MTSNAC MEETING
SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 3-4,
2003
OMNI HOTEL
ATTENDEES
ORGANIZATION NAME
American Association of Port Authorities John Mohr
American Great Lakes Ports Association Steve Pfeiffer
American Maritime Congress ADM James Perkins
American Pilots’ Association CAPT Mike Watson
American Trucking Associations Bill Wanamaker
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Mark Griffin
Boat Owners Association of the
Chamber of Shipping of
Conference of Minority Transportation Officials Gwen Harris-Gale
International Longshore and Warehouse Union Terri Mast
International Longshoreman’s Association John Baker
INTERTANKO Jonathan
Benner
Maritime Security Council Ron
Thomason
National Association of Regional Councils Ron Achelphol
National Association of Waterfront Employers Pat Hall
National Governor’s Association Rick Vargas
National Industrial Transportation League David Updegraff
National Mining Association John Yonosko
National Waterways Conference Worth Hager
North American Export Grain Assoc., Inc. Gary Martin
Pacific Maritime Association Joe Miniace
Passenger Vessel Association Darrell Bryan
Shipbuilders Council of
The Ocean Conservancy ADM
Roger Rufe
United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd. Carol Lambos
World Shipping Council Chris
Koch
Chairman pro tem Joe Miniace called the meeting to
order at 1:00 p.m. The chairman, John Gaughan, is on temporary
assignment as the Principal Maritime Advisor for the Iraqi Ministry of
Transportation and Communications and is stationed in
The council members were asked to introduce
themselves. Also at the table were Ray Barberesi, the Executive Director of the
Council, the Sponsor, John Jamian, Deputy Administrator for the Maritime
Administration, and Bob Dockendorff, Pacific Maritime Association. Maggie Blum,
Associate Administrator joined the table later in the morning. Joe Miniace
recognized Keith Lesnick and Richard Lolich from MARAD. Joe also thanked Joann
Spittle for her tireless administrative support. The minutes from the May
12-13, 2003 MTSNAC meeting were discussed.
Several technical corrections were made, after which the minutes were
unanimously approved.
Charles Kurz then requested that the
sponsor circulate Council resolutions to the teams as soon as possible after
the meetings and that the sponsor provide a chronological list of Council
resolutions. The sponsor agreed to do this.
Ray Barberesi, on behalf of the
Maritime Administration (MARAD), reported on the Action Items from the last
meeting:
·
Update on the Inter-Agency Committee on the MTS (ICMTS) MOU - Since the
departure of the Coast Guard from DOT there has not been a full meeting of the
ICMTS. The MOU, however, has been distributed
among the principals and will be discussed at the next ICMTS meeting.
·
Request to keep traditional non-security functions with the Coast Guard
after it moves to the Department of Homeland Security - A letter with that
request from the Council has been forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation
and the sponsor is awaiting a reply.
·
SEA-21 Report to the Secretary - The Council's SEA-21 report has been
forwarded to Secretary Mineta.
·
ICMTS National Strategy Paper - Comments have been solicited from the Council
and now awaiting for Team reports on comments and input.
·
Security Team Report - The Security Team Report has been forwarded to
the Coast Guard and the Interagency Team working on the new security rules and
regulations.
·
Formal role for Security Team to advise the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) - The relevant agencies are still awaiting a formal statement of
recognition for security issues.
Worth Hager asked when the ICMTS User
Needs Assessment Report would be finished.
Rajiv Khandpur, representing
the Coast Guard, replied that the report is expected to be finished by the end
of September.
Mike Watson asked how this meshed with
the comments from the Safety and Environmental Protection Team meeting minutes
of July 24th.. Charles Kurz explained that the team
meeting discussion centered on the implementation of the ICMTS National
Strategy, and not the MTSNAC User Needs Study.
Joe Miniace next introduced Mr. John Jamian, Deputy Administrator
for the Maritime Administration. Mr. Jamian stated that he was proud to
be part of this process and reminded the Council that at one time he had been
an alternate member for Mr. Steve
Pfeiffer. Mr. Jamian reminded the members that MTSNAC is charged with
identifying MTS needs and advising the Secretary of Transportation. The recently published U.S. Chamber of
Commerce study says that we will not be able to provide adequate transportation
infrastructure by 2020. Does the Council
want to say that everything is OK, that SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003) is complete, or are there MTS
needs that still must be addressed? When
Secretary Mineta challenged the Council with a blank piece of paper for SEA-21,
a window of opportunity was opened. That
window is still open, but not for long.
Mr. Jamian added that throughout his
many travels around the country, the message that he hears from this industry
is that its needs are not being adequately met and that a separate funding
mechanism is needed. He will be meeting
later this week with the Undersecretary of Policy at DOT and wants to take
MTSNAC recommendations with him to the meeting. He concluded, “This
Administration, all the way up to the White House, is interested in hearing
what the needs are and discussing solutions, so now is the time for the Council
to identify and articulate those needs.”
Chris Koch noted that the Council had
already sent a SEA-21 report to the Secretary and he hoped that it would be
given proper consideration in this process.
John Jamian replied that the
Council's report had been placed on his desk the first day he took office and
he had been directed to study it carefully.
Joe Miniace added that the
document should be a living document considering the fact that there have been
a number of studies since that report was written.
Regional
Reports
Joe Miniace noted that Jeff Keever of SAMTSO had planned to
address the Council, but was unable to attend.
He then introduced Liz Wainright
of the Merchants Exchange of Portland, Oregon and Executive Director of the
Maritime Information Services of North America (MISNA). Ms.
Wainright briefed the Council on the work that MISNA has done for MARAD and
the Coast Guard in providing information to MTS stakeholders around the country. Her advice to the Council was to go forward
and request MTS funding and work collaboratively with MISNA in the process.
Nick Cretan of the North Atlantic
Marine Transportation System Organization (NAMTSO) explained that NAMTSO
encompassed marine organizations from
Gill Hicks, Chairman of the California
Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC),
presented a review of SAFETEA, focusing on those MTS needs that are not
included in the proposed legislation. He
warned the group that the MTS stakeholders cannot wait another six years for
the next reauthorization to address critical MTS funding needs. He identified three funding options for the
Council to consider in their deliberations:
1. Existing TEA-21 and proposed SAFETEA
funding;
2. New revenue generation at
national level, e.g., customs fees; and
3. Project-specific revenue
streams, similar to the Alameda Corridor Project.
Mr. Hicks concluded with the
following conclusions:
1. The failure to address
significant infrastructure needs will most likely lead to
serious economic dislocation;
2. Proposed SAFETEA funding is insufficient;
and
3. Overall SAFETEA funding
should be increased to approximately $360 billion.
Mr. Hicks then presented a recently
approved CALMITSAC resolution to the Council for consideration. A summary of the resolution follows:
SAFETEA
should affirm a national policy and commit resources to enhance
the
infrastructure and operational efficiencies that support the MTS; the
government
should establish specific programs and a dedicated funding
mechanism to meet the needs
of the MTS; additional SAFETEA funding should be earmarked to help local
agencies mitigate adverse local impacts from MTS project expansion; SAFETEA should increase proposed set-aside for
intermodal connectors; increase funding for the Corridors and Borders Planning
Program;
increase funding for the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program; increase funding for the Commercial
Vehicle Operations Program; restore equal taxation of gasohol with that of
gasoline and redirect all gasohol tax revenues to the Highway Trust Fund;
reinstate and increase funding for the Section 130 grade crossing program; and
increase the total TEA-21 reauthorization to $375 billion over six years.
There was then a Q & A session. Bob
Nelson asked if the Council should register its disappointment with SAFETEA
in its advice to the Secretary. Joe Miniace said that this would be the
next Agenda item. Sam Crane asked what percentage of the road and rail projects
listed on page 6 of the CALMITSAC Infrastructure Needs Report of March 11,
2003, (copy of which was provided to the members), was “inside the gate”? Gill
Hicks replied that of the 12 projects listed in the report, four were
clearly “inside the gate” while the remaining eight were “outside the
gate.”
Joe Miniace posed the question of
whether or not the proposed SAFETEA legislation adequately addresses MTS
needs. Also, what improvements should be
brought to the attention of the Secretary?
Bob Nelson observed that most
MTS funding issues appear to overlap with SAFETEA and vice versa. There should probably be a section in SEA-21
to address the funding needs not covered in SAFETEA. Chris
Koch noted that there had been a similar SAFETEA discussion at the last
Council meeting. The Infrastructure Team
had been tasked to review SAFETEA and that has been done. He proposed that the Council use the
Infrastructure Team report as a launching pad for this discussion. Carol
Lambos suggested that the Infrastructure Team give an oral report on SAFETEA. Chris
Koch replied that the Infrastructure Team had already included much of Mr. Hicks’ comments in its paper. The report suggested higher funding levels
and underscored the support that both the Secretary and the Department of
Transportation had given for the industry at large. In addition, SAFETEA contains a higher
recognition level for freight. Joe Miniace noted that he had reviewed
both reports and found them to be in general alignment. He also applauded the work of the
Infrastructure Team and Mr. Gill Hicks.
Jim McCarville added that the Inland Team
had reviewed the Infrastructure Team’s report on SAFETEA and had one
recommendation: on page 2, third
paragraph: add the phrase “port or” after “private.” Joe Miniace again asked the Council if SAFETEA adequately addresses
MTS future needs. The Council should
state whether or not the needs are adequately addressed in the Infrastructure
Team’s report. Chris Koch replied that the Infrastructure Team was unanimous in
its support of the report and that the report had recommended funding increases
on page 3 in the third paragraph. Jim McCarville suggested that there
should also be mention of an increase in funds for the corridors and borders
program as well as CMAQ. John Mohr said that AAPA could support
this. Joe Miniace pointed out that the discussion should represent
positions of individual Council members, and not the teams. Sam
Crane noted that the CALMITSAC report tracked the surface road and rail
needs.
Joe Miniace asked how many association/groups
had submitted papers on SAFETEA. Only a
few had. He also asked if they were
generally consistent with this report. Ron Achelpohl said that the National
Association of Regional Councils (NARC) suggests that the highway fuel tax be
indexed. He added that MTSNAC should set
parameters for the legislation it wants the Secretary to promote. Jim
Cook noted that SAFETEA has been introduced but not yet been taken up by
the committee.
Joe Miniace then asked Gill Hicks if the SAFETEA report neglected
any specific items. Mr. Hicks answered yes – specifically the National Corridor
Planning Program has been removed, the CMAQ Program needs more money and needs
to specify that freight projects are eligible, the gasohol tax is not included,
and the grade crossing program has been removed. SAFETEA puts a great burden on the states to
find funding for critical projects. Joe Miniace reminded the group that
this is an opportunity to suggest infrastructure needs not covered in
SAFETEA. He then asked if there were any
further changes to the document. Bill Wanamaker said that he and ATA had
a problem with highway users’ funds being used to fund rail grade crossing
improvements and ATA objects to that provision.
Several
changes to the document were proposed:
Joe Miniace opened the discussion by
explaining that the Council’s Chair, John
Gaughan, had requested a SEA-21 Report.
It includes all the information received since the November 2002 MTSNAC
meeting in
The
first section of the document, General MTS Planning Process, calls
for a permanent MTS National Advisory Council, similar to the Inland Waterway
Users Board.
The
next section is called Short Sea Shipping. Bill
Wanamaker agreed with the Short Sea Shipping concept provided it doesn’t
dip into other dedicated funds and pays for itself. Rick
Vargas asked if there were a definition of Short Sea Shipping. Ray
Barberesi replied that the Maritime Administration was currently working on
a definition, but basically it covers inland waterways, intercoastal,
non-contiguous, and hemispheric water transportation. A complete definition will be provided to the
Council tomorrow. Chris Koch took issue with the statement in the report that the
Nation’s marine infrastructure is inadequate to handle the flow of
containers.
The
next section addresses the Maritime Administration’s Title XI loan guarantee
program and its proposed expansion for Short Sea Shipping. Jim
McCarville asked if the recommendation for an expansion of Title XI loan
guarantee authority was limited to Short Sea Shipping only. Ray
Barberesi replied that it was. Ron Thomason wondered if the proposed
Title XI security projects would conflict with Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) port security projects.
The answer was no. Bruce Croushore reminded the group that
this Administration has consistently tried to zero out the Title XI
Program. Pat Hall recommended the elimination of security references in the
Title XI section. Chris Koch asked if the proposed Title XI expansion covered only
Short Sea Shipping facilities or mixed facilities as well. Joe
Miniace responded that the main purpose was to develop Short Sea Shipping
infrastructure and not to provide a backdoor to other infrastructure
needs.
Harbor
Maintenance Tax Short Sea Shipping Exemption was the next section
discussed. The goal of this
recommendation is to exempt certain domestic movements from the Harbor
Maintenance Tax. Gary Martin asked if this proposal met the test of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) concerning subsidizing certain domestic industries. John
Mohr asked if this exemption would also apply to vessels from
National Port
Redevelopment Program (NPRP) is the next section of the report. Mike
Smith began a presentation of this proposal, which is similar to the Port
of Anchorage, AK Intermodal Expansion Project.
Ron Thomason asked how this
would interact with the Department of Homeland Security on security issues and
underscored the need to integrate security issues in certain sections of this
proposal. Chris Koch asked whether the proposal’s drafters assumed there was
a current lack of adequate terminal capacity or a possible future lack. Joe
Miniace replied that it was the latter.
What is meant by seaport redevelopment?
Tearing down terminals and building housing? No. Jim Cook, referring to page 13, asked
if the benefits in
Inland
Waterway Trust Fund was next discussed. Worth Hager pointed out that the first
paragraph on page 14 was incorrect and that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is
not used for maintenance. Jim McCarville added that the
Administration is not matching what the users are currently contributing. Chris
Koch noted that MTSNAC had already addressed this issue in its report to
the Secretary and asked what the group was trying to accomplish in this
proposal. Ray Barberesi responded that this was an expansion of what had
already been proposed. Jim McCarville pointed out that this
group’s charge is to recommend policy, not legislation, and that the reference
on page 14, in the fourth paragraph, to lobbying the Administration is
incorrect. Worth Hager asked if the proposed permanent MTS National Advisory
Board would preempt the decisions of the Inland Waterways Users Board. Ray
Barberesi answered that it would not; it would only deal with those issues
that come under the purview of the Secretary.
The
next section reviewed was Waterway Passenger Transportation. This section would consolidate all passenger
ferry programs within one DOT agency – the Maritime Administration. This section will be further discussed later.
Education and
Training was next discussed. The main proposal was to establish a Center
for Maritime Security Training at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at
education
for a growing mariner pool and specific security training. Charles
Kurz said that education is already being addressed by the marine industry.
The
sections on research, technology, and development as well as the environmental
process will be discussed at tomorrow’s session. Joe
Miniace advised the group that there was no need to review the conclusions
section until the recommendations are discussed. The recommendations will be reworked for
tomorrow’s session. He added that this
document is a compendium from several other documents. John
Mohr said that as an alternate member and new to the process, he would have
like to see previous meeting minutes. Joe Miniace replied that since this
document references other reports, he had hoped that they had been distributed
in advance so that members would have read them in preparation for the
meeting. He was also very concerned that
most team meetings have been attended by a small percentage of Council members
– at most one third. The teams and their
reports do not necessarily represent Council consensus. This document reflects several earlier
documents and does not contain anything new.
Chris Koch disagreed and said
that the Anchorage Port Project was new.
Joe Miniace thanked Mike
Smith of SAIC for his presentation and added that there was still much work
to be done.
The
Council then returned to the SAFETEA report.
Tom Marchessault, from the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, gave a clarification of the term
“trade facilitation charge”. He
explained that the funding mechanism for an
The
meeting was recessed at 6:05 p.m. A reception was held at the
The
meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m.
The
first speaker was Paul Bea, of the
Port of New York/New Jersey, representing the Coastwise Coalition, a Washington-based group of operators, ports,
suppliers and government. Mr. Bea addressed the group with a
PowerPoint presentation that emphasized a “Coastwise shift” in government and
private sector planners’ approach to freight movements along our crowded
coastal corridors.
The
second speaker was Richard J. Wiederhorn,
Planning Manager for the
Richard Plant, Director of Special
Projects for the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots spoke
next. Mr. Plant pointed out that the SEA-21 report does not specify that
the vessels used in Short Sea Shipping must be
Dave Connolly, Vice President and
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer of the Sailors’
Marina Secchitano, Regional Director of the
Inland Boatmen’s
Joe Miniace thanked the speakers for
their comments to the Council. He added
that the Council needs to study the international trade implications of a
Harbor Maintenance Tax exemption for domestic short sea shipping
movements. Ray Barberesi briefed the Council on the recent Short Sea Shipping
meeting, held at DOT headquarters on July 23rd. MARAD has recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Short Sea Shipping with the Government of Canada and is
currently working on a similar MOU with
Mike Watson asked about the recent Port
Redevelopment initiative begun by the Secretary of Commerce in June of this
year and if the Council’s sponsor was aware of this. Maggie
Blum of MARAD replied that the sponsor was aware of this and is now raising
these issues at the highest levels within DOT.
Mike Watson emphasized the need to
include a reference to the Jones Act in the working definition of Short Sea
Shipping.
The
Council then took a short break at 10:15 a.m..
After
the break the Council resumed its SEA-21 discussion. Jim
McCarville stated that the Inland Team would like it to include a
discussion of waterside issues. Chris Koch pointed out that this was
the second report to the Secretary and also suggested that a paragraph on
SAFETEA should be added on page 3 of the document. Bob
Nelson suggested that language on security also be added. He also felt that the title of the document
could be changed to include the concept of Intermodal funding. A section on intermodal funding opportunities
and issues should be added as well as a section on MTS regional issues. The section on training and education should
include more material on human resources and mariner retention.
Rick Vargas said it is important to
state our goals at the outset. The last
two paragraphs on page 20 more appropriately belong at the beginning of the
document. Carol Lambos added that the group needs to be clear that the
recommendations transcend legislation and are a compendium of different
approaches, including SAFETEA, DOT policy, and potential legislative
action. Jim Cook agreed and stressed the need to identify these approaches
throughout the document. Not everything
in the document is a legislative proposal.
Sam Crane suggested that a
small group wordsmith the document between sessions today.
Joe Miniace returned to the discussion
of the MTS Initiative. Bob Nelson suggested that the capital
“I” in initiative be eliminated. Ron Achelpohl added that regional MTS
activities should be included as well.
We should explain the relationships between different transportation
planning organizations. Jonathan Benner felt uneasy with the General
MTS Planning Process section
and asked for an explanation of the Inland Waterways User Board that is
proposed as a model for the MTS National Advisory Board. Jim
McCarville replied that the board is composed of those paying into the
system and that this proposed MTS National Advisory Board may do some harm to
the industry. Worth Hager questioned how the board would create priorities. Bob
Nelson then suggested that the word “industry” in the third paragraph of
the General
MTS Planning Process section be stricken and replaced with the word
“system-wide.” Jim Cook asked if this proposed board would be subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) like the current MTSNAC. Greg
Martin said that based on his experience with interagency advisory
committees, not all are subject to the rules of FACA, and suggested that this
board be modeled after the Trade Advisory Committees and include other
agencies. Jim Cook replied that a permanent member category should also be
established. Jonathan Benner explained that the Inland Waterways User Board is
very different from this. He felt that
the idea of a permanent board was flawed and perhaps shouldn’t be done. He feels that the awareness and political
will of this Council are deficient. The
government doesn’t need 30 people to tell it what to do, other than there is a
problem that needs to be addressed. Steve Pfeiffer warned of the danger of
making port policy without any port members being represented on the
committee. Joe Miniace then asked if MTSNAC wants to advise the Secretary to
formally institute such a board. John Mohr replied that this might not
yet be ripe for a decision. A motion to
replace the current advisory council with a permanent advisory board was made
and seconded. A vote was taken and the
council voted to keep the present advisory council format and not to make it
permanent.
The
Council then moved to the Short Sea Shipping section. MARAD presented its working definition of
Short Sea Shipping:
in
the
Jonathan Benner suggested that the name
should be changed to Coastwise or Coastal, to which Maggie Blum of MARAD replied that one
word could change everything. She
pointed out that since CAPT. Schubert changed the name to Short Sea Shipping,
the concept has taken off. Terri Mast asked that language on the
Jones Act be added to the definition. Jonathan Benner said the group needs to
decide what it wants the definition to accomplish. Chris
Koch suggested that the last sentence could be eliminated and that a clarification
be added that this definition does not expand or contract the provision of the
Jones Act. Jim McCarville suggested the addition of “to or between ports” in
the second sentence, and Steve Pfeiffer
requested the inclusion of
The
following suggested revisions/additions to the document were agreed upon:
Joe Miniace asked that the sponsor
coordinate incorporation of these changes during the lunch break, which was
taken at 11:45 a.m..
The
afternoon session began at 12:45 p.m. with a discussion of the Short
Sea Shipping section of the SEA-21 report. Mike
Watson cautioned the group against subsidizing one aspect of short sea
shipping at the expense of another. Joe Miniace asked if the Council wants
Title XI funding to include landside terminal improvements as well as
conventional ship construction. Bruce Croushore replied that Title XI
already is open to shipyard modernization, but not to terminal improvement. Bill
Wanamaker said that Title XI should take care of terminal improvements and
that TIFIA should not be tapped for that purpose.
Discussion
then turned to the Harbor Maintenance Tax Short Sea Shipping Exemption section. Chris
Koch pointed out that this type of exemption for domestic cargo could set
off a WTO protest and Bill Wanamaker noted
that a Harbor Maintenance Tax exemption would mask the true cost of domestic
cargo movements, and so this should be stricken from the report. Pat
Hall suggested that the Harbor Maintenance Tax exemption issue should be
included in the study proposed in the report.
Jim McCarville stated that
shallow draft vessels don’t add to channel maintenance and should be exempted
from the tax anyway. Greg Martin recommended that this
exemption not be mentioned in the report and just let the proposed study raise
it as one means of encouraging short sea shipping. Jim
Cook agreed and moved that this entire section be stricken and be left up
to the study. His motion was seconded
and a vote was taken. The motion was
approved with one dissenting.
The
Capital
Construction Fund (CCF)
was next discussed. Jonathan Benner asked why domestic shipping has been excluded from
using the CCF. Jim McCarville explained that the American Waterways Operators
(AWO) had opposed this due to the large investments many of their members had
already made in domestic vessels without the aid of CCF. Darrell
Bryan informed the Council that his group, the Passenger Vessel Association
(PVA), is working to open up the CCF to domestic operators. Bruce
Croushore suggested approval of this section with the deletion of the word
“already” before “deposited” in the last sentence. Jonathan
Benner asked if this expansion of the use of the CCF just included contiguous
trade. The answer is yes. Ray
Barberesi added a suggested clarification – drop the phrase “short sea
shipping” at the end of that last sentence and replace it with “coastwise
trade.” Jim Cook made a motion to approve the section with the suggested
changes. The motion was seconded, a vote
was taken and the motion was passed with two dissenting.
The
Council then discussed the Recommended Short Sea Shipping Pilot
Projects and Programs section. Terri
Mast was concerned that the third bullet on development of a
U.S./Canada/Mexico Cooperative could water down the Jones Act. A motion was made and seconded to approve
this section. A vote was taken and it
was approved unanimously.
MTS
Infrastructure was the next topic. Chris Koch said that the members
received the details on the
In conjunction
with the recommendations previously submitted to the Secretary by the MTSNAC,
it should be the policy of the Administration and the Department to advocate
the Federal government fully support the navigation component of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers civil works mission, including:
•
Construction
-
The
goal of spending $150 million per year from the Inland waterway Trust Fund to
be matched with $150 million from the general revenue.
-
Fully
and efficiently fund the Federal component required within partnership
agreements for deep-draft port construction projects
-
Promote
timely implementation of new navigation construction studies and projects
•
Operation
and Maintenance
-
Encourage
the President and OMB to secure an appropriate spend-down of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund consistent with the rate of HMT collection
-
Encourage
the President and OMB to secure full and efficient funding for operation and
maintenance of the inland waterways system
In addition,
the MTSNAC encourages the Secretary to
•
Promote
streamlining of the project planning process
•
Support
the concept that the monies contained in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be used only for the purposes for which they
were intended.
A
motion was made and seconded to revise the MTS Infrastructure section. The motion was unanimously approved.
The
Waterway
Passenger Transportation section was addressed next. Rick
Vargas sought clarification on the rationale for moving all the ferry
programs to MARAD. This is the first
time the Council has seen this and he asked the sponsor to explain why this
change has been proposed. Darrell Bryan expressed concern that
the funding sources could be lost if the program were moved. We need to increase awareness of the
contributions made by our ferry systems.
He would like to see this section deleted. Terri
Mast concurred with both Darrell
Bryan and Rick Vargas and added
that it was probably premature to make this change. Ray
Barberesi explained that there have been ongoing discussions within the
Department of Transportation about the proper integration of the water mode
into the Department’s programs. Just
this last year MARAD’s budget was fully integrated into the DOT budget
process. There is more efficiency in
promoting MTS through MARAD and reflects an administrative shift within
DOT. Moving the ferry programs to MARAD
would not change the funding stream. Rick Vargas replied that the proposal
has merit and warrants further discussion.
Joe Miniace reminded the
group that this was a living document and proposed that it be taken out of the
document at this time, but subject to further review and study. He asked the sponsor to prepare a
presentation on this proposal for the next MTSNAC meeting.
The
Council then turned to the Education and Training section. Gwen
Harris-Gale suggested that the title be changed to Workforce Development. This suggestion with a revised text proposed
by Ms. Harris-Gale was adopted
unanimously.
The
Council also unanimously approved a revised Research, Technology, and
Development section text.
A
new Security
section was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Council.
The
Council then began discussion on the Safety and Environmental Process
section. Jonathan Benner said that the title was a misnomer and should be
changed to Safety and the Regulatory Process. Admiral
Rufe noted that no environmental organizations such as NOAA or CEQ are
included in this process. Maggie Blum replied that environmental
streamlining is currently being addressed in the CEQ and DOT. This section with its revised title was then
unanimously adopted.
There
was then general discussion about how to incorporate the Council’s SAFETEA
paper into the SEA-21 report: should it
be included as an appendix to the SEA-21 report? Jim
Cook suggested that the SAFETEA paper be sent to the Secretary as soon as
possible and the Council could then finalize its SEA-21 paper. The Council agreed.
The
final section, Executive Summary, was next discussed. Chris
Koch asked what was meant by the phrase “a truly intermodal national
transportation system.” He also
requested that the Infrastructure Team co-chairs be involved in drafting the
Executive Summary. Joe Miniace agreed to this request.
Jonathan Benner expressed his concern with
the idea of formalizing the Council by making it a permanent board. The motion to make the Council permanent was
withdrawn with the understanding that it would be discussed further at the next
full Council meeting.
John Mohr then made a motion, which
was seconded, to approve the current SEA-21 report with the substantial
revisions. The Council approved this
motion unanimously.
Bill Wanamaker then presented a resolution
recommending that the Secretary support and champion SEA-21. Jonathan Benner seconded the motion. There was discussion on the motion. When asked why he made the motion, Bill Wanamaker explained that unlike
the surface community, the maritime community doesn’t have such a solid
legislative history on maritime issues.
The proposal was rejected, with one dissenson.
Pat Hall reported that the Security
Team had met to discuss the proposed Coast Guard vessel and facility security
rules and regulations, and had prepared a security paper that the Council had
as a handout. Pat Hall made a motion that the Council approves the Security
Team’s paper and that it be forwarded to the Secretary. Jonathan
Benner disagreed with the suggestion and said that he felt it was
inappropriate for the Council to take a public stand on an issue before a
federal regulatory agency. Carol Lambos pointed out that the Coast
Guard’s rulemaking process had already ended, so there would not be any
conflict for the Council. Bill Wanamaker expressed concern with
the reference to racial profiling and the lack of guidance on suspicious
behavioral characteristics. He
recommended that the last paragraph of this report be stricken. Jim
Cook said that there was no harm in sending these recommendations to the
Secretary. A motion to accept the report
with the last paragraph deleted, was made and seconded. The Council voted on in favor, 19-7. All of the team meeting minutes were then
approved.
New Business
Bob Nelson reported that recreational
boaters were working with local leaders and the Coast Guard Captains of the
Port (COTPs) in developing port area security plans as required by the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.
He emphasized the need for MTSNAC and MARAD to work more closely with
other regional groups and requested that the Chair work with the sponsor to
improve that coordination. Joe Miniace said that regional groups
should present clear recommendations that the Council can focus on and respond
to. Sam
Crane specifically thanked the City of
Joe Miniace thanked the Council members, MARAD
staff, and guests for their participation. The date and location of the next
meeting is pending. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
##