations for Marine Highway
Corridors, Connectors and Crossings by
the Secretary of Transportation, the
sponsors should provide the following
information in the recommendation:
(1) Physical Description of Proposed
Marine Highway Corridor. Describe the
proposed Marine Highway Corridor
(including Connector or Crossing), and
its connection to existing or planned
transportation infrastructure and
intermodal facilities. Include key
navigational factors such as available
draft, channel width, bridge or lock

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18103

clearance and identify if they could
limit service.
(2) Surface Transportation Corridor
Served. Provide a summary of the land
transportation route that the Marine
Highway would benefit. Include a
description of the route, its primary
users, the nature, locations and
occurrence of travel delays, urban areas
affected, and other geographic or
jurisdictional issues that impact its
overall operation and performance.
(3) Involved Parties. Provide the
organizational structure of the parties
recommending the Corridor designation
including business affiliations, and
private sector stakeholders. Multijurisdictional coalitions may include
State Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
municipalities and other governmental
entities (including Tribal) that have
been engaged. Include the extent to
which they support the corridor
designation. Provide any affiliations
with environmental groups or civic
associations.
(4) Passengers and Freight. Identify
the number of likely passengers and/or
quantity of freight that are candidates
for shifting to water transportation on
the proposed Marine Highway Corridor.
If known, include specific shippers,
manufacturers, distributors or other
entities that could benefit from a Marine
Highway alternative, and the extent to
which these entities have been engaged.
(5) Congestion Reduction. Describe
the extent to which the proposed
Corridor could relieve landside
congestion in measurable terms. Include
any known offsetting land
transportation infrastructure savings
(either construction or maintenance)
that would result from the project.
(6) Public benefits. Provide, if known,
the savings over status quo in emissions,
including greenhouse gases, energy
consumption, landside infrastructure
maintenance costs, safety and system
resiliency. Specify if the Marine
Highway Corridor represents the most
cost-effective option among other modal
improvements. Include consideration of
the implications future growth may
have on the proposal.
(7) Impediments. Describe known or
anticipated obstacles to shifting capacity
to the proposed Marine Highway
Corridor. Include any strategies, either
in place or proposed, to deal with the
impediments.
(d) Scope of Department Support.
Marine Highway Corridors, Connectors
and Crossings that receive designation
will be posted on a Web site maintained
by the Maritime Administration. The
Department of Transportation will
coordinate with Corridor sponsors to

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

18104

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

identify the most appropriate actions to
support the Corridors. Support could
include any of the following, as
appropriate and within agency
resources:
(1) Promote the Corridor with
appropriate governmental, State, local
and Tribal government transportation
planners, private sector entities or other
decision-makers.
(2) Coordinate with ports, State
Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
localities, other public agencies
(including Tribal governments) and the
private sector to support the designated
corridor. Efforts can be aimed at
obtaining access to land or terminals,
developing landside facilities and
infrastructure, and working with
Federal, regional, State, local, and Tribal
governmental entities to remove barriers
to self-supporting operations.
(3) Pursue memorandums of
agreement with other Federal entities to
transport Federally owned or generated
cargo using waterborne transportation
along the Marine Highway Corridor,
when practical or available.
(4) Assist with collection and
dissemination of data for the
designation and delineation of Marine
Highway Corridors as available
resources permit.
(5) Work with Federal entities and
regional, State, local and Tribal
governments to include designated
Corridors in transportation planning.
(6) Bring specific impediments to the
attention of the advisory board
chartered to address such barriers.
(7) Conduct research on issues
specific to designated Corridors as
available resources permit.
(8) Utilize current or future Federal
funding mechanisms, as appropriate, to
support the Corridor.
(9) Communicate with designated
Corridor coalitions to provide ongoing
support and identify lessons learned
and best practices for the overall Marine
Highway program.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

§ 393.4

Marine Highway Projects.

(a) Summary. The purpose of this
section is to designate projects that, if
successfully implemented, expanded, or
otherwise enhanced, would reduce
external costs and provide the greatest
benefit to the public. In addition to
congestion relief, public benefits can
include, but are not limited to, reduced
emissions, including greenhouse gases,
reduced energy consumption, landside
infrastructure maintenance savings, and
improved safety. The Department will
give additional consideration to Marine
Highway Projects that represent the
most cost-effective option among other

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

modal improvements or reduce border
crossing delays. Some Marine Highway
Projects can also provide public benefit
by offering routes that are more resilient
to natural or human incidents that
interrupt surface transportation, or
provide additional, redundant surface
transportation options. Designation can
help focus public and private
investment on pre-identified projects
that offer the maximum potential public
benefit. Designated Marine Highway
Projects may receive support from the
Department as described in this section.
(b) Objectives. The primary objectives
of the designation of Marine Highway
Projects are to:
(1) Reduce landside congestionrelated impacts.
(2) Identify proposed water
transportation services that represent
the greatest public benefit as measured
in reduced emissions, including
greenhouse gases, reduced energy
consumption, landside infrastructure
maintenance savings and improved
safety.
(3) Identify potential savings with
water transportation projects that
represent the most cost-effective option
among other modal improvements or
reduce border crossing delays.
(4) Improve surface transportation
system resiliency and provide
additional options.
(5) Focus resources on those projects
that offer the greatest likelihood of
successful operation.
(6) Develop best practices for the
Marine Highway Program.
(7) Provide specific examples, with
performance measures and quantifiable
outcomes, of successful Marine
Highway Projects for demonstration of
the benefits of water transportation.
(c) Designation of Marine Highway
Projects. The Department will solicit
applications for designation as specific
Marine Highway Projects. Applications
will be accepted from a Project sponsor.
Project sponsors must be public entities,
including but not limited to,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
State governments (including State
Departments of Transportation), port
authorities and Tribal governments.
Project sponsors are encouraged to
develop coalitions and public/private
partnerships with the common objective
of developing the specific Marine
Highway Project. Potential partners can
include vessel owners and operators,
third party logistics providers, trucking
companies, shippers, railroads, port
authorities, State, regional, local and
Tribal government transportation
planners, environmental interests or any
combination of entities working in
collaboration under a single application.

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Candidate Projects can start a new
operation or be an existing Marine
Highway operation where expansion or
improvements present maximum public
benefit. Applications must meet the
requirements of coastwise shipping laws
and all applicable Federal, State and
local laws.
(d) Action by the Department of
Transportation. The Department will
evaluate and select Projects based on an
analysis and technical review of the
information provided by the applicant.
The Department will also evaluate
projects based on the results of an
environmental analysis. Projects that
support a designated Marine Highway
Corridor (or Connector or Crossing),
receive a favorable technical review,
and meet other criteria as defined in 46
CFR 393.4(e), may be nominated by the
Maritime Administrator for selection by
the Secretary. Upon designation as a
Marine Highway Project, the
Department will coordinate with the
Project sponsor to identify the most
appropriate Departmental actions to
support the project. Department support
could include any of the following, as
appropriate and within agency
resources:
(1) Promote the service with
appropriate governmental, regional,
State, local or Tribal government
transportation planners, private sector
entities or other decision makers.
(2) Coordinate with ports, State
Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
localities, other public agencies and the
private sector to support the designated
service. Efforts can be aimed at
identifying resources, obtaining access
to land or terminals, developing
landside facilities and infrastructure,
and working with Federal, regional,
State, local or Tribal governmental
entities to remove barriers to success.
(3) Pursue memorandums of
agreement with other Federal entities to
transport Federally owned or generated
cargo using the services of the
designated project, when practical or
available.
(4) In cases where transportation
infrastructure is needed, Project
sponsors may request to be included on
the Secretary of Transportation’s list of
high-priority transportation
infrastructure projects under Executive
Order 13274, ‘‘Environmental
Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Review.’’ For these
projects, Executive Order 13274
provides that Federal agencies shall, to
the maximum extent practicable,
expedite their reviews for relevant
permits or other approvals and take
related actions as necessary, consistent

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with available resources and applicable
laws.
(5) Assist with developing individual
performance measures for Marine
Highway Projects.
(6) Work with Federal entities and
regional, State, local and Tribal
governments to include designated
Projects in transportation planning.
(7) Bring specific impediments to the
attention of the advisory board
chartered to address these barriers.
(8) Conduct research on issues
specific to Marine Highway Projects.
(9) Utilize current or future Federal
funding mechanisms, as appropriate, to
support the Projects.
(10) Maintain liaison with sponsors
and representatives of designated
Projects to provide ongoing support and
identify lessons learned and best
practices for other projects and the
overall Marine Highway program.
(e) Application for Designation as a
Marine Highway Project. This section
specifies the criteria that the
Department will use to evaluate Marine
Highway Project applications.
Applicants should provide the
following:
(1) Applications for Proposed
Projects. When responding to specific
solicitations for Marine Highway
Projects by the Department, describe the
overall operation of the proposed
project, including which ports and
terminals will be served, number and
type of vessels, size, quantity and type
of cargo and/or passengers, routes,
frequency, and other relevant
information. Applicants should also
include the following information in
their project applications:
(i) Marine Highway Corridor(s).
Identify which, if known, designated
Marine Highway Corridors, Connectors
or Crossings will be utilized.
(ii) Organization. Provide the
organizational structure of the proposed
project, including business affiliations,
environmental, non-profit organizations
and governmental or private sector
stakeholders.
(iii) Partnerships.
(A) Private Sector participation.
Identify private sector partners and
describe their levels of commitment.
Private sector partners can include
terminals, vessel operators, shipyards,
shippers, trucking companies, railroads,
third party logistics providers, shipping
lines, labor, workforce and other entities
deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
(B) Public Sector partners: Identify
State Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
municipalities and other governmental
entities (including Tribal) that have
been engaged and the extent to which

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

they support the service. Include any
affiliations with environmental groups
or civic associations.
(C) Documentation. Provide
documents affirming commitment or
support from entities involved in the
project.
(iv) External cost savings and public
benefit.
(A) Potential relief to surface
transportation travel delays. Describe
the extent to which the proposed project
will relieve landside congestion in
measurable terms now and in the future,
such as reductions in vehicle miles
traveled. Include the landside routes
that stand to benefit from the water
transportation operation.
(B) Emissions benefits. Address the
savings, in quantifiable terms, now and
in the future over the current practice in
emissions, including greenhouse gas
emissions, criteria air pollutants or
other environmental benefits the project
offers.
(C) Energy savings. Provide an
analysis of potential reductions in
energy consumption, in quantifiable
terms, now and in the future over the
current practice.
(D) Landside transportation
infrastructure maintenance savings. To
the extent the data is available, indicate,
in dollars per year, the projected savings
of public funds that would result from
a proposed project in road or railroad
maintenance or repair, including
pavement, bridges, tunnels or related
transportation infrastructure. Include
the impacts of accelerated infrastructure
deterioration caused by vehicles
currently using the route, especially in
cases of oversize or overweight vehicles.
(E) Safety improvements. Describe, in
measurable terms, the projected safety
improvements that would result from
the proposed operation.
(F) System resiliency and redundancy.
To the extent data is available describe,
if applicable, how a proposed Marine
Highway Project offers a resilient route
or service that can benefit the public.
Where land transportation routes
serving a locale or region are limited,
describe how a proposed project offers
an alternative and the benefit this could
offer when other routes are interrupted
as a result of natural or man-made
incidents.
(v) Capacity Alternatives. In cases
where a Marine Highway Project is
proposed as an alternative to
constructing new land transportation
capacity, indicate, in quantifiable terms,
whether the proposed project represents
the most cost-beneficial option among
other modal improvements. Include in
the comparison an analysis of the full
range of benefits expected from the

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18105

project. Include the projected savings in
life-cycle costs of publicly maintained
infrastructure.
(vi) Business Planning. Indicate the
degree to which the proposed project is
associated with a service that is selfsupporting:
(A) Financial plan. Provide the
project’s financial plan and provide
projected revenues and expenses.
Include labor and operating costs,
drayage, fixed and recurring
infrastructure and maintenance costs,
vessel or equipment acquisition or
construction costs, etc. Include any
anticipated changes in local or regional
freight or passenger transportation,
policy or regulations, ports, industry,
corridors, or other developments
affecting the project.
(B) Demand for services. Identify
shippers that have indicated an interest
in and level of commitment to the
proposed service, or describe the
specific commodities, market, and
shippers the service will attract, and the
extent to which these entities have been
engaged. In the case of services
involving passengers, provide indicators
of demand for the service, anticipated
volumes and other factors that indicate
likely utilization of the service. Include
a marketing strategy, if one is in place.
(C) Analysis. Provide, (or reference, if
publicly available) market or
transportation system research, data,
and analysis used to develop or support
the business model.
(vii) Proposed Project Timeline.
Include a proposed project timeline
with estimated start dates and key
milestones. Include the point in the
timeline at which the enterprise is
anticipated to attain self-sufficiency (if
applicable).
(viii) Support. Describe any known or
anticipated obstacles to either
implementation or long-term success of
the project. Include any strategies, either
in place or proposed, to mitigate
impediments. In the event that public
sector financial support is being sought,
describe the amount, form and duration
of public investment required.
(ix) Environmental Considerations.
Applicants must provide all information
on hand that would assist the
Department in conducting
environmental analysis of the proposed
project under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
(2) Cost and Benefits. The Department
believes that benefit-cost analysis
(BCA), including the monetization and
discounting of costs and benefits to a
common unit of measurement in
present-day dollars, is important. The
systematic process of comparing

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

18106

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

expected benefits and costs helps
decision-makers organize information
about, and evaluate trade-offs between
alternative transportation investments.
However, we also recognize that
development of a thorough BCA can be
prohibitively costly to applicants,
especially in cases where Federal
funding is not currently available.
Applicants should provide a BCA, if one
is available. At a minimum, applicants
should provide estimates of the project’s
expected benefits in external cost
savings and public benefit and costs of
capacity alternatives [sections
393.4(e)(1)(iv) and 393.4(e)(1)(v)].
(3) Standards and Measures. The
Department will post, on the Maritime
Administration’s Web site, (http://
www.marad.dot.gov) proposed
standards (i.e.: the definition and use of
ton-miles, measures of landside
congestion, etc.) and measures that,
lacking more specific or technically
supported applicant-provided data, will
be used by the Department to evaluate
applications. Some examples of
measures are the use of a standard cargo
tonnage per container, fuel consumption
rates, vehicle emissions and safety data
for various transportation options, and
baseline maintenance, repair and
construction costs for surface
transportation infrastructure. While we
recognize that these standards and
measures may not be ideal, the intent is
to establish a minimal baseline by
which to evaluate external costs and
public benefits of transportation
options. In the event applicants provide
more specific and supported measures,
they will be used in evaluating the
potential benefits and costs of a project.
(4) Protection of Confidential Business
Information. All information submitted
as part of or in support of an application
shall use publicly available data or data
that can be made public and
methodologies that are accepted by
industry practice and standards, to the
extent possible. If your application
includes information that you consider
to be trade secret or confidential
commercial or financial information,
please do the following:
(i) Note on the front cover that the
submission ‘‘Contains Confidential
Business Information (CBI);’’
(ii) Mark each affected page ‘‘CBI;’’ and
(iii) Clearly highlight or otherwise
denote the CBI portions. The
Department protects such information
from disclosure to the extent allowed
under applicable law. In the event the
Department receives a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for the
information, the Department will follow
the procedures described in its FOIA
regulations at 49 CFR § 7.17. Only

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

information that is ultimately
determined to be confidential under that
procedure will be exempt from
disclosure under FOIA.
(5) Contents of Application. When
responding to specific solicitations for
Marine Highway Projects by the
Department, applicants should include
all of the information requested by
Section 393.4(e)(1) and (2) above
organized in a manner consistent with
the elements set forth in that section.
The Department reserves the right to ask
any applicant to supplement the data in
its application, but expects applications
to be complete upon submission. The
narrative portion of an application
should not exceed 20 pages in length.
The narrative should address all
relevant information contained in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of
§ 393.4. Documentation supporting the
assertions made in the narrative portion
may also be provided in the form of
appendices, but limited to relevant
information. Applications may be
submitted electronically via the Federal
Register (http://www.regulations.gov).
Applications submitted in writing must
include the original and three copies
and must be on 8.5″ x 11″ single spaced
paper, excluding maps, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS)
representations, etc. In the event that
the sponsor of a Marine Highway Project
that has already been designated by the
Secretary seeks a modification to the
designation because of a change in
project scope, an expansion of the
project, or other significant change to
the project, the project sponsor should
request the change in writing to the
Secretary via the Administrator of the
Maritime Administration. The request
should contain any changed or new
information that is relevant to the
project.
(6) Evaluation Process. Upon receipt
by the Maritime Administrator, the
application will be evaluated using the
criteria outlined above during a
technical review and an environmental
analysis. The review will assess factors
such as project scope, impact, public
benefit, environmental effect, offsetting
costs, cost to the Government (if any),
the likelihood of long-term selfsupporting operations, and its
relationship with Marine Highway
Corridors once designated (See section
393.3 Marine Highway Corridors).
Additional factors may be considered
during the evaluation process. Upon
completion of the technical review,
applications will be forwarded to an
inter-agency review team as described
below. The Department will establish an
inter-agency team to review each
application received during the

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

solicitation period (solicitation periods
will be established via a future Federal
Register Notice). The evaluation team
will be led by the Office of the Secretary
and will include members of the
Maritime Administration, other
Department of Transportation Operating
Administrations, and as appropriate,
representation from other Federal
agencies and other representatives, as
needed. The inter-agency team will
evaluate applications using criteria that
establishes the degree to which a
proposed project can; reduce external
cost and provide public benefit; offer a
lower-cost alternative to increasing
capacity in the Corridor, and;
demonstrate the likelihood the service
associated with the project will become
self-supporting in a specified and
reasonable timeframe. The Department
will assign ratings of ‘‘highly
recommended,’’ ‘‘recommended,’’ or ‘‘not
recommended’’ for each application
based on the criteria set forth in section
393.4(e)(1) and (2) of this rule. Specific
numerical scores will not be assigned.
Within the overall criteria of External
Cost Savings and Public Benefit,
elements paragraphs (e)(1)(iv)(A)
through (e)(1)(iv)(D) of this section will
receive greater weight than will
paragraphs (e)(1)(iv)(E) and (e)(1)(iv)(F)
of this section. For the Business
Planning elements, only paragraphs
(e)(1)(vi)(A) and (e)(1)(vi)(B) of this
section will be weighted; paragraph
(e)(1)(vi)(C) of this section will be
reviewed to assess the degree to which
future projections such as operating
costs and freight/passenger demand are
accurate and reliable. Projects that have
been deemed ‘‘highly recommended’’
and ‘‘recommended’’ will be placed on a
preliminary list of projects for
designation. The Secretary will make
final designations in a manner that
provides a balance between geographic
regions and business models (i.e. among
freight and passenger, expansion and
new service, and existing vessel/
terminal and new construction) to the
degree this can be achieved. Prospective
project sponsors will be notified as to
the status of their application in writing
once a determination has been made.
(7) Performance Monitoring. (i) Once
designated projects enter the operational
phase (either start of a new service, or
expansion of existing service), the
Department will evaluate them regularly
to determine if the project’s objectives
are being achieved.
(ii) Overall project performance will
be in one of three categories—exceeds,
meets, or does not meet original
projections in each of the three areas
defined below:

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Public benefit. Does the project meet
the stated goals in shifting specific
numbers of vehicles (number of trucks,
rail cars or automobiles) off the
designated landside routes? Other
public benefits, including energy
savings, reduced emissions, and safety
improvements will be assumed to be a
direct derivative of either numbers of
vehicles shifted, or vehicle/ton miles
avoided, unless specific factors change
(such as a change in vessel fuel or
emissions).
Public cost. Is the overall cost to the
Federal government (if any) on track
with estimates at the time of
designation? The overall cost to the
Federal government represents the
amount of Federal investment (i.e.
direct funding, loan guarantees or
similar mechanisms) reduced by the
offsetting savings the project represents
(road/bridge wear and tear avoided,
infrastructure construction or expansion
deferred).
Timeliness factor. Is the project on
track for the point at which the
enterprise is projected to attain selfsufficiency? For example, if the project
was anticipated to attain self-sufficiency
after 36 months of operation, is it on
track at the point of evaluation to meet
that objective? This can be determined
by assessing revenues, freight and
passenger trends, expenses and other
factors established in the application
review process.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES

§ 393.5. Incentives, Impediments and
Solutions.

(a) Summary. The purpose of this
section is to identify short term
incentives and solutions to
impediments in order to encourage use
of the Marine Highway for freight and
passengers.
(b) Objectives. This section is aimed at
increasing the use of the Marine
Highways through the following
primary objectives:
(1) Encourage the integration of
Marine Highways in transportation
plans at the State, regional, local and
Tribal levels.
(2) Develop short term incentives
aimed at expanding existing or starting
new Marine Highway operations.
(3) Identify and seek solutions to
impediments to the Marine Highway.
(c) Federal, State, Local, Regional and
Tribal Transportation Planning. The
Department will coordinate with
Federal, State, local and Tribal
governments and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to develop strategies to
encourage the use of America’s Marine
Highways for transportation of
passengers and cargo. The Department
will:

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:01 Apr 08, 2010

Jkt 220001

(1) Work with these entities to assess
plans and develop strategies, where
appropriate, to incorporate Marine
Highway transportation, including
ferries, and other marine transportation
solutions for regional and interstate
transport of freight and passengers in
their statewide and metropolitan
transportation plans.
(2) Facilitate groups of States and
multi-State transportation entities to
determine how Marine Highway
transportation can address traffic delays,
bottlenecks, and other interstate
transportation challenges to their
mutual benefit.
(3) Identify other Federal agencies
that have jurisdiction over the project,
or which currently provide funding for
components of the project, in order to
determine the extent to which those
agencies should be consulted with and
invited to assist in the coordination
process.
(4) Consult with Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Transit
Administration and other entities
within DOT, as appropriate, for support
and to evaluate costs and benefits of
proposed Marine Highway Corridors
and Projects.
(d) Short-Term Incentives. The
Department will develop proposed
short-term incentives to encourage the
use, initiation, or expansion of Marine
Highway services in consultation with
shippers and other participants in
transportation logistics, and government
entities, as appropriate.
(e) Impediments and Solutions. The
Department will either establish a
board, or modify an existing body, in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), whose role is to
identify impediments that hinder
effective use of the Marine Highways
and recommend solutions. The Board
will meet regularly and report its
findings and recommended solutions to
the Maritime Administrator. Board
membership will include, among others,
representation by Federal Departments
and Agencies, State Departments of
Transportation, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and other local public
entities including Tribal governments
and private sector stakeholders. The
Department will take actions, as
appropriate, to address impediments to
the Marine Highways.
§ 393.6. Research on Marine Highway
Transportation.

(a) Summary. The Department will
work in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency and
other entities as appropriate, within the

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

18107

limits of available resources, to conduct
research in support of America’s Marine
Highway or in direct support of
designated Marine Highway Corridors
and Projects.
(b) Objectives. The primary objectives
of selected research Projects are to:
(1) Identify and quantify
environmental and transportationrelated benefits that can be derived from
utilization of the Marine Highways as
compared to other modes of surface
transportation.
(2) Identify existing or emerging
technology, vessel design, and other
improvements that would reduce
emissions, increase fuel economy, and
lower costs of Marine Highway
transportation and increase the
efficiency of intermodal transfers.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
By Order of the Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–7899 Filed 4–7–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2009–0010; MO
92210–0–0009–B4]
RIN 1018–AV87

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Oregon Chub
(Oregonichthys crameri); Correction
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), published a
final rule to designate critical habitat for
the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys
crameri) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act), on
March 10, 2010. We are publishing
several corrections to that final rule in
this document.
DATES: This rule is effective April 9,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Our final rule and
associated documentation are available
at http://regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2009–0010 and, by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Portland, OR
97266; telephone 503–231–6179;
facsimile 503–231–6195.

E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM

09APR1