 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Transportation > | Add to MyNCSL |
Governing Board Meeting Summary Alliance Member States Present:Illinois: Mike Nechvatal Guests:Larry Davis, Ohio IntroductionsChairperson Loretta Bitner welcomed meeting attendees and self-introductions were made. Traditionally, participating states' meetings were attended by state alliance members only. Due to the presence of other attendees, alliance members decided to open the meeting to all participants. Application RevisionsChairperson Bitner entertained suggested changes to the application. She suggested one on page A-11. It is confusing because more than one option could be chosen by an applicant. She suggested that the wording "check one" be replaced with wording to say, "Check all that apply." It was agreed to present to the governing board for a vote tomorrow. Loretta Bitner also reported on a request by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) to change certification A to remove references to violations history (Part II, D) and reportable incidents (Part II, E). Certifying this every year is a burden to research on the part of carriers, large and small. This will clarify that it to be done at the three-year permitting interval. Discussion ensued on the appropriateness of this request. It was stated that states are to check SAFER each year to find new violations. Also, a carrier is already required to notify the base state when a change in safety rating occurs. States concurred with the change. It was agreed to present to the governing board for a vote tomorrow.
Larry AuBuchon's suggested changes: Page A-7, I-2. Striking the word "bulk" is recommended, because other types of packaging appear to be excluded. All packaging needs to be covered. Bulk packaging typically required a higher level of scrutiny on the part of the carrier. (On day two of the meeting Paul Bomgardner of ATA stated that carriers will certify bulk because they own the tanks. But not non-bulk is a problem because it is much more difficult to certify, since drivers would be responsible for this and most simply do not or cannot. Therefore, he recommended against the change.) Larry AuBuchon continued with his suggested changes. He stated that EPA ID numbers are very critical in tracking company compliance history. There is a problem with multiple numbers being given for storage facilities, etc. Michigan needs the main corporate EPA ID numbers associated with the company's transportation. He recommended removing the plural notation on the application and the instructions to make sure that a single primary transportation number be provided. Discussion ensued. In Michigan, a wrong number puts the carrier out of compliance. Chairperson Bitner asked that Larry bring more clarification to this issue. Other states wanted to check with their state EPAs on this. Larry will propose language for consideration at board meeting. Larry AuBuchon mentioned the problem with a company owning power units not qualifying under IRP. They have excluded the non-IRP power units. However, IRP is not the only mileage methodology that can be used. It's a misinterpretation on the part of certain carriers. The problem could be solved with designation of different fleets. Mileage was reported incorrectly. Instructions could be clarified to make clear. Larry will share the specifics with John Canty on this particular problem. Others indicated this was not a widespread problem, but should probably be clarified. Mike Nechvatal asked that states be listed on the credential where the credential is honored. Nevada and West Virginia discussed the problem is of states reissuing credentials and carriers replacing credentials every time a new state comes on board, since the permit is good for three years. Some carriers and enforcement officers would like this clarification to eliminate confusion in the field. Nevada sends a cover letter to handle this. Jim Rhode mentioned the promise of some kind of electronic credentialing process to solve this type of problem. He felt that for the time being education is the way to handle this. Alliance members did not wish to make this change. John Canty announced that for various reasons, Ohio will continue with Part III for the foreseeable future. Loretta Bitner asked what happens with state completed compliance reviews? In Nevada, interstate carriers are uploaded to Safetynet and intrastates are kept. In Oklahoma, full fledged CRs are uploaded to Safetynet. In West Virginia, intrastates are not uploaded. In Minnesota, interstates are uploaded, intrastates are not. It is the same with Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois. Loretta asked how many carriers should the Alliance require compliance reviews on each year? It was suggested that the 10 percent figure be checked and that past discussions be reviewed. Presentations of Automated SystemsAfter lunch, a presentation was made by Sheila Prior and Craig Galler of Lockheed Martin. (See power point presentation.) The presentation showed the credentials of Lockheed Martin and how it can meet the needs of the Alliance primarily in the data management area. The presenters showed a full service approach to automating permit issuance and accompanying features. Lockheed works with a number of states currently providing IRP, IFTA , permitting and other motor carrier related functions. The system is based on Oracle software. The system is web based; and the state retains ownership of the data. Upon discussion, states expressing interest in investing in a new system include Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, West Virginia and maybe Michigan. Minnesota and Oklahoma are not interested in a new system. This suggests the possibility of different levels of use by alliance members of any automated system, for instance accessing only the central repository features of the system. How the system might be funded was discussed in general terms. Once the Lockheed folks left, the Alliance received a presentation by Roan Bennett of Cambridge Systematics. (See power point.) Mr. Bennett reviewed the credentials of his company and presented a basic approach to creating an automated, linked, data warehouse hazmat permitting system to meet the needs of the states, while promoting uniformity. His system is based on Lotus Notes. He recommended next steps of: identifying "roadblocks" to automation and an approach to automation that will work; identifying states interested in pilot testing such a program; and identifying a model to fund system modifications and operations. Loretta said that part of the desire of getting a new automated system up, in addition to helping existing states in the Alliance, is to attract new states by giving them this new system. The next possible step is to put together an request for proposal (RFP). This would help the Alliance determine what it wants to include. Transmittal ProceduresIllinois requested that notification be sent that if no activity was had that month, that a "no activity" notification be sent. FeesJim Rhode said that the states need to agree that there is the political will to generate additional money in all the other states to pay for central functions, otherwise he won't go forward in his state. It's very politically risky in Nevada to do it either administratively or legislatively. Plus, he needs to show a benefit. A commitment to raise the fees, however it is done, is necessary by all states by a certain date. MikeNechvatal said that if the trucking companies don't want to support the Alliance with additional fees, then we might fail. What about a state that doesn't set up the process to get the fees paid? Is there a sanction against that state? John Canty proposed that an amount that states would have to pay for central functions be established by a future date, January 1, 2004, by which time all states would have to be on board with a fee. $10 per carrier, however a state wants to fund it, with a minimum of $3000. Jim Rhode requests periodic updates on progress in advancing this proposal in each state. Once approved, it should be placed in Alliance procedures and FMCSA should be informed. General support for this idea was expressed. Jim Rhode stated that the Alliance has had a political problem with support from FMCSA in the past. Loretta Bitner said there is more support now, because FMCSA realizes the safety benefits of the Alliance program. Also, FMCSA is anticipating increasing numbers of Mexican carriers and the Alliance program will help. Jim Rhode suggested that the Alliance identify the states that are going to CVISN Level One because they need a hazmat component. John Canty pointed out that if the Alliance helps itself, it shows it is serious and it may help us with the feds. Jim Rhode suggested that members think about 2 or 3 fee categories. A membership fee, a per carrier fee, etc. After further discussion, the following funding proposal was considered: Alliance member states wish to generate funds to support centralized Alliance functions such as staff support, a central data repository, a web site and similar activities. Federal funds have been important in the past and will continue to assist Alliance central activities as they are available. To generate its own funding, Alliance states agree to implement the following funding mechanism by January 1, 2004. Each member state, as an annual membership consideration, will make funds available for central Alliance functions. The membership schedule is as follows:
Such funding mechanism will not take effect unless all participating Alliance states have fully implemented it by January 1, 2004. States may generate the required funds as they see fit. Member states must report on their progress towards implementing their funding mechanisms at each meeting of the Alliance Governing Board. Further discussion was carried over to the next day. Governing Board Meeting Meeting SummarySanta Fe, New Mexico Alliance Member States Present: Illinois: Mike Nechvatal Guests: Larry Davis, Ohio State UpdatesOklahoma: Permanent rules go in effect on July 1, 2001. About 40 carriers so far. Nevada: Finished cleaning up the statutes to clarify that the uniform program is the state's only hazmat program. DMV and DPS split this year. Commercial enforcement officers set up in one bureau to centralize operations. West Virginia: 450 carriers. Many mergers and name changes. Working with Operation Respond. Ohio: Added a new module to HARPS to track progress of applications. No major changes. Michigan: Donna Burt retired and was replaced by Barbara Stevens. Program now operates totally out of SE Michigan, rather than Lansing. New program up and running to produce credentials. Illinois: Underfunding is still a problem. Program is running fine. Minnesota: 500 registered carriers in this fiscal year. Audits are underway. Thanks to Larry Aubuchon for the quarterly reports. NCSL: The $25,000 grant from FMCSA is used up after this meeting. Working through Loretta Bitner with FMCSA to obtain additional funding. NCSL policy on the Uniform Program up for renewal at the NCSL Annual Meeting in San Antonio, August 11-16, 2001. Support for the policy is good, though there may be tinkering. Discussion of the previous day presentations by Lockheed and CambridgeLarry AuBuchon: The Alliance needs these functions: Develop repository, help with states programs, translation of existing data into new data base, tap existing data bases automatically. Larry's program works as is and would want to build upon that rather than start over. Perhaps rather than the RFP route we identify our needs and get another proposal. Loretta Bitner named a subgroup of Larry AuBuchon and John Canty to work with Jim Reed to identify needs and core elements of the Alliance in this area in the next four to six weeks. Mike Nechvatal asked, Do we need to do on-line applications? John Canty: Yes, it's already been developed. Cost would likely be minimal for this. Paul Bomgardner: Yes, on-line filings are more and more common and it's where the trend is going. Jim Rhode: Perhaps some MCSAP funds are available for this. Bill Byrd: This is where we are headed. Loretta Bitner offered to send a letter of thanks to Cambridge and Lockheed next week. Lynne Jones: Contact the National Information Consortium (NIC) to help. She supplied the name of David Lazarides. FMCSA UpdateBill Byrd said that past support from the FMCSA has been mixed, but that has changed. FMCSA fully supports the Alliance now. He needs to promote the Alliance program in his office better. They have not been as supportive as they should have been in the past but this is changing. He recognizes that FMCSA funding is important to the Alliance program. They want to see the Alliance grow and become national in scope. It has clear safety benefits. One stop shopping and uniformity is important and it is the right thing to do. He has designated $100,000 in MCSAP high priority funding to be given to NCSL in cooperative agreement form to continue development of the Alliance program, which includes the data repository. It is coming soon and $100,000 is budgeted for next year with continuation for another 3 years. He said that permitting is rightly a state function. In HMTA reauthorization, funding has been requested for the Alliance as well. (Note: NCSL and FMCSA executed a cooperative agreement for $100,000 effective October 1, 2001.) Jim Rhode asked if there is additional MCSAP funding for Alliance efforts. Bill Byrd said yes, Alliance activity is reimbursable under MCSAP, and can be written into a state's commercial vehicle safety plan (CVSP). He will provide the Alliance members written guidance on this. Larry AuBuchon asked if FMCSA will help the Alliance get new states? Bill Byrd stated that it's the FMCSA plan to do so. They are thinking strategically and want to have goals for certain numbers of new states. Industry support is critical. Personal visits are key. He said he wants to get it moving. His office, the Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Program Delivery is supportive of it. A web site is a priority and can be accomplished fairly quickly. It is an easy program to sell. An obstacle is simple resistance to change. Paul Bomgardner said ATA is supportive of this program. But state chapters of the petroleum marketers need to be brought in, they are against this program-they don't want to be regulated as hazmat. They killed the program in Colorado. When asked to give an overall comment, Paul Bomgardner complimented the Alliance members and said they were doing a good job. He has heard no complaints on this program. NCSTS PlenaryAt this juncture, the Alliance meeting joined the plenary session of the Annual Meeting of the National Conference of State Transportation Specialists. John Canty and Loretta Bitner told the NCSTS members about the Alliance program. Bill Byrd of FMCSA gave essentially the same message he gave earlier to the Alliance. All the speakers encouraged other states to join the Alliance. Board VotesLynne Jones brought up the issue of requiring that the process agent listing (for the purpose of serving legal papers) be attached to the application. Upon discussion, no other state has faced the need for this. Oklahoma will write this up for consideration at a future board meeting. Larry AuBuchon's application changes from yesterday were considered for vote by the Governing Board. He proposed adding language "and non-bulk" to page A-7 of application. Paul Bomgardner said that carriers will certify bulk because they own the tanks. But they will not for non-bulk because it is much more difficult to certify, since drivers would be responsible for this and most don't do it. Jim Rhode stated that the certification is ok as is. Larry said the Alliance should recognize non-bulk packaging as a requirement. Otherwise the Alliance stands silent. Paul Bomgardner asked why doesn't the Alliance require a certification of the motor carrier requirements in 49 CFR 100-180 inclusive? Discussion ensued. Larry AuBuchon moved that an additional certification, #8, be added to require that the applicant certify that it meets the motor carrier safety requirements found in 49 CFR 100-180 inclusive. This passed. Next came discussion of reporting IRP miles for all power units. Larry AuBuchon asked that the Alliance clarify the power unit question, that only 10,000-pound vehicles report IRP miles. In application Question 12, also clarify that applicants split out non-IRP, non-IFTA power units as a separate fleet in Question 12 and use a mileage methodology as referred to in the instructions. Add language "All percentages must include non-IRP power units and non-IFTA power units, if applicable." It was determined that no vote was required. The change is a clarification and it can be done administratively. The next item was to clarify the EPA number issue. This is found in the application, page A-1, A-9b. Under Federal EPA Transporter Identification #(s) -Drop the "(s)". In the instructions, page I-5, add "for the applicant's transportation activity." The concept is that only one number is wanted--the 'headquarters' EPA number. In instructions, add "EPA guidance requires the transporter 'headquarters' to obtain an EPA identification number. Do not supply generator number or treatment, storage and disposal facility numbers." Motion by Mike Nechvatal, second by Jim Rhode. Adopted by the Governing Board. The last change was in Part IV, Certification A, page A-11 of the application. It was proposed to add a line under "For Renewal of Current Registration" to say "Check all that are applicable:" Staff was instructed to add language in the instructions to clarify this change also. Also in Certification A, references to violations history (Part II D) and reportable incidents (Part II E) were proposed for removal due to the burden imposed on carriers to do the research. On motion by Mike Nechvatal and second by Lynne Jones, this change was passed by the board. Funding ProposalJim Rhode asked Bill Byrd if FMCSA can pay for state membership fee to the Alliance, and the answer was yes. He noted that it would politically easier to get a membership fee paid in his state. Additional discussion ensued. The group discussed the funding proposal and membership idea broached the day before (see page 5). Industry generally had no problem with a $5 or $10 per carrier fee as long as it was not shown separately on the application. John Canty said he is not sure how soon he could get any new fees implemented. Buzz Danzl proposed tying the fee to the number of hazardous waste carriers in each state, since this is a type of carrier all the states had in common. No support for this idea was expressed. On motion by Mike Nechvatal, with Jim Rhode seconding the funding proposal was brought to vote to support centralized Alliance Functions. All supported, except Buzz Danzl abstained. Loretta Bitner was re-elected as Chairperson. The next meeting was scheduled for December 13-14, 2001 in the NCSL offices in Denver, Colorado. Chairperson Bitner opened up the meeting for discussion of other issues. Paul Bomgardner told Alliance members about Operation Respond. It uses the carriers' own data bases to determine what is being carried. It is now primarily a railroad operation. They want to partner with West Virginia and the Alliance to get more carriers involved. (An agreement has since been signed between West Virginia and Operation Respond.) Part of the objective would be to test the use of the carrier data bases from registered carriers, as well as notification issues. Operation Respond is linked with Chemtrec. The problem is that carrier data bases are not set up to make this kind of information available. Firewalls are built in to protect other company data. There are software costs as well. A key element is working with 911 centers. Paul will make information available for distribution. This is based on the notion of using existing systems rather than creating something brand new. John Canty stated thatOhio would be interested as well. Loretta Bitner said West Virginia will use the emergency number from the application to use to notify carriers when an incident occurs. She asked if Prepass carriers permitted for hazmat or not? West Virginia and Operation Respond are partnering to figure this out. She will share with Prepass the Alliance quarterly report. Jim Rhode suggested that it be tied it in with Help Inc. It was agreed to discuss audits and peer reviews at Denver meeting. Jim Reed mentioned hazmat work with the Multi-state Highway Transportation Agreement (MHTA.) The MHTA states (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) are interested in examining the Uniform Program. The meeting adjourned at 2:45. TO DO: Prior to next meetingJim Reed--Make changes to application and instructions. John Canty, Larry Aubuchon, Jim Reed-Work with companies proposing automated systems for the Alliance. Next meeting-Preliminary AgendaReport on Operation Respond partnership-Loretta Bitner Report on FMCSA cooperative agreement-Jim Reed Update on FMCSA activities-Bill Byrd Congressional Activity Update on Automated Systems Audits Peer Reviews Transportation Security Progress on Fee Implementation
|
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
