Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures
Governing Board Meeting Summary
Nevada Highway Patrol Offices
Reno, Nevada
January 28-29, 2003
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.
Attendees:
Illinois: Mike Nechvatal
Michigan: Larry
AuBuchon
Minnesota: Buzz Danzl, by telephone
Ohio: John
Canty
Oklahoma: Sherry Soliz, Sherry Twidwell
Nevada: Jim
Rhode, Donna Redman, Denise Jackson
West Virginia: Loretta Bitner
NCSL: Jim Reed
Nevada Motor Carrier Association: Ray Rhodes
FMCSA: Bill Bensmiller
Tuesday January 28, 2003
Sherry Soliz, Chair of the Alliance, called the meeting to order. Jim
Rhode of Nevada welcomed Alliance members and introduced Bob Wideman, of the
Nevada Highway Patrol. He gave welcoming comments. He said the
Alliance program is beneficial for Nevada and is important in many ways,
particularly in tracking purposes for security reasons. He wished the
Alliance well in pursuing its goals.
The meeting summary from the Alliance Governing Board meeting, June 17-18,
2002 in Portland, Maine were approved unanimously on a motion by Jim Rhode,
seconded by Mike Nechvatal.
State Reports
Ohio: 2500 carriers currently registered and permitted.
West Virginia: Down some, some carriers have gone out of
business. Expects 350 to 400 carriers to be in the program.
Applications to be sent out soon. A reorganization of WV Public Service
Commission is under way. New people will be involved. Some of the
compliance review (CR) people will become involved in permitting process.
West Virginia officers can now pull up the quarterly list of permitted carriers
roadside.
Michigan: Approximately 90 hazardous waste and 260 liquid waste
carriers are permitted and registered. Since the last Alliance
meeting Michigan has had 10 transporter enforcement cases that have been settled
and currently have 4 pending. Barbara Stevens runs the administrative part of
the program and continues to do an excellent job in getting the applications and
credentials processed.. Under the new Governor the Department has a new
Director. The transporter program is anticipated to continue as it had in
the past.
Illinois: 80-90 haulers permitted. Revenues down some. New
governor was elected. State is broke. Special funds might be
raided.
Nevada: 700 carriers in program, expecting 90 more to renew around
May. There are 15 new carriers and many inquiries have been produced by
education and enforcement activities. SAFER has been helpful in making
carriers accountable in reviewing application. Nevada is on line to pay
for Alliance fees with MCSAP funds. Bedrock Inc purchased Tri-State and is
claiming to be a new company. Nevada is doing the radioactive waste review
and has said it needs to either be a brand new company or use Tri-State’s
history as a carrier. Nevada is working with DOE to pick companies that
have a good history.
Oklahoma: There are 52 carriers in the program. Oklahoma is
waiting for the Alliance audit procedure to move forward. SAFER is
becoming more accurate. Sherry Twidwell works with Safetynet. Any
changes to the program in Oklahoma will have to come from the motor carrier
industry.
Minnesota via telephone: There are 720 carriers and 280 shippers
registered. Minnesota is short of money and future participation may be
limited.
Presentation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Bill Bensmiller of FMCSA, Nevada Division administrator was introduced.
He welcomed everyone to Nevada. He used to work with Bill Quade, the
hazardous materials division chief in Washington, DC. He said he is
familiar with the program. He has supported the Nevada program in using
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds for Alliance activities,
based on an easing of the strings on MCSAP at FMCSA headquarters. He said
that some states have FMCSA rollover money that can be used.
He explained some of the difficulty in states using MCSAP funds for the
Uniform Program. The divisions at headquarters are separate and crossover
has been difficult. The hazardous materials (HM) shop and the MCSAP shop
each have their own priorities, but are beginning to work together. MCSAP
wants to ensure that its resources are well used in the states. Bensmiller
encouraged the Alliance to work closely with Bill Quade.
He stated that FMCSA was appropriated funds to implement the federal HM
permitting for the four hazmats named in Section 5109. (At the least, it shall
apply to transportation by a motor carrier, in amounts the secretary of
transportation establishes, of a class A or B explosive; liquefied natural gas;
hazardous material the secretary designates as extremely toxic by inhalation;
and a highway-route-controlled quantity of radioactive material [HRCQ].) A
rulemaking for permitting will be initiated with the new money, but none of this
money can come to the Alliance. FMCSA supports negotiations on how the
Alliance permit could be substituted for the federal permit in Alliance
states. FMCSA estimates about 5,000 carriers are possibly included in this
group. The HM office does not want to preempt the states with the federal
permit.
The federal rule will include security elements. Other existing systems
will be used as well, such as the compliance review process and unfit carriers
process. An audit function will be included. One avenue for funding
might be for the audits to be undertaken by states as part of the new permit
process. Security procedure audits of carriers were paid for by MCSAP
after 9-11.
Sherry Soliz brought up the problem of the Alliance agencies that are not
MCSAP agencies. How can they receive funds? Could this be written
into the rule for the Alliance? Bensmiller said it has been done on a
pass-through basis from the MCSAP lead agency. But rules do not preclude
funds coming through another agency, it is simply easier to do it through the
lead agency. Loretta Bitner pointed out that the lead agency likes to be
consulted and this makes sense politically. Bensmiller agreed that this
was the best way to go.
Sherry Soliz asked about the incentive grants for the Alliance. They
were taken out this year due to the focus on the “New Entrants” program, but
Bill Quade is committed to asking again in 2004. Bill Bensmiller said that
momentum is important and that just getting started is critical.
Jim Rhode asked if each state could get rollover funds to pool for building
the Alliance database. Bensmiller said it is possible on a piecemeal basis
as long as Quade’s shop was in the loop. He offered to work closely and
openly on this process. He felt sure that money would be there for 2004 and
2005.
Larry AuBuchon said that the Michigan State Police, Motor Carrier Division
does much of the inspection work for the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in this program and currently has not been using the program funds.
He thought Michigan could take advantage of a standardized approach by the
Alliance for non-MCSAP agencies to submit a “module” to the lead agency for the
needed grant funds. He brought up the notion of an equivalent program as a
way to help sell it.
Bill Bensmiller said the question is: should resources be used to do the
reviews of HM carriers? The money is less of an issue, it’s more an issue
of personnel resources. Loretta Bitner talked about how the Uniform
Program finds enforcement and compliance items not found during roadside
inspections. There is a security benefit in this. Sherry Soliz
pointed out that the resources of the states would be available to help.
Bensmiller said to go ahead and put in a request to get into the system.
It was suggested that the Alliance could find out from RSPA who the 5000
carriers are who will be subject to the new federal permit to examine how many
are already in the Uniform Program. Funding may be available from the
Transportation Security Agency (TSA) for security-related needs.
RSPA should be considered too.
Mike Nechvatal asked what “sticks” FMCSA could employ to get states into the
Alliance. Bill Bensmiller said that the new permit will be a mandate and
that carriers will either come to the feds or to the Alliance states for the new
permit, probably modeled after the RSPA registration.
Loretta Bitner encouraged that the Alliance and all states individually
comment on the federal permit rule when issued. It was also suggested that
the Alliance come up with a general comment structure for states to use on the
permit rule.
Jim Rhode suggested that we do an Alliance template for high priority funding
that all states would submit to get rollover funds. He would be willing to ask
for at least $100,000.
Larry AuBuchon said we need to have the database plan before we move
forward. Additionally he indicated that it would be more beneficial to the
Alliance to try and have the repository as part of an established federal
transportation database. The database elements we needed should be
considered as part of that federal database. Once that database had been
determined then the Alliance/state can best determine how to get the Alliance
data into it. Jim Rhode said we have the data elements already-Application
Parts I and II. (These are included as Appendix A to this
summary.) Also Homeland Security is going to want information to
make and receive notification of highway route controlled quantity of
radioactive material (HRCQ), which we could provide with our database.
Sherry Soliz stated that the other aspect is the offer from Bill Quade to
build a database for us at Volpe. Bill Bensmiller said the Alliance would
probably also need some funds for state end upgrades.
Discussion ensued on the particulars of how states would work internally and
interdepartmentally to be able to use the national database in terms of hardware
and software. Relationship to intelligent transportation systems
commercial vehicle operations (ITS CVO) was discussed.
NCSL Report
Jim Reed said a possible cut in the NCSL-FMCSA cooperative agreement was
pending due to the use of MCSAP High Priority funding for the new entrant
program. In part this was due to under spending of available funds.
Ways to not be penalized for under spending were discussed.
Further discussion continued of the database role of Volpe and how it would
work. Two different needs were identified-a central database, and the
specific needs of the Alliance like netting of fees, etc. It was agreed to
ask for the whole deal that Cambridge developed for us back in 2001, which
everyone endorsed at that time.
The new Alliance brochure was distributed. Ideas for new quotes for the
next revision next year were given.
2002 state legislation was reviewed including a discussion of state criminal
background check laws in CA, MI and SD.
Database Elements
John Canty reported that none of our grant applications have been
approved.
Chair Soliz determined that John Canty and Larry AuBuchon will continue to
serve as the committee to meet with FMCSA on the database elements.
Model Legislation
Uniform Program model legislation was reviewed and suggestions were made for
revisions. The model legislation was originally developed in the fall of
2002 for presentation to the Multi-state Highway Transportation Agreement,
consisting of legislators, transportation agency representatives and
industry.
In reviewing the model law the question was raised: Should the Alliance
drop registration only as an option? Many opinions were expressed and it
was determined to study this for next meeting.
John Canty moved to approve model legislation, seconded by Jim Rhode.
It was unanimously approved.
Base State Agreement
All agree to the need for an agreement by which the states bind themselves
and the other states to the principles and procedures of the Alliance.
This was done to some degree with implementing legislation in each state.
NCSL was asked to come back with a letter-length agreement for review. It
is to be done in conjunction with updates of all major documents. Also,
Jim Rhode asked for NCSL guidance on forming a non-profit corporation, creating
bylaws, etc. for the Alliance to consider operating as it’s own entity.
Application changes
Sherry Soliz asked that three changes be made. First, that question 8c
ask for the “Motor Carrier Docket number” rather than the ICC number.
Second, that a new question 9e be added asking applicants to indicate which
states they had previous haz waste activity. And third, that a block be
added on Part IV of the application for the information concerning an agent that
assisted the applicant in completing the application. These items were
approved by a vote of the Governing Board on January 29, 2003. (See page
7.)
Discussion continued about putting an agent’s name on the credential and the
agent’s address. Alliance members said no, it must be the carrier not an
agent.
Discussion ensued about paying fees according to miles and haz mat
activity. A question was raised about whether haz waste should be broken
out separately. Assessing fees based on hazmat activity nationally as a
percentage was explained by Loretta Bitner and Jim Rhode as a compromise so that
companies did not have to break out hazmat activity by state. Also part of
the compromise with industry was the understanding that if you have mileage in
any state, by that percentage you are assessed by the amount of hazmat carried
nationally. What is key is that hazmat was transported in at least
one Alliance state.
Fee worksheet--NCSL will put together Excel spread sheet and word
worksheet based on Larry’s format, using input from the worksheet Sherry Soliz
developed and Nevada’s spreadsheet. Both will be placed on the Alliance
web site when finished. It will be approved first by and email vote of the
Governing Board by e-mail vote first.
Fee assessment
It was brought up that the states need to be invoiced for the fee being
assessed in January 2004. After discussion, all agreed that NCSL will
develop a proposal on the whole process of assessing Alliance members on fees
for approval at next meeting including fiscal year, how to figure number of
carriers, invoicing, time frame the fee covers, etc. One option is to send
out invoices from the Alliance based on the numbers in the quarterly
report. All states in attendance agreed that they would be able pay the
fee as adopted at the Santa Fe meeting come January 2004. Jim Reed was
asked by the Governing Board to send an e-mail asking for states to confirm that
they can pay the dues assessment, within 45 days ask for answer by May 1,
2003.
Here is the dues agreement from the June 2001 Santa Fe meeting:
Each member state, as an annual membership consideration, will make funds
available for central Alliance functions. The membership schedule is as
follows:
Number of Registered/Permitted Carriers in the
State |
Membership Fee for Central Alliance Functions |
|
1-300 |
$3,000 |
|
301-500 |
4,000 |
|
501-1,000 |
5,000 |
|
1,001-1,500 |
6,000 |
|
1,501-2,000 |
7,000 |
|
2,001-2,500 |
8,000 |
|
Over 2,500 |
$10,000 |
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.
Outreach Brochure
Alliance members directed NCSL to mail the new brochure to transportation
committee chairs in the legislatures, state motor carrier associations, ATA,
governor’s staff, state DOT’s, and EPA’s. A cover letter will be developed
by Sherry Soliz to accompany.
Other Federal Activity
Loretta Bitner reported that the new ATF explosives permit does not currently
apply to common carriers, but could apply to drivers. It is being closely
watched by industry.
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Administrators’ Manual
Sherry Soliz called the meeting to order and announced that the revised
Administrators’ Manual would be considered. Members reviewed
numerous proposed changes to the manual. The last revision of the
manual occurred in 1998.
Several policy questions were raised for consideration at the next meeting:
Does the Alliance want to eliminate the option of allowing states of
registration only? Should this be for intrastate only? Should Part
III be eliminated? It was suggested to consider security as the purpose of
Part III, depending on what the federal permit contains.
Members agreed that on page 3-9 regarding transition that when a new states
come on, if the other states agree that some base state switching would occur
based on most recent IRP miles and that such proposed changes would be approved
by the board.
Discussion ensued on what is to be held confidential from the application,
based on the language of page 3-12, N and O. Various points of view were
offered. One understanding was that all of Part III would be confidential
and other parts would be part of the public record. New language was added
to page 3-12, subpart N to say: “In general, Parts I, II, and IV are considered
public information, while Part III is considered confidential. State
freedom of information laws ultimately govern the public release of information
submitted as part of the Uniform Program application process.”
Additions were made to the suggested procedures for accepting or verifying
information submitted in the application, including information on various
databases that should be checked.
All member states agreed to send Jim Reed a copy of their credential for
insertion into the manual. Also, copies of “ding” or deficiency letters
will be provided by the states to Jim Reed
Jim Reed was asked to create list of board chair duties for the
Administrators’ Manual. In addition, a section on Alliance staffing will
be added. Also, meeting notices will be sent to a broader mailing list in
the future. (Page 7-6)
A motion to approve the Administrators’ Manual revisions was offered
by Loretta Bitner with Larry AuBuchon seconding. It passed
unanimously. When agreed upon changes are complete, Jim Reed will send out
another revision.
Audit Procedures
Time did not permit full discussion of the Audit Procedures Guidelines.
Members were asked to send comments on audit guidelines to Jim Reed within 30
days.
Vote on Changes to Application
A vote was called for approval of the application changes listed on page
5. Jim Rhode moved, Loretta Bitner seconded. All voted in favor
The next meeting will be June 23-24, 2003 in Seattle, Washington, in
conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the National Conference of State
Transportation Specialists.
The meeting adjourned.
Appendix A: Data Elements Requested on the Uniform Program
Application
A. The registration application shall request
the following information for purposes of identifying carriers and calculating
fees on an apportioned basis.
Part I Registration Application
-
Applicant name
-
DBA name if applicable
- Mailing Address for purposes of correspondence
- Street Address, if different from mailing address
- Does address reflect a change in the last 12 months?
- Person to contact concerning the application
-
Contact title
-
Contact phone number
-
Contact fax number
- USDOT motor carrier census number
-
ICC motor carrier number
-
Intrastate carrier State ID Number, if applicable
- USDOT, motor carrier docket #, State ID numbers displayed
-
USDOT HazMat Registration number
- EPA transporter identification number, if applicable
- Does the carrier require a uniform manifest
- Alliance member states where transportation of hazardous materials is
expected
- Transportation of radioactive waste in Nevada
- Phone number at which the carrier can be contacted
- Information provided in application covers which 12 month period
- Fleet information for carriers with multiple fleets
- Average number of power units owned, operated, leased, etc.
- IRP allocation percentages by state and other North American jurisdictions
- Percentage of total activity that involves hazardous materials
-
IRP account number
- Average number of cargo tanks owned, operated, or leased with capacities
greater/less than 3,500 water gallons
- Classes of hazardous materials transported
-
Amount of fee(s) enclosed
B. The hazardous materials permit application
shall request the following information for purposes of identifying carriers
determining their fitness to transport hazardous materials.
Part II
Corporate Structure
Permits Withdrawn, Denied, Suspended, or Revoked
USDOT Safety Rating
- Most recent USDOT Safety Rating
History of applicants major violations related to hazmat
-
Assessed or paid fines over $1000
-
Fined or convicted in last 3 years of transporting hazmat without
permit
-
Has subsidiary, etc. been found culpable in legal
proceedings
Reportable Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents
Terminals
Inspections
Financial Responsibility
Other Certifications
-
Current commercial drivers licenses
-
Complies with USDOT bulk packaging
-
Emergency Response Plan
-
State designated routing requirements
-
Training requirements for hazardous materials employees
-
Retention of shipping papers
-
Hours of Service
-
Applicant meets motor carrier safety requirements
C. The permit application shall request the following
additional information for purposes of identifying carriers and determining
their fitness to transport hazardous waste.
Part III Additional Information Required from Motor Carriers of
Hazardous Waste
-
Incorporation
- Facilities Owned and Operated
- Identification of Key Management Personnel
-
Permits Held
- Related Business Concerns
-
Legal Proceedings
-
Changes within 90 days
D. The following information must be provided by all
applicants.
Part IV General Application Certifications
-
Renewal of Current Permit
-
Acknowledging that Applicant is Subject to Audit
-
Certification of Accuracy and Completeness
 Hazmat meetings page
Visitor counts for this
page.
|
