 |
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 The Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures consists of seven states that have implemented uniform forms and procedures for the permitting and registration of motor carriers of hazardous materials pursuant to 49 USC 5119. This approach, called the Uniform Program (UP), has been adopted by Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. A governing board made up of member Alliance states oversees activities related to implementation and operation of the Uniform Program. The Alliance is governed by several documents including the final report of the Alliance working group to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and the Uniform Program Administrator's Manual. The Alliance is staffed by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Alliance Member States Present:Illinois: Cindy Bahner, Mike Nechvatal Guests:Bill Brown, FMCSA IntroductionsChairperson Loretta Bitner welcomed meeting attendees and self-introductions were made. The purpose of the participating states' meeting is to share information among the states, discuss issues of concern relative to program operation and to define improvements and goals for the future of the Uniform Program. Operation Respond (ORI)Loretta Bitner presented information concerning ORI. ORI has developed the Operation Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS) for the purpose of training for and responding to emergency situations involving the transportation and storage of hazardous materials and for rail passenger rescue and other purposes. ORI has license agreements with North American transportation carriers providing direct access to carrier databases containing information on the chemical contents of those carriers' tankers, trailers and containers together with emergency response guidance and personnel/public safety information. ORI now wishes to expand into the motor carrier area. The proposed partnership between ORI and the Alliance would allow ORI to use data collected by the Alliance so that carriers can be notified by an Alliance state when an incident occurs. The general goal of ORI is to use information collected by the Alliance to support safe transportation. The ORI system allows emergency responders can find out what is on a truck involved in an incident on a 24-hour basis. Loretta Bitner explained that the Alliance would supply the phone numbers of carriers to ORI. Carriers could also join ORI. Jim Rhode said that if we do this, the states should notify carriers of this new partnership. Loretta agreed and suggested that it be done in a cover letter for new applicants. Her contact at ORI is Jim Boone. Jim Rhode further suggested a joint document from ORI and the Alliance that all Alliance members can use. Loretta Bitner said that the Alliance would work with ORI and develop an informational document. Larry AuBuchon asked about the relationship of this to CHEMTREC. Loretta Bitner replied that CHEMTREC is about finding out what to do when you already know what you have in an accident. The ORI approach helps find out what hazmat is being transported. A "dangerous" placard for instance could have several hazmats on board. Sherry Soliz asked if the Alliance would require this. Chairperson Bitner said no, that it would be voluntary. Sherry Soliz said that through this arrangement, we are simply sharing information and that perhaps they could benefit us by developing data and potentially sharing information. Loretta Bitner said that ORI is interested in working with us because the Alliance has more hazmat info than any other source in the country. Jim Rhode asked who ORI was. He had several questions: Can we find out more? Who is supporting them? Are other organizations partnered with them? Who is on the board of directors? What is its past success with rail accident response? Who supports it? Is training provided to emergency responders and 911 centers? What costs and fees are involved? Does it have trucking industry support? Others agreed that the Alliance should know more about it. In response, Loretta Bitner stated that it was a private enterprise, not for profit. Jim Rhode said the Alliance should find out more about it; find out where they are coming from. He doesn't want the Alliance to throw support to a commercial venture that is not compatible with Alliance goals. Loretta Bitner said that working with ORI helped us get dollars from FMCSA. She agreed that more information was needed and said it would be forthcoming tomorrow. Mike Nechvatal raised the issue of security. The information we share could be dangerous in the wrong hands. In response, Loretta Bitner stated that security firewalls are built in. Access is limited through the 911 call centers. Cindy Bahner wanted to know if other companies are doing this type of information sharing. The response was no. Scott Nalich from Colorado asked: How will the emergency responders be notified of this program? He said most incidents in Colorado involve tankers. How often would a situation arise where this is necessary? Loretta Bitner said that the 911 centers know about this. The problem of no access to shipping papers and misreading shipping papers does happen. It was stated that there are 1200 response centers in 44 states. Scott Nalich noted that there are differences between rail response and highway response. Other issues include the predominance of volunteers in rural areas and retraining. The group agreed to discuss ORI further in the meeting session tomorrow. NCSL Cooperative Agreement with FMCSA to Support the AllianceJim Reed of NCSL reviewed the cooperative agreement between NCSL and FMCSA to support the Alliance. The tasks under the agreement include:
$100,000 was awarded for FY 2002, with possible allotments of $100,000 for each of the next three years. In Jim Reed's discussion on the agreement with Chuck Horan of FMCSA, a factor in determining future year funding allotments will be how many new states are brought into the Alliance. Larry AuBuchon asked if there is flexibility in spending the money? The response was yes. Recruiting New StatesBob Brown said that the bottom line is that the Alliance must show progress-bringing new states on board is key. Continuing support from FMCSA is tied to progress. Jim Rhode wanted to know how FMCSA would show support for the Alliance. Bob Brown said FMCSA will work support through the state directors. He cautioned that changes and flux were possible based on the events of 9-11. Jim Rhode said the Uniform Program is poised to come into its own. He recommended that FMCSA bring up the proposed rulemaking to implement the Uniform Program nationally. Mike Nechvatal stated that the biggest obstacle to getting new states to join is the problem with raising enough money to run the program, using the recommended fee schedule. Jim Rhode stated that Nevada is not charging the full fees that are necessary; there is a subsidy in Nevada. Strong FMCSA support is needed. He believes the Alliance program should be touted as a ready-made way to increase hazmat safety. Buzz Danzl said that the petroleum marketers are unhappy with the Minnesota program because of the way Minnesota is interpreting the shipper requirement and are proposing legislation on this part of the program. Bob Brown declared that everything in hazardous materials transportation is being reviewed in light of security. There could be 5-6 rulemakings soon on security that will be unpopular because it will cost money. FMCSA is working to fine tune the USA PATRIOT Act. There is and will be lots of activity in Congress. He recommended that the Alliance should push its agenda with the appropriate people. He said the hazmat routing web site is back up. A letter was sent to states encouraging them to use the federal routing guidelines if they undertake a routing exercise. Jim Rhode said that the Alliance should write FMCSA and recommend that our rulemaking be brought forward. Alliance members agreed. (Letter mailed February 13, 2002.) Loretta Bitner mentioned that draft legislation reauthorizing HMTA takes away the 26 state requirement and does away with the federal permit. A general discussion ensued about how important fees are and the problems in setting fees at levels adequate to run the program without losing money. Further discussion ensued on getting new states. Loretta Bitner suggested the concept of a "letter of intent" whereby a state would write to the Alliance saying they are interested in joining the Alliance and that they will start the appropriate legislative process. In closing this part of the meeting, Buzz Danzl stated that the Alliance needs to get a letter from FMCSA approving the use of MCSAP funds to travel to the Alliance meetings, as promised by Bill Byrd at the June meeting in New Mexico. Jim Rhode agreed saying that this is critical and the letter should include language about using MCSAP to pay any dues required by the Alliance. It would free money in the cooperative agreement for other uses. He recommended that a letter be sent right away, to which all agreed. (The letter was mailed February 13, 2002.) Congressional ActivityBob Brown reported that HMTA reauthorization is pending and will be picked up next year. Florida has set up a clearance process through identification cards to enter a port facility. Criminal background checks are required for drivers, stevedores and longshoreman. Coast Guard has a similar requirement that it has re-implemented. Transportation SecurityBob Brown discussed FMCSA or state visits of nearly all hazmat carriers to emphasize security. He distributed talking points that are being used on these visits of over 35,000 carriers. A brochure is being prepared for distribution. Larry AuBuchon requested that this information be made available to the Alliance for distribution to carriers in Alliance states. Scott Nalich mentioned how Colorado went about visiting 650 carriers. They discovered that many had gone out of business. This kind of joint state-federal effort can be assisted by Alliance states through the type of information that Alliance states collect. Loretta Bitner said that West Virginia provided the list of carriers to the FMCSA state director in order to conduct the security visits. General discussion ensued about he role of the Alliance in contributing to increased security. What is the Alliance role in security? Can we help increase security? Do we want to review driver lists? Can we encourage that companies review their security procedures as part of the application process? Educational materials may be helpful as a part of the application process or. Could a new certification be added? Larry AuBuchon suggested the possibility of adding an educational section on the permit that the applicant has reviewed its security procedures in light of the FMCSA security recommendations. After further discussion, it was agreed to add this language to Part IV of the application: "The Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures strongly recommends that you visit the FMCSA web site, www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hazmatsecure.htm, to review your company's security procedures against these recommended strategies." The Alliance will also formally request security brochures from FMCSA. (Letter mailed February 13, 2002.) Peer ReviewsOklahoma and Nevada will receive peer reviews at the next meeting in Portland, Maine. AuditsIt was agreed that staff will develop a draft audit manual by next meeting for both on-site and desk audits. Minnesota and Michigan will send their audit procedures and checklists for incorporation. These are Alliance application audits only. Compliance reviews (CRs) are a separate issue to be handled individually by states. There is some overlap between the two regarding compliance with the application certifications. A CR could be incorporated into this process at state discretion. For example, in Michigan the state police do certain work for the Department of Environmental Quality. One option could be to recommend that a CR be done in conjunction with the application audit if a state chooses. Jim Rhode suggested that we review the audit guidelines produced a few years ago by the Alliance. Bob Brown suggested that CR s not be mandated. Much information is online for verification from SAFER, Safetynet, and other data bases. (The meeting broke for lunch at 12:15.) Industry LiaisonsCurrently, the Alliance has no active industry liaisons, due to Paul Bomgardner moving to CVSA. This will help the Alliance with CVSA, but leaves a gap in industry participation. Loretta Bitner would like to send a letter of appreciation; all agreed. Discussion ensued on recruiting new industry liaisons. Selecting a primary and backup liaison was discussed. If neither were unable to attend, they would get the state motor carrier group to attend. There are many other possibilities including the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) and the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, formerly the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC.) It was suggested that the Alliance should also ask Cynthia Hilton for recommendations for names also. Conference Call with Jim Boone of Operation RespondTo bring additional information to the Alliance concerning ORI, Jim Boone was contacted and gave this information: ORI uses a number that is dialed up to get the shipping paper information. ORI is involved with all the major North American railroads. It wants to collaborate with the Alliance to bring in emergency response and speed up response and notification to incidents. The proposed MOU may need to change based on 9-11. The purpose is to develop a demonstration of knowing what is in the vehicle to help emergency responders. Efforts are under way in the use of cell phones and 911 (E-911) to speed up response based on using the cell phone as a locator device. When the system works right the cell phone provides another piece of information. When the system doesn't work well they can provide vital information on the contents of the vehicle. ORI wants to go on a no fee basis because most response agencies can't afford to pay for the software. It is seeking federal grants and commercial/government applications of its growing network to generate funding. It currently has some grant funding from the federal government. It is trying to put its access software to vehicle contents in as many secure places as possible to provide as large a network as possible. They are the only provider of the software to marry the waybill with the vehicle. Seventy-five percent of the area of the country is rural and covered by volunteer responders. ORI software has migrated along the railroads and the interstates. Down the road when it is proven, it could be a piece of the Uniform Program, where carriers would be required to use the system. The railroad companies have paid for the software in some instances where it could not be afforded because it is useful for them. ORI wants motor carriers to see the benefits and come on board. Working with the Alliance will test the system and demonstrate results to a skeptical industry. Jim Boone sees it as a "best practices" approach. There are lots of "elegant engineering complex solutions" being offered in the marketplace that are addressing a simple problem. These are too long in development. ORI has a system that works and simply needs a demonstration to give it wider credibility. Responsible hazmat carriers are going to ultimately do this type of thing in the near future. ORI anticipates regulations relating to performance standards in the near future regarding positive content identification. In response to a question, Jim Boone said ORI relies on the billing system to know what is on the truck and when. Thus, ORI's information is as good as what the company has. It can't be 100 percent correct. Some company systems won't work for an ORI-type system. Bob Brown noted that everyone needs to watch to see if Congress moves toward mandating a tracking type system for hazmat. Cambridge Systematics PresentationTasos Zografos and Roan Bennett presented the expanded proposal from Cambridge Systematics. They noted that the company focuses on transportation issues only and has extensive CVISN experience. Based on the case studies of Michigan and Ohio, these key findings were presented:
These design goals were established:
The solution proposed by Cambridge is a web enabled electronic permitting solution, called HazTrak, for states who want to capture and share hazardous material and waste transport information with other jurisdictions and interested parties. It consists of three modules-one for online data entry of applications, one to help the agency review and process applications, and one to enable the sharing of data. The modules were described in greater detail using numerous power point slides. The implementation timeline was estimated to be eight months. Various funding options were also presented including ownership, licensing and joint venture. Overall total costs of the proposed program were estimated to be $550,000 to $600,000, not including ongoing annual support and maintenance costs. Depending on the particular ownership arrangement and what particular modules states needed, the individual state costs could vary from $6,900 up to $274,000. Various ownership sharing scenarios and cost estimates were presented. Summarizing all the examples presented, an average cost estimate per state was between $50,000 and $70,000. Suggested next steps included: getting additional feedback from the Alliance; setting up an Alliance committee to address funding options; beginning discussions with a vendor; finalizing options; committee recommending funding agreement to full Alliance; and Alliance approving agreement; and effort begins. After the presentation, discussion continued. Bob Brown said that processes may be different on the web and in house, but that doesn't matter. The key is that the data sets are the same-the same info is collected from each applicant, which is what the Alliance already does. This would be a selling point at FMCSA. Larry AuBuchon said that this system could also help standardize the state processes, like a query of SAFER as part of the processing for example. Discussion continued around the issue of ownership v. leasing, the costs involved, how the costs would be weighted, how new states would pay, a partnership, etc. Jim Rhode closed this discussion by stating that leasing would be more attractive due to the lower up front cost. Fee ImplementationA brief update of implementation of the Alliance fee that was adopted at the last meeting was received. Nevada and Ohio will pay out of MCSAP funds. It was reiterated to include this in the letter to FMCSA whether this is an authorized expense. West Virginia will pay out of MCSAP or hazmat funds. Michigan and Illinois will pay out of operating funds. Oklahoma can generate the necessary fees with a rulemaking. Minnesota will probably pay out of MCSAP funds. Application ChangesChanges to Question 12c were discussed. The issue is to provide a range that includes percentages between 0 and .1. A transporter in Illinois had only one hazardous load in the 300 per day that it transported. That percentage came to .003333. All agreed to amend Question 12c from reading ".1 to 10.0" to read "Greater than 0 to 10.0" Providing the name of the process server on the application at the request of Oklahoma was discussed. It was pointed out that this is already required by FMCSA and by other agencies. Intrastate private carriers would not be covered by this requirement. Questions were raised. How often is this necessary? Do we need to have this as part of the Alliance or is it a duplication? After further discussion, it was agreed that this would be duplicative of other state agency activities. Alliance members decided to not support adding the process agent to the application. Discussion ensued over the "whiting out" of 9d and 9e in Ohio for carriers who are not carrying hazardous waste. It was explained as a convenience in processing. The other states expressed concern that this was not uniform. Ohio was asked to rectify this problem. Also the issue of Ohio not requiring the carriers to place the credential in truck cabs was brought up, in which Ohio is not uniform. Michigan Agenda ItemsLarry AuBuchon requested that several matters be discussed by the Alliance. The items are listed below. 1. Michigan also permits and registers liquid industrial waste transporters. In this process, if a transporter participates in the National Alliance program we request a copy of the credential and a copy of the page A-2 of the application to verify fees. As part of our process we also verify Safer information. Numerous times we find the number of vehicles reported in the applications to be different from the Safer system. We usually go back to the company and request an explanation. I would say a good 80+% of the time the company failed to accurately report the correct number of vehicles. This results in underpayments to various states. Discussion: How to insure the proper number of vehicles are reported? How to insure states include safer vehicle numbers as part of their review and follow-up? Alliance resolution: Verifying numbers is part of the application review process. Using SAFER as part of this should be emphasized in the administrators manual. 2. Application updates are needed shortly after the decision is made to revise the application. We currently do not have a revised application resulting from the changes decided at the last board meeting. Discussion: How do we ensure that application updates and revisions to the alliance procedures are able to be accomplished on a timelier basis? One of the states offering to assist in that task to help Jim Reed out? Alliance resolution: With the new funding from the cooperative agreement, this should not be a problem in the future. 3. At the last meeting it was discussed that having one EPA Identification Number recognized and identified on the credential is very important, especially to the hazardous waste states. We agreed to change the application to have the transporters identify a single number. Additionally it is important for these numbers to be part of the database information. Two states are still having problems with this information being included on the database. Discussion: What steps can be taken by states experiencing these problems to correct these issues? Alliance resolution: Verify these numbers in RCRIS. Mention other ways as well in Administrators Manual. Larry will send out info on other databases to consult. 4. Previously the board had decided when a application is received from a transporter currently based in that state but not actually physically located in any of the Alliance states, regardless of whether this was a permit or a registration year, the IRP miles would be reviewed. The Alliance state with the highest miles represented would receive that application for processing. Discussion: How is this working? Are all states doing this? Is this really workable? Should we consider going back to the old process? Should we consider this only for newly joined states? Should we just do this for the permit year only? Alliance resolution: Transition rules were reviewed and found to be acceptable. 5. Usually our quarterly reports for consolidated transporter information, if we are lucky, are produced almost a quarter late. Some state are very good on getting this information out immediately and with others there are delays. Discussion: How can states improve on their submittals? What can be implemented to make this submittal more automatic and timely? Alliance resolution: Larry asked for more timely submission of information for the quarterly report and other states agreed to try. 6. Getting payments out to participating states along with the required summary report is another one of those issues that has a very poor track record. Discussion: How can states improve on their submittals? What can be implemented to make this submittal more automatic and timely? Alliance resolution: Problems of receiving payments were discussed. Mostly amount to bureaucratic problems, which are being addressed. 7. Several credentials have been identified that have issue dates three months before the actual expiration of the credential. Discussion: If there is a problem with the transporter in those three months, and the credential is issued, are we losing some of the compliance leverage? Is there a way or a need to have it issued closer to the expiration date? Alliance resolution: Not identified as a problem. 8. Questions have been received relating to the use of the credential. Just wanted to make sure everyone would be interpreting this the same way. Discussion: Company A has a credential and they contract with Company B to do a job (driver and truck) Company B needs to have their own credential? Company A has a credential and they lease a truck or a driver from Company B. The truck or the driver would be considered a part of Company A and be covered under the credential issued to Company A. Is this right? Alliance resolution: All concurred. The company of record has to report the use of leased vehicles. Issue of which company is listed on the manifest-it has to be the holder of the credential. Second Day, December 14Discussion of Cambridge ProposalJim Rhode liked the proposal. The software would be very useful, but he is concerned about paying for it. Perhaps a committee of the Alliance should look into it. Other money could be available from the federal government, primarily FMCSA. Sherry Soliz said the proposal heads us in the right direction . Chairperson Bitner recommended that the same committee of John Canty, Larry Aubuchon and Jim Reed continue to work on this and report back in 60 days. Larry AuBuchon said the committee should develop a list of core elements that we need at a minimum-- the Alliance requirements, explore funding options with Cambridge and others, and explore possibilities of partnering with Dave Lazarides at the Illinois Commerce Commission. Illinois and Oklahoma would consider using the new system, depending on how it develops. Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia find HARPS deficient and would use the new system. Discussion revolved around how to proceed. Problems in implementation and in providing service using various private vendors were discussed. Alliance members endorsed the committee approach. Operation RespondMembers expressed skepticism about how the partnership would benefit the Alliance. Concern was expressed about language in the proposed memorandum of understanding. It was agreed to have Matt Sundeen rework the document more to suit the Alliance. Once an agreeable MOU is negotiated, Jim Rhode proposed that we go ahead for a year and then evaluate how it works. John Canty suggested that Yellow Freight be contacted as to how it has worked for them. Larry AuBuchon suggested a conference call in February to settle this. Loretta Bitner asked that everyone send her questions by e-mail and she will get specific details within 30 days. Matt Sundeen will report on his document review at that time. West Virginia can move ahead independently with ORI if it desires. In addition, Matt Sundeen asked the members to think about the Alliance goals relative to the partnership. OutreachJim Reed suggested that the best prospects be identified and an Alliance member be assigned to a state to assist them in evaluating the program. Jim Rhode said there is no incentive for states to join. He said the Alliance needs more and better help from FMCSA especially since it expects the Alliance to expand and grow in order to keep funding. Sherry Soliz said the trucking associations need to step forward and help. Nothing will happen in the state legislatures until the state trucking associations put support behind legislation. Loretta Bitner said the large interstate carriers are our best allies because they will benefit the most. The role of Cynthia Hilton as a past proponent of the Alliance was discussed and the possibility of involving her again. Jim Rhode said we are standing on an island trying to get people to join with no carrot and no stick. Pressure is what brought this group together in the first place. Loretta Bitner stated that we have a new situation now with the concern about hazmat transportation safety and security. Jim Rhode said we need to develop outreach materials and a plan for involving states. In addition, the Alliance should specifically target the big companies involved that benefit. The interest of the Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement in the Uniform program was discussed. It passed a resolution of support at its November 2001 meeting. Outreach materials should include legislative guidelines, informational brochure, basics of the program talking points for presentations. A plan must be devised. Staff will develop the materials and a plan by the end of January 2002. It was suggested that each state go to trucking associations and other group meetings and request to present on the program on behalf of the Alliance. Each state volunteered to contact other states and encourage them to consider the Uniform Program. The list follows.
Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures Governing Board Meeting Denver, Colorado The same participants stayed for participation in the Governing Board meeting. The Governing Board consists of one person from each Alliance state. Chairperson Bitner asked for a motion to approve the meeting summary from the Alliance meeting in Santa Fe in June, 2001. On motion by Mike Nechvatal and a second by Jim Rhode, the motion passed unanimously. State UpdatesWV-Status quo, 450 carriers. Bob Brooks is retiring, Gary Edgle will take over. MI--250 liquid waste carriers. NV-Doing well. About 200 pending. Need a replacement for HARPS. IL-85-90 haulers permitted, still losing money MN-Going well overall. 658 inter, 175 intra, 225 shippers. Petroleum marketers are upset because they are now subject to the RSPA registration program, OK-- 42 carriers. Program is working well. OH --2,477 carriers. Expects more based on new hazmat inspections by State Police after 9-11. New carriers are being found and will be coming into the program. Rob Marvine is the new director of the Transportation Division at PUCO. NCSL-Policy supporting the Uniform Program was reaffirmed by NCSL in July 2001. Cooperative agreement signed with FMCSA to support Alliance on September 28, 2001. Will begin updating the Administrator's Manual. Alliance members were asked to provide suggestions for improvements and revisions within 60 days to Jim Reed. All states were requested electronic versions of state laws and regulation on the Uniform Program. Larry AuBuchon asked about budget flexibility and moving money among categories. Jim Reed said this is possible given the priorities of Alliance. Bob Brown-FMCSA wants to see progress and he is taking back suggestions from this meeting to headquarters. Items from Participating States MeetingTransition rules adopted at the October 2000 meeting were reviewed. The issue of Ohio not requiring a copy of the credential in the vehicle was revisited. Other states agreed that this needs to be a requirement in the Administrator's Manual, with language recognizing Ohio's current inconsistency. States cover this in a cover letter. Language on security to be placed in Part IV of the application--"The Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures strongly recommends that you visit the FMCSA web site, www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hazmatsecure.htm, to review your company's security procedures against these recommended strategies." On motion by Mike Nechvatal, second by Sherry Soliz. It passed unanimously. A motion was offered by Mike Nechvatal to change the wording on 12c to allow for percentages between 0 and .1. John Canty seconded and it passed unanimously. Sherry Soliz made a motion to add language concerning process agent to the application. Jim Rhode seconded. The board voted it down 6-1. Scott Nalich thanked the group for being invited. He said he learned a lot and will take the information back to his agency, the Colorado State Patrol. Jim Reed will send out the peer review material soon. A conference call meeting is possible in February or March to discuss Operation Respond and progress on the automated system proposal. A to do list of action items from this meeting is attached. The next meeting is set for June 17-18, 2002 in conjunction with NCSTS in Portland, Maine at the Eastland Park Hotel. Meeting adjourned at 11:15. Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures To Do List from December 13-14, 2001 Meeting
|
© 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
