[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44539-44543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21305]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 95-14]


Framework for Guiding FHWA Policy Decisions Affecting Freight 
Transportation

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Interim policy statement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on a draft framework intended to 
identify the principles which will guide FHWA policy decisions 
affecting freight transportation systems. These principles do not 
reflect a priority in their order--they move from the most generic 
concepts through to more specific ones, and contain many common 
elements. This framework focuses on the highway element of those 
freight transport systems but recognizes the importance of intermodal 
connectivity for a growing portion of U.S. freight transport. This 
interim statement could serve as a building block for a broader 
Departmental intermodal freight policy. In addition to a brief 
discussion of each of the principles, several key current issues are 
discussed that illustrate how the principles are reflected in questions 
of Federal interest.

DATES: Comments should be received by October 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed statements to FHWA Docket No. 95-14, 
FHWA, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. All statements received in Docket 
No. 95-14 will be available for examination at the above address 
between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of their 
statements must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Keane, Office of Policy 
Development, Transportation Studies Division, at (202) 366-9242; or Mr. 
Charles Medalen, Office of Chief Counsel, Motor Carrier Law Division, 
at (202) 266-1354, FHWA, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Efficient, effective, and safe highway systems play a critical role 
in the U.S. economy; nearly all the essentials of modern life travel on 
them, whether in the delivery of intermediate goods to production 
plants or shipment of goods to final market. The highway system is an 
especially important foundation of commerce as it provides access to 
raw materials, labor, and markets. Maintaining and improving highways 
and their connections to intermodal freight facilities, while producing 
a safe environment for the traveling public, ensures shippers and 
carriers the freedom to adapt quickly to changing markets and 
environments with some measure of confidence that the spatial barriers 
between markets can be overcome. Therefore, the FHWA has developed a 
draft framework of principles by which to guide policy decisions having 
an impact on freight transportation systems. The FHWA invites comments 
on this draft framework, which is set forth below.

Draft Policy

Part I--The Principles

    Highway and intermodal freight transport policy can be fashioned to 
improve the Nation's long-term economic prospects and vitality. As in 
all policy decisions considering the interests of the public at large, 
a balance must be struck among many worthy goals. In defining the 
public interest, Federal highway programs and freight-related policies 
should advance the following principles:

1. Reflect the Importance of Freight Transportation to National and 
Regional Economies

    Transportation policy with regard to investment and regulatory 
decisions must take into consideration the impacts that such policies 
may have on the movement of both people and goods.
    The relationship between transportation and economic development is 
obvious. Highways and other modes of transportation enable individuals 
to commute to their workplaces; transportation is also a critical part 
of the production process. While the magnitude of the relationship has 
been debated, it is well known that the quality of the transportation 
system is closely tied to the industrial and employment base of 
regions. Good, dependable transportation is an important factor in any 
region's current economic well-being as well as its growth potential. 
The U.S. economy as a whole is highly integrated and is becoming more 
closely tied to the global economy. To retain and expand its economic 
vitality and competitive position, the Nation must ensure that its 
producers and carriers have quality access at the lowest reasonable 
cost, and in turn, that its markets are accessible.
    A basic characteristic of highway networks is that automobiles, 
trucks, and buses share the common highway. The combination of large 
freight vehicles with a smaller, lighter passenger car fleet causes 
special safety risks. Large vehicles impose unique demands on their 
drivers and those sharing the road with them. Their size and handling 
characteristics must be taken into consideration in the design of 
roadways. Increasingly, the environment in which the vehicle is 
operated is congested and physically deteriorated. Infrastructure 
planners, providers, and operators should adopt a customer orientation 
for freight movement, recognizing that freight and passenger 
transportation are distinctly different markets with fundamentally 
different requirements.

2. Adopt a Long-Term Perspective for Freight Decisions

    Since investments in highway infrastructure have such long usable 
lives, decisions should be as future-oriented as possible, taking into 
account the current and future demands of the freight market.
    Transportation agencies should maintain, operate, and improve 
highway systems commensurate with current and projected demand. One 
element of that investment is the development of an 

[[Page 44540]]
understanding (qualitatively and quantitatively) of the demand for 
goods movement and its incorporation into planning and forecasting. 
Lack of effective transportation can lead to the demise of business and 
jobs or be an impediment to growth in any area of the State. Agencies 
should recognize that freight demand is dynamic: the mix of supply and 
demand changes over time.
    Although State Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations (MPO) have relatively sophisticated passenger 
transportation planning procedures, most agencies have little 
experience in developing forecasts of freight transportation movements 
for statewide freight transportation plans. The transportation needs of 
basic industries are important criteria in setting program priorities. 
Economic considerations should be combined with other measures of 
transportation need to develop plans for transportation systems and 
networks. Life-cycle cost principles should be reflected at the 
program, management system, and project level.
    Increasingly all modes of freight transportation are using 
computerized technologies to track cargo and improve the efficiency of 
pickup, delivery, and terminal operations. Work underway in the 
commercial vehicle operations element of the Intelligent Transportation 
System (ITS) program holds great promise for augmenting private sector 
programs by improving the efficiency and safety of motor carrier 
operations, including intermodal operations. These kinds of forward-
looking considerations should be incorporated into a future-oriented 
vision of freight demand.

3. Ensure that Priority Consideration for Safety is Affirmed

    The DOT's strategic plans have clearly enunciated the importance of 
safety. We are guided by a vision statement which leads with ``the 
Nation's need for the safe . . . movement of people and goods . . .'' 
and a mission statement which follows with a pledge to ``[i]mprove all 
aspects of surface transportation safety.'' The plan's safety goal is 
to ``[i]mprove surface transportation safety through a coordinated 
effort to reduce fatalities, injuries, property damage, and hazardous 
material incidents.''
    The rationale for Federal involvement in transportation safety has 
been that the marketplace alone will not produce an acceptable level of 
transportation safety and, therefore, it should be provided by the 
public sector. Government policies are established to ensure that the 
truck and bus industries operate safely. The ultimate goal of these 
policies has been to prevent accidents and minimize the loss associated 
with accidents. Whenever the government issues regulations or allocates 
resources that affect motor carrier safety, it balances the public's 
desire for efficiency and mobility in transport services with the 
desire for improved safety.
    While many truck safety policies are initiated at the Federal 
level, responsibility for truck safety investment and oversight is 
shared among all levels of government and the industry. The recognition 
of this shared responsibility has led to major improvements in truck 
safety over the last several years.
    Improving truck safety will require increased attention to: 
operator proficiency; improvements in vehicle design and performance; 
improved data collection and more comprehensive information to target 
resources at high risk carriers; better analysis and more focused 
research on vehicle and driver performance, coupled with greater use of 
technical innovations; a stronger link between Federal, State, local, 
and private industry safety initiatives; and designing road systems to 
accommodate large vehicles.
    Technology, innovation, and research hold great potential to 
improve the productivity and safety of freight transportation. Various 
technologies being developed under the ITS program should substantially 
improve motor carrier safety and productivity. On-board safety sensors 
to automatically measure the safe condition of the vehicle can be a 
reality in the near future. Existing vehicle technologies such as 
antilock braking systems, B-trains and double drawbar dollies also are 
available to improve the safety of multi-trailer combinations.

4. Promote Equity and Cost-Effectiveness

    Decisions regarding allocating resources and imposing regulatory 
controls should be equitable and cost-effective. They should recognize 
the costs imposed across industry sectors, across transport modes, 
across regions, and across classes of consumers. To the maximum extent 
possible, each mode and class of user should pay the costs of public 
facilities and services provided for their operations.
    Direct or indirect subsidies may affect competition among the 
freight modes. Such subsidies result when user fees and other policies 
result in the various modes not paying the full costs of their 
operations. To the extent compatible with other goals, government 
subsidies that affect competition among the modes should be minimized.
    Since governmental agencies are allocating scarce public resources, 
investment options should be evaluated against the opportunity cost in 
the private market. Threshold criteria should require benefits to 
exceed the cost. The benefits and costs which accrue directly to 
freight carriers and indirectly to their customers should be explicitly 
included in evaluations of system improvements and/or regulations. The 
assessment of infrastructure investment and regulatory controls should 
include measurement of the full range of impacts, appropriately 
discounted over their entire life cycle. For example, this means that 
the impacts of delay and vehicle operating costs, rehabilitation and 
maintenance activities in work zones should be taken into 
consideration. Another example relates to incorporating economic 
benefits derived from system efficiencies which accrue to communities 
and shippers, often referred to as economic development benefits.

5. Encourage an Integrated, Intermodal Systems Approach

    The difficulties that result from different modes and carriers 
working together should not be aggravated by unnecessary governmental 
barriers or inadequate connections due to poor system design.
    The productivity of trucking firms and their customers depend on 
highways and their connections with truck terminals, ports, railroads, 
and airports. Moving freight by a combination of two or more modes in 
an integrated manner is an option that allows the superior attributes 
of each mode to be utilized. This does not mean that multi-modal 
movements are inherently better than single-mode movements. It does 
mean that, given the latitude to choose the best mode(s) for the move, 
carriers will be able to provide the most efficient transport with the 
potential for the lowest cost. Developments in U.S. manufacturing 
practice contribute to the growing trend toward intermodal shipments. 
It is critical that State and MPO plans, programs, and management 
systems address intermodal access and connections.
    The National Highway System (NHS) will facilitate U.S. 
international trade and growing domestic productivity through improved 
efficiencies in the movement of goods produced for and by U.S. 
businesses. Improving the quality of connections among transportation 
modes, aiming toward smooth and seamless interchange, along with 
improving the highway links 

[[Page 44541]]
themselves, are two examples of the benefits that will accrue from 
designation of the NHS.

6. Be Sensitive to Externalities Caused by Transportation of Goods

    Take appropriate action to reduce or mitigate externalities.
    Many costs of highway freight transportation are not accounted for 
in the marketplace and thus are not recognized directly by motor 
carrier operators. These costs include environmental impacts (such as 
exhaust emissions, noise, and community impacts) and safety. Some of 
these external costs can be mitigated by regulatory actions (e.g., 
requiring cleaner or quieter vehicles), or programmatic means (e.g., 
improved traffic safety inspection programs). Market pricing approaches 
such as emissions or congestion pricing have also been proposed.
    It is important to estimate the incidence and magnitude of external 
costs associated with highway freight transportation before regulatory 
or pricing solutions are implemented. It also is important to estimate 
the impacts of such solutions on motor carriers, including impacts on 
their competitive position versus other modes. A further consideration 
is the extent to which external costs are associated with operations of 
those competing modes.
    The importance of these estimates is reflected in Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) planning reforms, 
which require consideration of factors such as social, economic, 
energy, environmental, and land use/development effects of 
transportation decisions. Quantification should be encouraged as a 
means to bring these issues into the policy equation, with a common 
measure of value. The estimates and their use should reflect the 
limitations of such analysis. Methodologies and techniques for 
capturing these impacts should be pursued vigorously.

7. Provide an Environment That Will Enable the Transportation Industry 
To Be Strong and Internationally Competitive

    Recognize that a strong and internationally competitive 
transportation industry requires a sound and effective regulatory 
framework that reserves economic regulation only for the most obvious 
instances of transportation market failure. Within that framework, 
market-based approaches to regulation can provide carriers with the 
flexibility needed to comply with regulations while maintaining an 
incentive to offer cost-effective, competitive service. In this spirit, 
the U.S. Department of Transportation has stated in its report to 
Congress on the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission that a 
new regulatory approach has emerged in recent years, one which is 
``recognizing competition as the best regulator of transportation * * 
*.'' The Department therefore, has recommended removing various archaic 
Federal laws which are no longer applicable because of structural 
changes in the market for freight transportation.
    Also, the Department encourages innovation through public-private 
financing partnerships to achieve greater efficiencies in both the 
private and public sectors. Cost-sharing and public-private partnership 
concepts provide new opportunities for the States to increase 
investment in needed transportation facilities and to work with the 
private sector to promote innovative solutions to transportation 
problems. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides an 
example where the public and private sectors can work together to 
eliminate unnecessary cross-border barriers to trade.

Part II--Contemporary Issues

    The above principles represent those values that we feel should be 
reflected in a freight policy. The remainder of this document discusses 
a series of topical issues in a manner which illustrates how many of 
the functional areas which the Department must address should be 
approached in the context of a comprehensive freight policy. They 
reflect a perspective that embraces highway system stewardship from 
both a facilities management and motor carrier operational perspective. 
The above principles are a starting point for the questions of 
governmental interest, generally, and the Federal interest, in 
particular.

1. Infrastructure--System Design and Investment

    One of the strengths of the highway motor carrier transport mode is 
its inherent flexibility advantage and thus high service quality. New 
economic processes and arrangements place high value in the 
characteristics of reliability and security in addition to speed. The 
environment in which large vehicles operate is key to improving truck 
safety. Road design significantly affects truck accident rates. For 
example, the rate of fatal combination truck accidents on non-
Interstate roads is significantly higher than the rate on Interstate 
roads. The interface between roadway geometry and truck safety requires 
scrutiny when road design alternatives are considered or highway 
improvements are made.
    A revolution in freight transportation is occurring as our domestic 
highway programs face a major crossroads. The completion of the 
Interstate System and designation of the NHS signal a new stage in our 
highway network. Due to demographic and economic changes throughout the 
United States, the Interstate System alone cannot adequately serve the 
needs of modern goods movement. The NHS is intended to concentrate 
Federal resources on those elements of the principal arterial system 
which are crucial to interstate and international commerce.
    Much of the Nation's industrial capacity has moved from its 
northeastern urban origins to rural areas of the country. International 
manufacturing arrangements are growing in importance. With 
implementation of the NAFTA, the need for fast, reliable transportation 
connecting Mexico, the United States, and Canada will become even more 
vital. The NHS will be focused on and provide for the current and 
future national highway transportation needs such as those resulting 
from changing trade and traffic flows.
    Improving the capacity, safety, and structural life of the NHS will 
facilitate U.S. international trade and growing domestic productivity 
through improved efficiencies in the movement of goods produced for and 
by U.S. businesses. With Federal input, State transportation plans and 
specific projects must ensure that the objectives of States and 
localities contribute to the NHS's goal of improved economic 
competitiveness through improved mobility.
    Although the NHS will enhance the economic competitiveness of U.S. 
businesses by improving highway transportation, these gains will not be 
maximized unless the quality of connections among transportation modes 
is improved. The National Transportation System planning framework will 
help in the development of a smooth and seamless interchange among the 
transportation modes by highlighting for planners the important 
intermodal connections nationwide and identifying any impediments to 
the efficient movement of goods through these connections. This, in 
turn, will enhance the efficiency of freight carriers and the general 
economic performance nationally as transport costs decrease. 

[[Page 44542]]

3. Intermodal Freight Planning
    An important step in freight planning is to see the system as a 
whole--to understand freight movements as a system of supply chains and 
distribution networks. Since an important Departmental goal is to 
contribute to the Nation's economic performance, this implies the 
desire to select the most important movements to address, not just the 
best way to address them. This requires the identification of the needs 
of shippers with respect to infrastructure and/or freight operations.
    As our concerns have matured to the perspective of total system 
management, six specific management systems (pavement, bridges, safety, 
traffic congestion, public transportation, and intermodal 
transportation facilities) and the traffic monitoring system have been 
identified that will provide information concerning both the condition 
and the performance of the existing and future transportation system.
    Although no ``freight management system'' is specifically 
identified in the aforementioned list, freight transportation should be 
an important consideration within each of the management systems. The 
freight customer can be said to affect, and be affected by, all these 
systems. Freight consumers' perspectives can take on several 
dimensions, corresponding to the service provider/carrier, the shipper, 
and the ultimate consumer of the commodities (the value of which 
contains a transport component). Goods movement deserves significant 
treatment beginning with the inventories/descriptions of usage and 
systems. This should be followed up by evaluations of those systems as 
input to public decisionmaking to identify strategic freight 
investments.
    Thus, determining transportation infrastructure needs for freight 
is as much a demand-side assessment as it is a supply-side one. An 
important element of system strategy is to determine the facility or 
operational change needed to fit the job. Designing a quality and cost-
effective facility--that is, the supply side--comes after determining 
which services are the most needed.

3. Safety Analysis and Research

    Truck accidents are frequently caused by errors of either truck 
drivers or drivers of other vehicles involved in collisions with 
trucks, rather than failures of vehicle components. Nevertheless, 
vehicle design and performance affects truck drivers' ability to 
respond to, or recover from, those errors. Additionally, safe highway 
design and special safety features reduce the potential for accidents 
and the severity of accidents that occur. Therefore, a balanced program 
focused on optimizing driver, vehicle, and highway performance is 
warranted. Attention will be given to issues of human behavior, 
operator proficiency, emergency response, and training to reduce the 
influence that deficiencies in any factor may have on accidents. 
Additionally, efforts will be made to optimize vehicle collision 
avoidance and crashworthiness performance.
    Understanding the factors that influence truck accident rates will 
lead to better, more informed freight policy decisions. Assessing the 
value of safety investments so that informed public decisions can be 
made requires that truck travel data, accident information, and the 
investment levels themselves be more comprehensive and accurate. Since 
a variety of factors affect the safe operation of trucks, a more 
comprehensive approach to data collection is needed. Factors such as 
the growth in truck travel, industry structure, traffic densities, and 
passenger and freight vehicle dimensions and weights are changing. 
Improved data is needed to better monitor both safety program 
performance and carrier performance.
    More analysis and research on motor carrier safety is needed to 
identify changes in safety levels and the factors producing these 
changes, evaluate policies that may affect these factors, and target 
safety investments accordingly. The analysis must be coupled with 
research to answer questions on vehicle, roadway, and driver 
performance and develop new technologies that will improve motor 
carrier program effectiveness and efficiency.

4. Finance and Taxation

    Publicly provided facilities and services for highway/motor carrier 
freight transportation are financed in whole or in part by user fees. 
The extent to which user fees assessed on each mode cover public costs 
varies widely. Several criteria are important in evaluating the level 
and structure of user fees, including:
    1. To the maximum extent possible, user fees should cover 
appropriate costs of public infrastructure improvements and other 
public programs;
    2. Users should contribute a proportionate share of their costs of 
facilities and services; and
    3. Federal subsidies to one mode should not unfairly affect 
competition with other modes.
    Federally-sponsored studies of freight user fees have been 
conducted for highways, airports, railroads, and waterways. These 
studies vary significantly in detail; comprehensive cost allocation 
studies have been conducted for highways and airways while more general 
studies have been conducted for the other modes. The last major Federal 
Highway Cost Allocation Study in 1982 showed that heavy trucks paid 
substantially less in Federal user fees than their estimated Federal 
highway cost responsibility. User fee adjustments were made in 1982 and 
1984 to partially address study findings. However, recent increases in 
the fuel tax have likely changed the equity of the overall user fee 
structure. Also, the ISTEA changed the Federal program structure, 
system responsibility, and flexibility in the use of funds, which would 
likely change cost responsibility among users. A new Federal cost 
allocation study is underway to evaluate implications of these and 
other prospective changes in highway or intermodal programs.

5. Truck Size and Weight (TS&W) Policy

    The question of appropriate size and weight limits for trucks has 
always been a difficult one. It conjures up images of ``grandfather 
rights'' from the Interstate era, conflicting views of proper State-
Federal relationships, rival economic interests, and uncertainty as to 
the operational safety of various types of trucks.
    The TS&W issues are extremely complex; they relate not only to 
questions of highway safety and stewardship but to local, State, and 
national economic performance. At a time when transportation is 
becoming a larger part of the goods production as well as distribution 
systems, the effects of additional regulation on productivity take on 
renewed significance.
    The macroeconomic impacts of change to these regulations are 
initially private ones: equipment costs; fuel consumption; and 
personnel expenditures. The direct costs imposed, if not 
counterbalanced, are public ones: pavement and bridge deterioration; 
and safety consequences. However, changing trucking productivity 
quickly translates to changes in costs and efficiency for shippers, the 
economy as a whole and, thus, the consuming public.
    Extended fact-finding and debate are necessary to do justice to 
TS&W issues. Good TS&W policy helps ensure safe and efficient freight 
movement on our Nation's highway and intermodal systems. Beyond the 
general freight principles which began this document, 

[[Page 44543]]
changes at this juncture should also, to the extent possible, address:
    1. Highway and vehicle safety through a performance based 
regulatory approach;
    2. Efficient interstate and international commerce through advanced 
highway and vehicle technologies;
    3. Streamlined, uniform, and enforceable administrative procedures 
and requirements for permitting and taxation purposes;
    4. Compatible vehicle and infrastructure design; and
    5. Equitable recovery of public costs.
    The TS&W policies directly influence truck designs and 
configurations. Choices made in this regard by motor carriers and truck 
designers, in response to size and weight constraints, affect not only 
the amount of weight carried by a truck and the effect that weight has 
on highway infrastructure, but also the braking and handling and 
stability properties of the vehicle. Vehicle size and weight policies 
should be structured to encourage and ensure vehicle designs and 
configurations that are optimized relative to all these concerns.
    The TS&W policy and highway user fee issues are virtually 
inseparable. Pavement and bridge costs attributable to heavy vehicles 
will rise (or fall) as the result of size and weight policy changes. 
Significant changes in size and weight limits should not be considered 
without evaluating appropriate motor carrier user fees. Fines and other 
penalties have proven to be ineffective deterrents to overweight 
operations because they are too low to offset potential profits from 
operating overweight. This is borne out by Federal estimates that show 
10 to 20 percent of all combinations operate illegally overweight. 
State permit fees for overweight operations generally are too low to 
cover added pavement and bridge costs associated with the overweight 
operations. States that issue overweight and oversize permits should 
consider setting permit fees at levels that reflect added highway costs 
of overweight operations to improve the effectiveness of their TS&W 
enforcement efforts.
    In an effort to better understand the effects of TS&W policy 
changes on these many factors, the Department has undertaken a 
comprehensive TS&W study to examine the relationship between TS&W 
policy and safety, pavement and bridge condition, shipper logistics, 
truck operating costs, intermodal operation, and energy and 
environmental concerns, to evaluate the appropriate scope and extent of 
Federal involvement. The FHWA published a notice in the Federal 
Register on February 2, 1995, announcing the study and soliciting 
comments (60 FR 6587).
    Regarding international commerce, wide disparity between the 
standards across the United States, Mexico, and Canada (as well as 
those across our States) often inhibit the efficient flow of 
continental trade. In a NAFTA context, the Department is committed to 
finding a means, in consultation with Congress, to make TS&W and safety 
standards compatible. Further, significant growth in international 
container traffic, combined with varying international TS&W standards, 
has created enforcement and economic efficiency concerns.

6. Highway Freight Transportation and Air Quality

    With the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the 
subsequent Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for California in 1994, 
concerns have been raised as to the effects that air quality 
regulations may have on freight transportation in the near future, 
especially in California. While air quality improvement is an important 
public policy objective, it is important to remember that there are 
typically multiple objectives and implications in all major public 
policy decisions, and these must be balanced. For instance, the 
original FIP issued on May 5, 1994, contained several proposals which 
it was thought might significantly impact the freight industries, and 
hence regional and national economic performance. Since that time, the 
FIP has been revised, based on public comment, to more effectively 
balance the national objectives of improving air quality and 
maintaining economic competitiveness. The currently proposed standard 
of 2.0 g/bhp-hr (grams per brake-horsepower-hour) for nitrogen oxide 
emissions and the implementation time frame is considered more feasible 
by industry.
    Freight concerns are likely to play a more prominent role in other 
State Implementation Plans now being considered. Recognizing these 
concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency recently set up a 
government and industry task force to look at various freight and air 
quality issues.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 U.S.C. 301, 302, 305; Pub. L. 102-
548, 106 Stat. 3646.

    Issued on: August 21, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-21305 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P