Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures
Governing Board Meeting Summary
Seattle, Washington
June 23-24, 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.
June 23, 2003
Attendees:
Illinois: Cindy Bahner, via telephone
Ohio: John Canty,
Vice-Chair
Oklahoma: Sherry Soliz, Chair
Nevada: Jim Rhode, Donna
Redman
Staff: Jim Reed, NCSL
Guests:
James Simmons, FMCSA
Tasos Zogravos, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chairperson Sherry Soliz called the meeting to order and introductions around
the table were made. The meeting summary from the Board’s Reno,
Nevada January 28-29, 2003 meeting was approved unanimously with minor revisions
on a motion by John Canty and Jim Rhode’s second.
FMCSA Presentation
James Simmons, a transportation specialist with the Hazardous Materials
Division of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was
introduced. He said he was pleased to join the Alliance meeting.
(See electronic attachment power point presentation.) He gave a brief
history of Alliance from FMCSA’s point of view. Simmons said that the
mantra of the current administration is doing more with less. They want
ideas in this regard.
Mr. Simmons discussed existing support of the Alliance by FMCSA. He
said he wants to know more about the Alliance program now that everything is
organized under FMCSA. A funding decision and allocation will occur in
January 2004 for continuation of cooperative agreement funding between FMCSA and
NCSL for support of the Alliance. Mr. Simmons requested that Sherry Soliz and
Jim Reed contact him via conference call prior to the end of the fiscal year to
discuss Alliance finances.
He said that ongoing study is underway on how to use MCSAP money for
the Alliance program. High priority funding may be available. Sherry
Soliz pointed out the difficulty of some Alliance states not being the lead
MCSAP agency for the state. She asked that FMCSA create language allowing
Alliance states that are non-MCSAP to be part of the states overall MCSAP
funding. Jim Rhode said the MCSAP funding issue could be used as a way to
entice new states to join.
He spoke next about several new rules. Background checks will be
required of all hazmat drivers. FMCSA and RSPA issued simultaneous rules
with TSA on May 5, 2003. Under this rule, states are required to establish
a hazmat endorsement renewal period of at least five years to ensure that each
holder of a hazmat endorsement routinely and uniformly receives a security
screening.
Mr. Simmons went on to discuss the new hours of service rule that requires
more rest for commercial drivers. The new rule was effective June 27,
2003. He said helpful material is available on the FMCSA web site.
He briefly mentioned HM-213, the new cargo tank requirements. Among the
changes, registration will now be handled by FMCSA instead of RSPA.
He moved to the new HM-232 security requirements, which became effective
March 25, 2003. Certain shippers and carriers must develop and implement a
security plan covering personnel security, unauthorized access, and in-route
security. FMCSA contracted with Battelle for pilot training and a guide to
drafting a security plan. They want to avoid a one size fits all
approach. A draft will be available in July and distributed to industry in
August. Plans must be developed by September 25, 2003.
Sherry Soliz asked if plans must be reviewed and approved. Simmons said
no submittals are required, but FMCSA will be doing visits to ensure
compliance. Over 43,000 carriers are subject to the requirement. The
most high risk hazmat will be assessed first. John Canty asked what kind
of enforcement will occur. Simmons said certain criteria must be met
including training, which would be subject to enforcement. Security plans
will be evaluated by FMCSA. Jim Rhode was concerned that existing
personnel don’t have the capacity to handle an evaluation of security.
Simmons said training is underway for FMCSA personnel to adequately focus on
carriers’ compliance with HM-232. FMCSA is doing outreach to help industry
comply. State folks will also be able to participate in the outreach
training.
Moving on to HM-215, harmonization with international regulations, Simmons
said this could affect shipping paper descriptions. He touched
briefly on the new entrant program. For new entrants, a safety audit will
be conducted during first 18 months. It is not a compliance review (CR),
but could become one if severe problems are found.
His final topic for presentation was the federal hazmat permit. In giving a
brief history, Mr. Simmons said that federal permit repeal requests were made,
but not acted upon, in 1997, 1999, and 2001. Under existing law, 49 USC
5109, DOT must issue permits for high explosives, extremely toxic by inhalation,
highway route-controlled quantities of radioactive material (HRCQ) and liquified
natural gas (LNG). Other thresholds and materials can be included,
including possibly greater than 1000 pounds, anhydrous ammonia, and infectious
substances. It is in the rulemaking process, so he can't discuss the
particulars. But he welcomed comments from Alliance members. It’s
under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review now. He said to expect
a notice to come out in FY 2004. He concluded his presentation by giving
his contact information.
Sherry Soliz said Ohio had 550 carriers, Nevada has 300, and Minnesota has
300 carriers that are hauling the more dangerous materials. She asked sow
will these be handled under the federal permit? James Simmons said he
could not give an answer, but said these figures are in line with their estimate
of 5,000.
Jim Rhode asked will there be a reciprocal clause to allow the Alliance
permit to take the place of the federal permit in Alliance states? He
stated that he feels that the Alliance has been ignored in devising the new
rule. He asked why have a federal permit when the Alliance has a good
stringent program. He would have liked to give input prior to the rule being
sent to OMB. Jim Rhode said he feels excluded and thinks it was a very
large oversight to not involve Alliance. He expressed the concern that the
federal permit will lack teeth.
Sherry Soliz said it was her understanding that the federal permit will
involve standards for compliance. Jim Rhode also stated a concern about
the use of outdated CR data.
James Simmons said his point was well taken. FMCSA was recently
sued. Performance measures had to be put in place to take into
consideration of much of the larger program and the national situation.
Sherry Soliz asked when the Alliance could meet with Dorothy Giles of FMCSA
and begin to work on our database. Simmons said they just converted to
Oracle. He said let’s meet in DC and get it going.
Data Repository Issues
In the afternoon, Taso Zografos of Booz Allen Hamilton made a presentation on
his concept of an automated data repository for the Alliance. Basic
requirements would be that it is Internet accessible, stores active and inactive
commercial vehicle registration information, has real time synchronization,
facilitates electronic application entry, promotes standardization of industry
application practices, delivers a national data repository, and enhances
enforcement efforts.
Existing Alliance approaches include: common hazmat needs and business
practices, different systems to support hazmat activities, different application
review processes, applications are handled manually, agencies have specific
information silos and the payment process is manual. To improve the
system, he proposes a solution that would: encourage electronic submission
by carriers, preserve flexibility for existing states, provide a replacement for
the outdated current system called HARPS, make available a turn key solution for
new states, eliminate manual reconciliation of funds between states, and provide
timely credential information to the enforcement community.
The board convened in executive session to discuss working with Taso Zografos
and Booz Allen Hamilton. After the executive session, John Canty asked Mr.
Zografos about on-going maintenance.
He said that if it belonged to Alliance states, they would maintain it.
He recommended that states own the system and thus pay for maintenance. A
fee could be tacked on to the web application process to pay for it. To
ensure uniform approaches, set up performance measures for how systems are
established. States would own an operational test pilot. This tool
will enhance the validity/credibility of the Alliance-you own a software
solution,
As far as contract issues, Mr. Zografos envisioned a Booz contract with the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and RSPA turning oversight
authority over to the states. The history of Alliance situation with RSIS,
a previous data base contractor, was briefly recounted.
Jim Rhode mentioned the Washington CVISN situation as a model.
Sherry Soliz asked who and how is it kept up and how to involve FMCSA in
maintenance? Taso Zografos responded that an operations test would cost $1
million, plus costs to tweak for individual states and maintenance.
James Simmons said some kind of agreement to keep it up is possible. He
suggested we put it in the forefront to discuss.
Discussion ensued about SAFETEA, the administration’s surface transportation
proposal and the ITS CVO funding struggle and the possibility of getting this
idea into SAFETEA.
Mr. Zagrafos said he would mention the Alliance work at the upcoming meeting
of MHTA.
John Canty asked what role there would be for NCSL. Mr. Zografos saw
his role as complimentary with ongoing NCSL activities. FMCSA role will
stay the same. Booz Allen Hamilton would become a technical arm of the
Alliance
James Simmons said NCSL is key to monitoring any work Booz Allen would
do. Any additional funding is great in meeting the overall national
goal.
Taso Zografos agreed. In his view, everyone works together. He went on
to say that at some point, if the Alliance decides to go with Booz, he will want
a commitment and MOU from the Alliance.
Jim Rhode said the Alliance needs to be free and clear of any conflict with
previous work by Cambridge Systematics. A letter was discussed to take
care of this.
Jim Rhode then made a motion that the Alliance authorizes Taso Zografos to
set up a meeting with RSPA, and that the Alliance enter into an MOU to develop a
data repository as presented by him today. It was seconded by John Canty
and approved unanimously.
Mr. Zografos thanked Alliance members and said he would look forward to
working with all of them.
The meeting with RSPA was discussed. Potential pilot states should
attend-OH, OK, NV. Politically, all were encouraged to talk this up with
contacts in Washington DC, seeking letters of support if
appropriate.
State Reports
Ilinois: Applications can be downloaded from the web. 100 waste
haulers, 1000 special waste haulers. Illinois is ready to pay the
membership fee.
Nevada: Finished fiscal renewal, calendar renewals upcoming. 700.
MCSAP grant includes the membership fee. Supports Alliance forming as a
non-profit corporation. Wants to recommend Fall 2004 meeting November
22-29, 2004 to coincide with CVSA meeting in Sparks/Reno.
Ohio: 2,652 carriers in the database. Has been assured Ohio will
be able to pay the fee.
Oklahoma: About 50 hazardous waste transporters. No fee
increases, not sure OK can pay its fee. 60 job cuts just occurred.
Future merger with other agencies may be in the works.
Jim Rhode said we may want to accommodate the issue of a state or two not
being able to pay right away.
James Simmons had some questions about NCSTS that were answered.
The Board then adjourned for the day.
June 24, 2003
New attendees: Alan Abbott (WV) and Bonnie Pawloske, (MI) joined the
meeting via telephone.
West Virginia: 500 carriers. CR training for officers.
Chair Soliz requested that West Virginia find out how many high hazard
carriers it permits.
Sherry Soliz also reported that Missouri is considering joining the Alliance,
based on a conversation with Barb Hague. She was encouraged to push for
regulating all hazmat, rather than any subset.
In discussing finances, a difficulty for new states is setting the fee so
that sufficient revenues are generated to support the program. For
example, Nevada raises about $500, 000 with 900 permit renewals and
$250,000 with just registration renewal. Missouri would need to raise
$600,000 to run its program.
Discussion ensued about how the Alliance might have to change programs to
cover the high hazard materials covered by a proposed federal permit.
States currently covering only haz waste may have to add the additional
materials.
Michigan: 47 haz waste, 172 liquid industrial waste permits
issued. Other states have problems dealing with the liquid waste
permit. Some carriers get caught without the liquid waste
permit. But the Alliance does not regulate liquid waste. Oklahoma
has a separate program for oil field waste. Oklahoma captures this kind of
permit with intrastate enforcement. This should be explored at a future
meeting.
Audit Guidelines
The audit manual was reviewed. John Canty discussed his comments.
(Larry Aubuchon had some comments too that need to be sent to NCSL and other
Alliance states.) The number of audits to be conducted was
discussed. He proposed a percentage of carriers be audited based on total
number of carriers permitted. The possibility of combining the CR process
with the permit audit was proposed by John Canty. Getting Alliance audits
done is a problem in many states. Budget cuts, politics, and other
priorities have been a problem. Desk audits are a more realistic approach
given these problems. Jim Rhode will send copies of Nevada desk audit
procedure to be distributed to all states.
It was determined that each state will report back on their ability to do
audits by the next meeting. The principle agreed to was that desk audits
would be used primarily and that on-site audits would be employed when a problem
is identified. A statement of audit policy will be developed by the next
meeting, with specific procedures to be developed at future meetings.
John Canty identified a few editorial items.
Sherry Soliz said she would draft language for a few changes to
certifications, 396, 391 and arrange a conference call to approve.
Jim Reed will finish Part III audit review guidelines elements.
Outreach
Jim Reed reported on outreach activities including letters and brochures sent
to state legislative transportation chairs. The American trucking
Associations (ATA) sent a letter and the brochure to the state motor
carrier association directors. There has been ongoing interaction with the
Multi-state Highway Transportation Agreement (MHTA) states.
West Virgina was requested to send the entire transmittal to each state even
when no funds are due.
Part III
Discussion of changes or dropping of Part III was deferred. Jim Rhode
wants to retain Part III as part of Nevada regulations.
Security Enhancements
Discussion ensued on security enhancements to beef up the Alliance
application. One suggestion was to request a copy of the applicant’s
security plan as part of a permit review and/or a new certification on
security. Consensus seemed to be that Alliance states want a copy of a
security plan. But, it has to be a reasonable workload addition. The
Alliance can’t get into the business of approving or evaluating security plans.
A disclaimer was discussed and rejected It’s simply another piece of
documentation that can be helpful. A base state may share the plan with
the state FMCSA contact, if deemed appropriate. There could be multiple
comprehensive security plans that Alliance states don’t want to collect for the
various terminals a big company maintains, etc. Perhaps asking for a copy
of the security plan should be contingent on some trigger. Sherry Soliz
and John Canty will study the rule HM-232 and come up with a proposal for the
Alliance. Examination of confidentiality is part of it. How will
plans be stored and/or shredded?
Ohio Peer Review
John Canty distributed the peer review checklist with answers filled
in. He walked through the form. Ohio meets nearly all the
requirements of the Uniform Program as identified in the peer review
checklist. One item that Ohio lacked was the cross matching of data from
two or more independent sources (Question F7). John Canty agreed to check
into this. He also agreed to notify other Alliance states of carriers with
violations exceeding a $1,000 fine, which is not current practice. (Question
F8). He also agreed to reinstate the practice called for in Question I3 of
comparing its participating carriers with the RSPA registration program.
Mike Nechvatal of Illinois joined the meeting by conference call.
On motion by Mike Nechvatal, second by Alan Abbott, the Alliance approved the
Ohio peer review as presented by John Canty. It was approved
unanimously. A letter from the chair will be sent to Ohio indicating its
completion of the peer review.
West Virginia was requested to prepare for its peer review at the next
Alliance meeting. It was agreed that the next meeting will
occur January 26-27, 2004 in Denver in the NCSL office
Natalia Ray of FMCSA joined the meeting and gave a brief overview of data
bases supported by FMCSA.
MCMIS data comes from the MCS 150 application form. CR data is uploaded
to MCMIS through Safetynet, as is roadside data. Linda Giles would be our
point of contact for any Alliance data to be included.
Various issues of how SAFETYNET is utilized was discussed. SAFER can
also be used-www. Safersys.org.
Fee Worksheet Simplification
Several fee worksheets were presented. The goal is to get a simplified
form that carriers can use to do calculations accurately. Jim Rhode
suggested that we ask Booz Allen Hamilton to do this as part of the database
development. The paper form will somewhat mirror any electronic form to be
developed. Much of the system will be automated and do calculations
automatically. For now, each state can use the format it feels best serves
its needs.
Discussion of Fees
The state hazmat transportation fees compilation by the Dangerous Goods
Advisory Council was distributed. Cindy Bahner asked that the
Uniform Program be more distinctly identified in the chart. All
agreed. Chair Soliz will request same from DGAC.
At last two states are not sure they are ready to pay dues Oklahoma and
Minnesota. Yes states are Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia.
Michigan is unknown. Discussion ensued as to how to deal with previous
Alliance policy of desiring all states to be on board in order to
implement. Jim Rhode felt the Alliance should go forward with the fee as a
sign of the credibility of the Alliance.
Jim Rhode stated the following motion-Remove language on all states
implementing and replace with a clause saying states unable to pay will be
carried until Dec.31, 2004. The policy will be reviewed in June 2004 for
further consideration. John Canty seconded. Unanimously
approved. All were in agreement with the approach outlined by Jim Reed in
“Alliance Fee Assessment to Support Repository.” See attachment B.
It was requested that NCSL find out how IRP and IFTA handle delinquent states
in terms of dues for June 2004 meeting.
Miscellaneous Items
Jim Rhode asked that a base state agreement be drafted for the next
meeting. It would cover all the items like dues, state obligations,
etc. He envisioned a short document. Send out for review prior to
meeting.
The Board met in executive session to discuss issues legislation pending in
Washington, D.C..
Back in open session, discussion ensued of a letter to Congress asking it to
implement our program by rule with adequate funding. In addition, the
Interested Parties (IP) for HMTA Reauthorization want a statement from us
regarding the future of the Alliance program. Sherry Soliz suggested that
the Alliance in a letter to Congress say that the IP is pushing this, and we as
the Alliance are ready to assume this duty. Attach the IP proposal to the
letter. Jim Rhode said we should give the Congress a sense of our
struggle. Sherry will draft the letter and send out for review.
The Alliance association with NCSTS was discussed. Creating web site
links back and forth was agreed to. The question was asked if the NCSTS
industry advisory council could represent Alliance interests too. All
agreed that this was not appropriate. Members expressed the hope that our
continuing association with NCSTS would benefit us in terms of increased
Alliance membership. Sherry Soliz will brief NCSTS on our meeting
highlights tomorrow.
The meeting adjourned.
Next meeting: Denver, January 26-27, 2004, NCSL office, 7700 East First
Place.
Attachment A
To Do List From Seattle Meeting
Items pending from previous meeting
1. Complete revisions to Administrator’s Manual
Items pending from Seattle meeting (List compiled by Sherry
Soliz)
Sherry Soliz:
1) Rewrite Certification statements on application to
include Part 391 & 396 (done)
2) Letter to DGAC asking for more
recognition on Biennial report
3) Letter to Congress acknowledging the
support from the IP and the ATA regarding 5119 funding and inclusion of the
Alliance permit under 5109
Sherry Soliz & John Canty:
1) Study HM
232 for any confidentiality restrictions which may prevent the Alliance from
asking for submission of a company's Security Plan
Jim Reed:
1) Write
MOU for Taso to make proposal to RSPA for funding of a database respository on
behalf of the Alliance
2) Modify language to move forward w/ fees structure
implementation in 2004 even though Minnesota and Oklahoma may not be
ready.
3) Set up meeting with James Simmons (Bill Quade) & RSPA regarding
funding for the Alliance and particularly the repository
4) Set up meeting
with Linda Giles (FMCSA Tech Support) to get started with the
repository
All State Members:
1) Try the Aubuchon method for audits
and report at next meeting how the guidelines work.
Discussed the
possibility of Taso's group creating a calculation worksheet which would
eliminate the individual state calculation pages.
Attachment B
Alliance Fee Assessment to Support Repository
June 20, 2003
Elements
1. Printed below is the agreement from member states to pay fee for
central Alliance functions as adopted by Alliance Board, June 2001:
Each member state, as a condition of annual membership, will pay
dues to fund 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
2. Discuss progress in implementation-have all states taken steps to be
able to pay fee as of January 2004?
3. Each state will pay according to the approved dues
schedule. Invoices will be sent by NCSL to each Alliance state in November
2003. The amount due will be based on the number of motors
carriers registered in each Alliance state according to the most recent
quarterly report. Payments will be due by January 30, 2003.
4. Along with the original invoice, each state and NCSL will execute a
standard contract describing how NCSL will make use of the dues funds for the
benefit of the Alliance. The contract will renew each year automatically
with payment of each subsequent annual invoice, subject to the contract’s
termination clause.
5. At each meeting of the Alliance Governing Board, NCSL will
report to Alliance members on the amount of funding received and how NCSL has
spent the funds.
6. Alliance states will need to discuss what happens if a member state
does not pay.
 Hazmat meetings page
Visitor counts for this
page.
|
