The Honorable Federico Peņa
U.S. Department of Transportation
Interim Governing Board
Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation Procedures
March 15, 1996
This report represents two
and a half years of sustained effort by the Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation
Procedures. The success of the pilot program depended on the collaborative efforts
of many individuals. The Alliance would like to thank the Office of Motor Carriers
within the Federal Highway Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation
for supporting the concept of a pilot project and for its financial support.
The Alliance wishes to express particular thanks to Mike Trentacoste, Susan
Petty, Phil Hanley, and Jim McCauley of the Office of Motor Carriers for their
support and involvement in this process. The Alliance also extends its appreciation
to George Whitney of the Research and Special Programs and Administration of
the Department of Transportation for his assistance and advice.
The Alliance wishes to thank
the many state officials and industry representatives who, at their own expense,
participated in this effort. Their ideas and input made the pilot project a
much more valuable experience. A listing of individuals who attended meetings
and provided comments on draft documents is provided in Appendix B of this report.
Jay Kayne, director of the
Economic Development and Commerce Policy Studies Division at the National Governors'
Association (NGA), and James Reed, program principal at the National Conference
of State Legislatures (NCSL), served as project director and principal investigator,
respectively. They were assisted by Kyle Winston and Thom Rubel from NGA and
Jacqueline Cummins from NCSL. Raquel Stanton, NGA, provided administrative support
throughout the project. Jan Dunlavey and Luisa Farrell, NGA, handled meeting
arrangements for the Interim Governing Board and the pilot states. Alicia
Aebersold, NGA, provided editorial services for this report.
Finally, the Alliance staff
wishes to acknowledge the dedication and commitment of the Interim Governing
Board and the staff of the four pilot states to this process. The four at- large
membersNancy Brown (chair), Elmer Bietz (vice-chair), Grace Goodman, and
Stephen Hermannand the representatives of the four pilot statesElizabeth
Parker (Minnesota), James Rhode (Nevada), Steven Lesser (Ohio), and Jami McClellan
(West Virginia)ensured that the pilot project was a quality effort and
remained on track. Each of the pilot states assembled a qualified and dedicated
staff who pushed forward throughout the two-year demonstration regardless of
the potential barriers and workload.
Section I: Origin of the
In November 1990, Congress
passed amendments to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) that
included provisions to address the burden on the motor carrier industry that
resulted from the array of hazardous materials registration and permitting to
be administered by individual states. Section 22 of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) mandates that any state wishing
to register and issue permits to motor carriers that transport hazardous materials
must do so by using uniform procedures and forms. Section 22 also stipulated
that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation should appoint a working group of
state and local officials to develop recommendations, in consultation with affected
industry, for a uniform program that eventually would be codified through the
federal regulatory process.
The Alliance for Uniform
HazMat Transportation Procedures
In 1991 the National Governors'
Association (NGA) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) successfully
bid for a contract to staff the working group. Working with industry representatives
and state and local government associations, NGA and NCSL presented recommendations
to the Secretary of Transportation for a twenty-eight member panel. The working
group held its first meeting in January 1992, at which time it selected the
working title of the Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation Procedures (the
Over two years, the Alliance
established several subgroups and task forces to address specific aspects of
state registration and the permitting of hazardous materials motor carriers.
Final recommendations were adopted at the Alliance's fifth meeting in St. Louis,
Missouri, May 2325, 1993, and transmitted to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
on November 17, 1993. (Copies of the final report are available from NGA.)
Following is a brief description
of the major provisions of the Alliance's recommended Uniform State Hazardous
Materials Transportation Program (Uniform Program).
- Registration of motor
carriers that transport hazardous materials shall be conducted through a base
state system. Each participating jurisdiction may assess a registration fee
on motor carriers that transport hazardous materials within its borders. However,
the motor carrier will apply to a single base state, which will be responsible
for collecting the registration fees for all states and distributing such
fees accordingly. Information required for processing a registration will
be collected through Part I of the uniform application.
- Participating jurisdictions
may issue a reciprocal national permit that allows a permitted motor carrier
to transport hazardous materials in all participating jurisdictions. The motor
carrier applies to its base state for the permit. The base state conducts
a review of the motor carrier's qualifications to transport hazardous materials
and, if appropriate, issues a permit that is valid in any participating jurisdictions
that also require the national permit. Information requirements for issuing
a uniform permit are contained in Part II of the uniform application. [Note:
Section 22 required only that the working group study the feasibility of a
base state system; however, the Alliance, after considerable deliberations,
determined that base state registration and reciprocal permits had effectiveness
and efficiency benefits for both the participating jurisdictions and the motor
- Because of the negative
economic value of hazardous and radioactive wastes, a participating jurisdiction
that issues permits to hazardous waste transporters may require additional
disclosure information related to the applicant's operations and the integrity
of the applicant's owners and managers. The disclosure requirements are contained
in Part III of the uniform application.
- Although the registration
and permit are issued under a base state system, a participating jurisdiction
retains its individual enforcement authority when a registered or permitted
carrier is transporting hazardous materials within its borders. Penalties
and the procedures for assessing penalties continue to be those of the jurisdiction
in which a violation occurs. Major violations are reported to the base state.
If appropriate, the base state may review the motor carrier's operations to
determine whether the violation should result in suspension or revocation
of the reciprocal national permit.
- Although Section 22
did not explicitly address the issue of local registration and permitting
programs, the Alliance recommended provisions that would allow a locality
to become a participating jurisdiction. The provisions ensure that a locality,
working with the state, can obtain the revenues required to operate its hazardous
materials safety programs (e.g., training and response programs) and can issue
permits to carriers that have not received credentials from another participating
Alliance Pilot Program
In May 1992, the Alliance
recommended that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) fund a pilot project
to field test the working group's recommendations. The Alliance designed and
implemented a two-year pilot project, involving four states. The purpose of
the pilot program was twofold. First, the Alliance recognized that the feasibility,
benefits, and costs of a base state program were speculative. Therefore, a real-world
demonstration was required to confirm the validity of the assumptions and procedures
associated with the Uniform Program. Second, the pilot program would help FHWA
address comments during the rulemaking process.
The major objectives of
the demonstration program included:
- determining the barriers
within individual states adopting the uniform procedures and operating under
a base state system;
- determining the costs
of state participation in a uniform base state program, including personnel
and hardware and software requirements;
- testing the reciprocity
provisions of the base state agreement, including the collection, distribution,
and auditing of registration fees, the issuance of national hazardous materials
transportation permits, and the enforcement of national standards;
- assessing the extent
to which the base state system reduced the administrative burden on the regulated
industry and on states;
- determining the extent
to which the uniform system enhanced protection of public health and safety;
- testing the provisions
related to local hazardous material regulation under the Uniform Program;*
- examining the role and
operations of a governing board and national repository.
During the first year, states
would focus on making the legislative, regulatory, and administrative changes
required to operate the program. The Uniform Program would be implemented in
the second year.
Selection of the Pilot
In November 1992, the Alliance
issued a solicitation to states to express their interest in participating in
the pilot program. The solicitation required that respondents from an interested
state describe the state's current hazardous materials registration and/or permitting
activities, outline their reasons for wanting to participate in the pilot program,
and include a letter of commitment from the Governor supporting the state's
participation. The Alliance asked the staff to work with interested states and
This aspect of the Uniform Program was not tested during the pilot since none
of the participating states included localities that were willing to test the
local program provisions with the Alliance's original recommendations. The Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio held several meetings with officials from Cleveland
concerning the impact of the Uniform Program on the city's current programs.
City officials indicated that they might discontinue their current program if
they had access to carrier information through the Alliance's information management
system. In response to the city's request, the Interim Governing Board adopted
a resolution supporting access by localities to the Alliance database when such
access was requested by
to recommend pilot program
participants based on the following criteria:
- the Governor and state
legislature of pilot states were committed to taking the necessary legislative
and administrative actions to conduct the state's hazardous materials transportation
programs under the principles and operating procedures of the Alliance's recommendations;
- the regulated community
within the state was committed to supporting participation in the pilot program;
- the state had experience
in the registration and permitting of hazardous materials, and/or in the transportation
of radioactive materials;
- the group of states
chosen reflected geographic diversity; and
- at least one of the
pilot states had a major locality with a hazardous materials transportation
registration or permitting program.
Based on the responses to
the request for letters of intent, the Alliance initially selected California,
Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia as the four pilot states. Nevada and West Virginia
agreed to test the registration and general permitting requirements, while California
and Ohio committed to testing the Part III disclosure requirements for hazardous
waste transporters. However, in December 1993, California opted out of the pilot
because of concerns that participation in the demonstration would bias a continuing
legal battle over preemption of California's tank truck inspection program.
Following California's withdrawal
from the pilot, the Alliance staff contacted several states that had expressed
initial interest in the pilot and made site visits to Minnesota and New York.
The Minnesota site visit in January 1994 included a briefing for state legislative
staff and representatives of the Minnesota Trucking Association. Ultimately,
Minnesota became the fourth pilot state, with the passage of enabling legislation
in May 1994.
Each participating state
was given the opportunity to select one of the following three options for implementing
the Uniform Program.
- The pilot state could
apply the requirements of the Uniform Program to all motor carriers (interstate
- The state could apply
the requirements only to domiciled, interstate motor carriers that operate
in two or more of the pilot states. This option would target motor carriers
covered under any reciprocity provisions associated with the Uniform Program.
It would significantly reduce the number of motor carriers subject to the
new program regulations during the pilot phase. In addition, the pilot state
might obtain executive or legislative authority to conduct the demonstration
without completely revising state laws and/or regulations.
- The state could select
an even smaller sample of interstate motor carriers. The pilot state could
seek, from among domiciled motor carriers, volunteers that would support state
efforts to test the model program. The state would then work more closely
with each participating motor carrier to evaluate the procedures contained
in the Uniform Program. The disadvantage of this approach was that the pilot
state could not get a true estimate of the administrative burden and cost
of operating a full-scale program.
Three of the pilot statesMinnesota,
Ohio, and West Virginiaused option one during phase two, while Nevada
selected option two for the first round of registration and permitting with
the intent of expanding the program to all carriers during the second program
year. In addition to testing the Uniform Program, the Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio also committed to a one-year test of state administration of the federal
hazardous materials registration program established under HMTUSA.
To facilitate state participation
in the demonstration, each pilot state received $50,000 in funding as part of
FHWA's financial support to the pilot. [Note: Ohio received an additional $50,000
in funding to support its testing state administration of the federal registration
program.] The funds were provided in the form of a subcontract under NGA's prime
contract with FHWA to administer the pilot. In return for the financial support,
each of the pilot states agreed to the following scope of work:
- adopt enabling legislation,
if necessary, that will allow the state to participate in the pilot program;
- establish the administrative
capacity to conduct a one-year demonstration of the Uniform Program;
- conduct a one-year demonstration
of the Alliance Uniform Program to register and permit motor carriers based
in West Virginia;
- designate a representative
of the state to be a member of the Interim Governing Board that will oversee
the pilot program;
- participate in all meetings
of the Interim Governing Board and pilot states;
- participate in peer
reviews of the other pilot state efforts;
- provide NGA with information
related to the state's effort for inclusion in reports required under NGA's
contract with FHWA; and
- host one meeting of
the Interim Governing Board and one meeting of pilot state representatives.
Basis for Report Findings
The remainder of this report
will address the extent to which each of the pilot program objectives was satisfied.
The findings are based on the experience of the four pilot states, the deliberations
of the Interim Governing Board (the Board) established to oversee the pilot
program, and surveys conducted by the Alliance staff of both the participating
states and motor carriers that were subject to the requirements of the Uniform
Program. (Copies of both the industry and state administrator survey instruments
are available from NGA.)
Section II: Preparing to
Implement the Uniform Program
The demonstration project
was established as a two-year process. During the first year, each pilot state
made the necessary legislative and administrative changes to participate in
the Uniform Program. The second year focused on actually registering and permitting
motor carriers. The following is a discussion of the issues and barriers that
the pilot states encountered as they prepared to operate the Uniform Program.
Passage of Enabling Legislation
Two issues arose relating
to the passage of enabling legislation. First, the states found that the participation
by industry representatives in the Alliance's deliberations and the design of
the pilot program did not translate into political support of in-state motor
carrier groups. Second, the differing legislative requirements among the states
raised questions about the states' ability to respond to modifications in the
for the Pilot Program. Although several national motor
carrier associations actively participated during the Alliance process, the
pilot states quickly realized that support by national associations did not
automatically translate into support by in-state motor carrier groups. Each
state found that to gain support from the state trucking industry for the enabling
legislation, it had to revisit many of the issues and the rationale for the
provisions within the Uniform Program.
Minnesota, which became
a pilot state late in the process, was able to learn from the experience of
the other three pilot states and provides the best example of how a state worked
with its state trucking association to garner support for enabling legislation.
Before formally announcing its interest in participating in the pilot program,
the Motor Carriers Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
scheduled a briefing for industry representatives and state legislative staff
by Alliance staff. Based on that briefing, the state trucking association determined
that it was in its interest for Minnesota to participate in the pilot. Thus,
the bill before the Minnesota legislature was viewed as an industry initiative,
rather than as another government program.
Based on states' experiences
in the demonstration program, the Alliance adopted the following recommendation
concerning the content of, and strategy for adopting, enabling legislation.
Prior to joining the
Alliance, a potential participating jurisdiction should conduct a full briefing
on the Uniform Program for its motor carrier industry. At that time, the state
should request that the state trucking association either sponsor or cosponsor
the enabling legislation.
Level of Specificity
Within Each State's Enabling Legislation. All four pilot states required
enabling legislation to participate in the program. In Nevada and West Virginia,
the enabling legislation included most of the provisions of the Uniform Program
by reference. By contrast, the legislation in Minnesota and Ohio included the
specific language for many of the Uniform Program requirements.
Throughout the demonstration
project, whenever the Board considered amendments to the program procedures,
participating states had to determine whether the Board's decisions would require
amendments to their enabling legislation. In one instancewhen a repository
surcharge was consideredthe issue had to be deferred because the states
did not feel they could amend their legislation in time to implement the change
for the next application cycle.
To alleviate the situation,
the Board directed staff to develop a range of model legislation to address
the legislative philosophies within the various states. Once developed, the
models will segregate the provisions of the Uniform Program in which states
must comply exactly with the rules and procedures from those elements of the
Uniform Program where the state is given flexibility, such as program level,
target motor carrier population, and fee rates. To the extent possible, the
Board encourages states to adopt blanket enabling legislation (i.e., incorporating
the Uniform Program by reference) covering those items in which the Board establishes
specific program requirements and procedures. Both Minnesota and Ohio indicated
that their legislatures might require less specific legislation following the
effective date of the federal mandate for states to operate under the Uniform
Designation of the Lead
Agency and Interagency Coordination
The designation of the lead
agency was not an issue for Minnesota, Ohio, or West Virginia. The Motor Carrier
Services Division within the Department of Transportation in Minnesota historically
had permitted hazardous waste transporters. In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission
had been responsible for the state registration program prior to the demonstration.
There was no permitting program for either hazardous materials or for hazardous
waste transporters. Prior to the demonstration, there was neither a registration
nor a permitting program in West Virginia. Therefore, entry into the pilot program
for these three states did not require the Governor to make a decision about
the lead agency between two or more entities that had previously shared or split
responsibility for hazardous materials and/or waste transportation registration
In Nevada, the original
scope of the state's participation in the pilot program focused solely on hazardous
materials and was administered by the Nevada Highway Patrol. The only other
state program related to transportation of hazardous materials is the Public
Service Commission's (PSC) trip permits for radioactive waste. During the course
of the pilot, PSC explored the potential of using the Part III permit as a substitute
for its current radioactive waste permit. Eventually, Nevada decided to expand
its program to include a Part III permit. The division of responsibility between
the Nevada Highway Patrol and PSC has not yet been finalized.
An indication of potential
issues associated with split program responsibility surfaced in California before
that state elected to withdraw from the pilot program. Responsibilities for
hazardous materials and waste transportation are currently divided between the
California Highway Patrol (hazardous materials transport licenses and inspections
of tank trucks and hazardous waste vehicles and containers) and the California
Environmental Protection Agency (hazardous waste transport permits). The California
Public Utilities Commission also regulates intrastate hazardous waste carriers.
Even though the Governor designated the California Environmental Protection
Agency as the lead for the pilot program, there were numerous questions about
the roles and responsibilities of each agency and its relationship to the Alliance.
For example, California queried whether a representative from each of the agencies
could sit on the Interim Governing Board, with each having one-half of a vote.
Most of the interagency
coordination for the four pilot states has involved interaction with other divisions
within the lead agency. For example, the Motor Carrier Services Division relied
on the Management Information Division in the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to design and implement its automated entry and credential system. In addition,
some of the states have drawn on the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP) staff to generate the carrier profiles needed to conduct the application
review. Only in Ohio did the lead agency contract with an outside entitythe
Bureau of Investigationto conduct the disclosure reviews of its Part III
From the outset, the Alliance
recognized that states should retain the authority to structure the administration
of the Uniform Program in a manner appropriate within each state. Based on the
experience in the pilot, the only issue related to administrative structure
is the burden placed on other participating states in that they were required
to deal with more than one point of contact in the other states. Therefore,
the Board made the following recommendations concerning designation of a lead
agency at the June 1995 board meeting in Boston.
When a state petitions
the Board to become a member of the Alliance, the request must include a formal
designation of a lead agency by the Governor.
During the accreditation
review process, the peer review team should determine that if more than one
agency is involved in the implementation of the Uniform Program, the potential
participating jurisdiction has developed procedures and protocols to ensure
coordination of the state's effort.
Role of State Trucking
From the beginning of state
implementation of the Uniform Program, the Interim Governing Board of the Alliance
has sought the involvement of industry, particularly the state trucking associations.
State associations were integral to the success of the Uniform Program and continue
to play a role in its further definition. The pilot states engaged their state
trucking associations early in the process, familiarizing them with the principles,
requirements, and benefits of the Uniform Program.
Based on their understanding
and support of the Uniform Program, the state trucking associations were useful
in program implementation and outreach. Evidence from the state evaluation survey
suggests that without the support of industry, and the associations in particular,
states would have been hard-pressed to pass enabling legislation. Furthermore,
because some components of the Uniform Program pilot (e.g., testing the utility
of fingerprints under the Part III disclosure) were perceived as "lightning
rod" issues to many carriers, association support was pivotal.
Pilot states also asked
the state associations to participate in outreach and education efforts. For
instance, Ohio briefed members of the Ohio Trucking Association so that they
could answer carriers' questions about the application and the program. In addition,
national trucking associations conducted and cosponsored outreach and training
seminars, including a seminar in California to familiarize carriers in that
state with the requirements they would face if they needed credentials under
the Uniform Program in Nevada. Trade meetings, newsletters, and other communication
vehicles employed by the state motor carrier associations proved to be valuable
tools for educating carriers about the Uniform Program.
Outreach to Regulated Industry
For the pilot states and
the Interim Governing Board, industry outreach was a crucial strategy of the
pilot project. Early in the process, the Alliance made a commitment to seek
industry input. Outreach efforts focused on involving industry in the policymaking
process and on gaining input into state programmatic issues.
The Board took great care
to ensure that industry representatives had ample opportunity to provide input
into policy decisions. Industry representatives were invited to all Board meetings,
and the Board tapped several representatives to serve on a nonvoting industry
advisory panel. Members of the panel were representatives of various industry
constituencies, such as hazardous waste transporters, shippers, and tank truckers.
They were chosen to ensure prolonged and regular interaction between industry
and the Board. Participation on the panel allowed industry representatives extra
opportunities to review and comment on certain information and policies.
In addition, a representative
from the state trucking association in each of the pilot states was invited
to sit on the advisory panel. Their participation proved to be invaluable, because
the state association was often the first entity to receive a complaint about
the program. The state association members were also invited to participate
in the nonconfidential discussions during each state's peer review. This participation
was designed to increase the state association's level of comfort that state
officials were conducting objective reviews of carriers' permit applications.
All states maintained regular contact with their state trucking associations
throughout the two-year demonstration effort.
Other in-state outreach
efforts were driven by the participating jurisdictions. These efforts focused
on educating carriers and familiarizing them with the various aspects of the
Uniform Program as the pilot states ran seminars for affected carriers. The
seminars also helped alert pilot states to potential problems or criticisms.
For instance, one company stated that the Part III section on criminal and civil
penalties would require the submission of more information than the administering
agency could handle. These seminars gave the state the opportunity to explain
exactly what was required and how the state would evaluate the submitted materials.
Other outreach activities
included sending letters to affected carriers about the Uniform Program and
providing phone assistance to carriers as they filled out the application. Although
the primary responsibility for assisting carriers lies with the state in which
the carrier is based, the Board suggested that eventually the repository should
consider establishing an 800 number for carriers to call with questions about
the program. Staff suggested that the repository might also establish an Internet
web site and e-mail address to assist carriers that have questions about the
Training of Staff
Accreditation for participating
states under the Uniform Program requires that the states adhere to rigorous
record-keeping and training standards. The primary training document used by
the states to familiarize their staffs with the Uniform Program was the state
program administrator's manual. A companion Uniform Program audit manual is
currently under development and will also serve as a training reference.
State program staff received
the majority of their training by attending Interim Governing Board and pilot
state meetings. State program administrators used Alliance meetings to familiarize
their staffs with the philosophy and procedures of the Uniform Program.
The Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio held a retreat to train its state permit, audit, and enforcement staff
in managing the program. The retreat was open to all jurisdictions participating
in the pilot program and to the interim repository staff. Of the four pilot
states, staff from Minnesota, Ohio, and West Virginia attended the retreat.
Because of the small number
of participating states and the availability of the staff retreat in Ohio, the
repository did not conduct formal training sessions or prepare specific training
materials. However, as the number of participating jurisdictions increase, the
Board has suggested that the repository develop training modules for program
managers, administrators, and auditors, using staff from currently participating
states as faculty.
Maintenance of Records
Two issues related to records
maintenance were addressed during the pilot program. The first focused on the
time period during which states would have to retain information on a specific
carrier. The second involved the process by which states would share basic information
about carriers for which they served as the base state.
Period of Records Maintenance.
The Uniform Program application approved during the Alliance working group's
deliberations originally required that applicants provide information covering
five years of operations. However, during the pilot program, the Board modified
this requirement to three years, because it would cover the time between permit
renewals. Consequently, the Board, at its January 67, 1994, meeting in
Reno, Nevada, recommended that participating jurisdictions retain records in
each motor carrier's folder or in electronic files for the same three-year time
Data Exchange Among
Participating States. In May 1993, the Alliance working group supported
the concept of base state registration and permitting provided that all states
had access to information about carriers that operated within their boundaries.
At that time it was determined that one function of the national repository
would be to establish a central database in which basic information about all
registered and permitted carriers would be maintained.
In April 1994, the Alliance
staff contracted with an outside software consulting firm to develop software
through which the pilot states could:
- enter basic information
on each applicant;
- upload the information
to the repository's central database;
- print credentials; and
- conduct queries about
any carrier operating under the Uniform Program.
The HazMat Alliance Registration
and Permitting System (HARPS) was written for a Microsoft Windows platform using
Access 2.0. Alliance staff established a Windows NT server at NGA and provided
copies of the software to each of the pilot states. Three of the states (Nevada,
Ohio, and West Virginia) elected to use this software as provided by the Alliance.
In contrast, Minnesota created
a HARPS-like module on its central motor carrier database. Minnesota's decision
not to use the PC-based software available through the Alliance was approved
by the Board as being consistent with the desire to provide states with flexibility
in administering the Uniform Program. Minnesota agreed that its programmers
would create a software link that would also provide the information on Minnesota-based
carriers in the format required to upload to the central server.
Another information issue
that surfaced during the pilot was the extent to which the states could access
existing information about a carrier's safety fitness. To facilitate such access,
the Alliance staff asked its software consultants to develop a link between
HARPS and the USDOT Motor Carrier Safety Information Network (SafetyNET). The
consultants proposed developing a HARPS module that would allow the Uniform
Program administrator to pull down a motor carrier safety profile. However,
after several weeks of discussions with USDOT officials, the consultants reported
that federal officials had raised significant questions about security and the
cost of providing this service to the Alliance pilot program officials. Therefore,
each pilot state made arrangements to access motor carrier safety profiles from
its existing MCSAP program office.
Base states were also encouraged
to use other sources (e.g., federal violations). For instance, the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio accessed databases such as NEXUS and West Law to obtain information
on fines and penalties assessed against hazardous waste permit applicants.*
A more complete discussion of HARPS and proposals for improving the system are
provided in Section VI: Role and Operations of the Governing Board and the National
Section III: Administrative
Burden on the Participating States and the Regulated Industry
Although the congressional
intent of the Section 22 uniformity mandate was to relieve the motor carrier
industry of the need to file multiple state hazardous materials transportation
registration and permit applications, the Alliance working group believed that
a base state reciprocal program could also result in administrative savings
for participating states. However, the major reason for that assumption was
the division of labor among the states, with each state generally taking responsibility
only for its domiciled carriers. During the pilot program, it was impossible
to test this assumption because the four pilot states were responsible for registering
and permitting national and regional carriers that will eventually be based
in other states.
The following is a discussion
of the administrative burden on the participating states and the regulated industry
in terms of both hours expended and costs.
Burden on the Participating
One objective of the demonstration
project was to determine the administrative and fiscal requirements for participating
states. The following numbers were provided by the pilot states in response
to the state administrators survey.
Part II Review
Part III Review
Registration Fee Accounting
Number of Applications
The four states reported
a total of twenty-two full-time equivalents to handle a total of 4,342 applications.
Therefore, on average, a full-time staff person was required for every 197.36
To support program administration,
the four states reported the following budget expenditures during the first
cycle of Uniform Program registration and permitting.
The four states expended
a total of $767,792 during the first registration and permitting cycle to process
the 4,342 applications. Therefore, each application required an average expenditure
It is difficult to reach
more specific conclusions from these data for two reasons. In some states, staff
resources and expenditures were not charged directly to the project and may
appear as indirect costs. In addition, there is considerable variance in the
salary scales and operating costs from state to state. The information is also
skewed because the Nevada staff were concurrently implementing the Uniform Program
for a subset of that state's motor carrier population and its previous permit
program for the remaining firms.
Although these numbers can
be used for general guidance, the Alliance suggests that any new state that
elects to administer the Uniform Program contact several of the pilot states
to compare its expenditure scales with the individual states. In addition, the
Board identified state administrative costs as a topic that the staff should
continue to track. Therefore, the Board recommended that state administrators
should maintain expenditure information during the second cycle to determine
the extent to which:
- certain costs can be
viewed as one-time, start-up expenditures;
- the impact of the three-year
permit on expenditures differs in years when the state is primarily registering
previously permitted carriers; and
- administrative efficiency
improves over time.
Burden on the Regulated
Information on the effort
required by motor carriers to comply with the application requirements of the
Uniform Program was gathered through a sample survey of companies that had applied
for credentials during the first program year. To obtain the sample, Alliance
staff asked each of the nine members of the industry advisory panel to submit
the names of up to twenty carriers to which the survey was mailed. Using the
lists provided by the industry advisors, staff mailed surveys to 143 motor carriers;
45 carriers responded for a return rate of 31 percent.
Each respondent was asked
to provide information related to the administrative burden and costs expended
to comply with the uniform application requirements. Reported costs did not
include fees paid to the state for registration or application processing. These
fees will be addressed in Section VII: Recommended Changes to the Uniform Program
Based on the Pilot Project Experience. The responses from the forty-five motor
carriers are provided in the following table.
Total Number of Applications
Filed Last Year for All State and Local Programs
Estimated Number of
Hours Expended to Complete Part I Registration
Estimated Cost (in
dollars) to Complete Part I
Estimated Number of
Hours Required to Complete Part II Permit
Estimated Cost (in
dollars) to Complete Part II
Estimated Number of
Hours Required to Complete Part III Permit
Estimated Costs (in
dollars) to Complete Part III
Estimated Number of
Hours Required Last Year to Complete All HazMat Registration and Permit
Estimated Cost (in
dollars) Last Year to Complete All HazMat Registration and Permit Applications
Estimated Number of
Hours Expended Last Year to Complete All HazWaste Registration and Permit
Estimated Cost (in
dollars) Last Year to Complete All HazWaste Registration and Permit Applications
Experience from the pilot
program as reported through the industry survey sample suggests that the Uniform
Program recommended by the Alliance will have significant administrative savings
for motor carriers as highlighted below.
- The Uniform Program
will reduce the number of state and local applications that motor carriers
must file in order to transport hazardous materials. These benefits increase
according to the number of states in which the motor carrier anticipates transporting
- Even with the increased
amount of information required on the Uniform Program application compared
with the most simple current state and local registration and permit applications,
the average amount of time required to complete the Uniform Program application
is less than 9 percent of the time required for compliance with all existing
state and local applications.
- The administrative cost
in dollars to comply with the Uniform Program hazardous materials permit application
is approximately one-tenth of that for current state and local hazardous materials
- The benefits to hazardous
waste transporters are even greater. The average applicant for the Part III
hazardous waste credential saved more than 500 hours and almost $20,000 in
administrative costs completing the Part III application, compared with the
current range of state and local hazardous waste permit applications.
Section IV: Reciprocity
Provisions of the Uniform Program
Although the Alliance had
the ability to draw on the experience of other base state motor carrier programsthe
International Registration Plan (IRP), and the International Fuel Tax Agreement
(IFTA)those programs primarily involved the collection and distribution
of motor carrier fees among the participating states. The Uniform Program is
unique because it represents the first time that states have agreed to allow
other states to act as their agents in making substantive decisions concerning
the issuance of permits to motor carriers. For this reason, there were several
issues related to reciprocity during the pilot program. The following is a description
of these issues and of the actions of the Interim Governing Board to respond
to these issues.
Conducting Peer Reviews
The proposed Uniform Program
gives the Board the authority "to establish and oversee a state program
compliance accreditation process to ensure the integrity of the uniform registration
and permitting program." Under the Uniform Program procedures adopted by
the Board, each peer review is conducted by a team consisting of representatives
from at least two other participating jurisdictions and a member of the Alliance
During the onsite visit,
the peer review team is expected to examine the following elements of the program
- capacity to collect
and distribute registration fees;
- automated data processing;
- procedures for reviewing
- program funding;
- public access to records;
- audit capacity;
- enforcement; and
- enabling legislation
and implementing regulations.
The Alliance staff person
participating in the peer review is required to prepare a report for the Board
documenting the findings of the peer review team and recommending whether the
program subject to review should retain its accreditation.
Experience with Peer
Reviews During the Pilot Project. To test the concept of peer reviews,
each pilot state agreed to submit to a peer review during the second year of
the demonstration program. An expanded peer review team consisted of at least
one representative from each of the other pilot states, one staff person each
from NGA and
NCSL, and one at-large member
of the Interim Governing Board. (The schedule of peer reviews is provided in
To facilitate the peer review
and begin to develop a uniform format, the staff prepared a peer review checklist.
The checklist included thirteen categories of questions associated with the
program elements to be reviewed during the site visit. Prior to the visit, officials
in the state subject to the review were asked to review the checklist and compile
basic information about their program.
Each peer review consisted
of three basic activities. First, the state under review made a presentation
based on the questions covered on the peer review checklist. Second, state officials
showed the peer review team the procedures and filing system they used for processing
applications. Finally, each state was asked to pull a sample of applications
and explain why state officials decided to approve or deny the application.
Other Issues Raised
in Peer Reviews During the Pilot Project. Because the initial peer reviews
were conducted while the pilot states were in the process of reviewing permit
applications, the onsite visits also served as working sessions at which the
pilot states could identify and address issues associated with application processing
and review. For example, one question that was raised concerned the base state's
responsibility when the calculated fees do not equal the amount submitted by
the applicant. As a result of this discussion, the Board eventually adopted
the pilot state's recommendation that the base state may forgive a discrepancy
that is within $5.00 of the correctly calculated fee anticipated from the carrier.
In the pilot states' peer
review process, the pilot states also looked for ways to increase the uniform
substantive review of permit applications. During the Minnesota peer review,
the pilot states discovered that each state had its own perception of the out-of-service
violations reported in the motor carrier's safety profile. The issue arose because
most profiles contain violations for the three most recent years. Therefore,
should the base state consider the average out-of-service record for the three
years, the most recent year, or the pattern over the three years? After considerable
discussion, the pilot states recommended that the reviewers look at the pattern,
giving additional weight to the most recent year. In other words, a carrier
that demonstrated improvement over the three-year period would be of less concern
than one that showed a deterioration in its operations over time.
Finally, during these peer
reviews, the pilot states constantly reexamined what constituted a "flag"
for purposes of requesting additional information from the applicant. During
the Nevada peer review, the pilot states recognized the need for assessing the
safety rating of a motor carrier that had not been subject to an FHWA compliance
review. At about the same time, in a September 14, 1994, regulation, FHWA issued
a determination that concluded that a carrier with a less than 33 percent out-of-service
record would be considered to have the equivalent of a satisfactory safety rating.
A carrier with an out-of-service record of between 34 percent and 67 percent
would be considered to be conditional. Any rating above 67 percent would be
considered unsatisfactory. The pilot states recommended that they use a similar
typology and that a state could request additional information from a carrier
in the "conditional" category.
The pilot states also discussed
procedural changes to the Uniform Program and brought the issues before the
Board. One issue discussed was the difference between applications in which
applicants had failed to complete each element and applications that contained
substantive information that raised questions about the carrier's qualifications.
The pilot states recommended to the Board that states should immediately review
an application for completeness. If the application is incomplete, the state
would be authorized to use a "ding fax" to communicate to the applicant
that the substantive review of the application could not proceed until the deficiencies
were resolved. This process is different from that in which the information
on the completed application raises questions that result in the request for
additional, clarifying information from the applicant.
Defining Review Criteria
The discussions among the
pilot states during the peer reviews often focused on the question of review
criteria and the appropriate state response (e.g., request for additional information
or denial of a permit) to specific information in the application. At the outset
of the pilot project, industry representatives also pressed for more specific
instructions to the states concerning flags and denials of permits. At that
time, however, the Board stated that any action would be speculative, feeling
that additional guidance would emerge based on the states' review of actual
applications during the first registration and permitting cycle.
The issue of review criteria
is important to both participating jurisdictions and to the industry. From the
state's perspective, the level of confidence in a reciprocal system increases
to the extent that a participating jurisdiction feels that the base state is
responding to information contained in an application the same way that the
participating jurisdiction would. Uniform review criteria ensure that all motor
carriers within the industry would be subject to the same level of scrutiny
regardless of the base state in which they applied for a Uniform Program permit.
At its meeting in April
11-12, 1994 in Charleston, West Virginia, the Board first addressed this question
by considering and adopting the following general criteria for the denial, suspension,
or revocation of Uniform Program credentials.
1.A carrier has violated
the Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR 100-180, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Rules, 49 CFR 383, 387, 390-397, or any order by the base jurisdiction
issued to secure compliance with any such division or rule, when transporting
hazardous materials or offering hazardous materials for transportation, and
such violation poses an imminent hazard to the public or the environment.
2.The base state determines
that such carrier has exhibited reckless disregard for the public and the environment
pursuant to the following factors.
a)Such carrier committed
a knowing (federal definition) falsification in the registration and/or permit
b)Such carrier has engaged
in a pattern of violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR 100-180,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules, 49 CFR 383, 387, 390-397, or an order
of the base jurisdiction issued to secure compliance with the Hazardous Materials
Regulations or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules, when transporting hazardous
materials or offering hazardous materials for transportation, or of regulations
for the management of hazardous waste issued pursuant to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), including consideration of the number of truck-miles
such carrier transports hazardous materials and the number of vehicles in such
c)The actual or potential
level of environmental damage resulting from any incident or finding of violation
of the provisions enumerated above;
d)The response by the carrier
to any incident or findings of violation of the provisions enumerated above;
e)Such carrier's history
of violation for the past three years;
f)Any mitigating factors
such carrier chooses to present at a hearing before the responsible agency within
the base jurisdiction; and
g)Such other matters as
With input from the pilot
states, staff also developed a set of review criteria for each element. However,
it became clear during the peer reviews that these instructions were more procedural
than substantive. Reviews of specific applications revealed that pilot states
were responding to similar application responses differently. As noted previously,
procedures and review criteria were continuously revised based on the findings
established during the peer reviews.
However, the question persisted
of what specific types of responses to application questions would constitute
a denial of a permit. Based on recommendations from the pilot states, the Board
had adopted only the following two circumstances in which a carrier MUST
be denied credentials:
- the motor carrier has
an unsatisfactory USDOT safety rating; or
- the motor carrier does
not have the minimum level of insurance coverage.
At the December 1994 Board
meeting in Denver, members of the industry advisory panel asked the Board to
consider adopting an application scoring system similar to that used by FHWA
for compliance reviews. At that time, the Board asked the staff to work with
the pilot states to determine the feasibility of a scoring system. The analysis
and staff recommendations were presented to the Board in Boston in June 1995.
The staff found that not
one of the current state hazardous materials registration or permitting programs
uses a scoring system to evaluate applications. Rather, applications are generally
reviewed one of the following two ways:
- following a set of evaluative
guidelines, or instructions for each question; or
- ensuring simply that
the required information is included in the application.
The staff analysis suggested
that any determination by the Board to develop and implement a point system
for scoring the Uniform Program application should take into consideration the
- The strongest argument
for a scoring system is that it would increase the objectivity and uniformity
in evaluating an application. A scoring system would allow a state agency
to point to specific items in the review process in which the carrier did
not meet requirements as well as provide a carrier with specific items that
- A scoring system may
tie the hands of state agency investigators and take evaluative power away
from those persons charged with evaluating the ability of a carrier to transport
hazardous materials in multiple states.
- Two original goals of
the Alliance were that the permit process be an educational effort for carriers
and that the application be a vehicle to establish an interaction between
the base state and a carrier. This interaction would allow an ongoing relationship
between each base state and carrier. The base state can assist the carrier
in any remediation efforts that may need to be undertaken before a permit
is granted. A defined scoring system may impede this communication effort
and the remediation process, as a permit would either be granted or denied
based on a final score.
- The Alliance made a
decision that the application was not to be a complete evaluation tool.
In response to industry concerns regarding the amount of information they
would have to provide the base state, the Alliance decided that many issues
would be evaluated only on audit and would not bear any analysis in the original
permitting process. Assigning a score, or point, to information that is taken
on faith, such as certifications, would be arbitrary at best.
- The Alliance approved,
and the pilot states are refining, a set of objective criteria that will be
used to evaluate the application questions. The instructions are intended
to ensure a uniform approach to analyzing the information provided on the
application. Pilot state meetings concentrate primarily on application evaluation
in each state. Pilot state representatives discuss evaluative techniques and
adopt a common approach to application approval to ensure uniformity across
the pilot states.
- The Alliance originally
intended the base state to use the application to paint a complete picture
of the carrier's operations in all areas of hazardous materials transportation.
Instructions also direct a state agency to uncover additional information
on answers that cause concern. A scoring system would necessitate breaking
down the application evaluation into individual questions and assigning a
numerical standard to each question. The scoring approach of such revised
application would take away from the original intent and design of the Uniform
- The Uniform Program
questions are not designed to have "right" or "wrong"
answers. Compliance reviews evaluate carrier compliance with specific regulations.
Carriers either meet or do not meet the requirements under those regulations,
a situation that lends itself to a system of evaluation that uses points.
The Uniform Program questions were designed to provide information on carrier
operations, not to be right or wrong.
Based on these considerations,
the Board elected not to adopt a point-scoring system at this time. However,
it instructed the staff to continue working with the pilot states to develop
more detailed guidance on application review criteria. Toward this end, the
staff has scheduled two working sessions with the pilot states. In addition,
each pilot state was asked to develop case studies of applications that it denied
or considered denying, for discussion at these working sessions. Any recommendations
for revisions in the review criteria will be presented to the Board as they
are identified through the case studies.
Clarifying the Relationship
Between Part II and Part III States
At the pilot state working
session in Minnesota, questions emerged regarding the role and responsibility
of states performing Part III reviews of a carrier based in a Part II state.
All the pilot states agreed that the review effort on the part of the Part III
review state would be equivalent to that for a carrier based within the Part
III state. The policy issue that emerged was whether the Part III review state
should provide a recommendation to the Part II base state or whether the Part
III state should only transmit its findings, leaving the final decision of whether
to approve the permit to the base state.
The Board believed that,
in this case, the Part III review state was acting on behalf of all Part III
states in conducting the review of the carrier's fitness to transport hazardous
waste. Because the Part II state that transmitted the application for a Part
III review had elected not to develop the capacity to conduct a Part III review,
it seemed inappropriate to ask the Part II state to make a judgment according
to the findings of another state. It was decided that the Part III reviewer
state should make a specific recommendation to the Part II base state as to
whether that state should grant a Part III permit. However, it is the base state's
responsibility to transmit that recommendation to the applicant.
Finally, a question was
raised about what happens when the Part II base state finds that an applicant
meets the threshold requirements for a Part II permit, but the Part III review
state recommends that a Part III permit be denied or deferred. The Board recommended
that, in such cases, the Part II state issue a Part II permit that would allow
the applicant to transport hazardous materials in all states and hazardous waste
in Part I and Part II states. This would be particularly relevant when the Part
III review state requests additional information that might require a longer
review period. However, if the Part III permit is eventually issued, the expiration
date would be the same as for the already-issued Part II permit, not extended
to the date of the Part III approval. The base state would then have to issue
a new set of credentials.
Outlining Rules for Transition
At the Alliance's January
67, 1994, meeting in Reno, Nevada, state and industry representatives
raised questions about the transition by carriers from the current single-state
registration and permitting system to the base state approach. The topic was
relevant for the pilot states and will continue to be important in the future
as other states join the compact once the federal rule becomes effective.
Based on comments and questions
raised at the Reno meeting, the Board determined that the transition rule should,
at a minimum, address the following questions.
- Will a motor carrier's
authority to transport hazardous materials be interrupted during the transition
- What happens to permits
that have been obtained in states other than the base state once the carrier
receives a uniform national permit?
- Will the motor carrier
have to maintain any state-specific credentials during the transition period?
- Will the carrier be
assessed again for registration fees it may have already paid under the single-state
- Will carriers be required
to continually change their base state in accordance with the hierarchy established
under the Uniform Program as new states enter the agreement?
- What is a new member
state's responsibility to carriersthose based in the state and those
that operate in the stateduring the transition period?
- What are the motor carrier's
At the Reno meeting, the Board adopted two principles that should guide state
operations during the transition period.
If a motor carrier is a
credentialed operator in a state, the transition from the single- state to the
base state system should not result in any interruption in authority to transport
hazardous materials in that state.
A motor carrier should not
be reassessed for registration fees paid to a state for the time period covered
by those paid fees.
Interruption of Authority
to Transport Hazardous Materials. Preparing the analysis on this issue,
the Alliance staff identified two instances in which a motor carrier would
be transporting hazardous materials in a state prior to implementation of the
Uniform Program: a motor carrier operating in a state under a permit issued
by that state prior to the state's participation in the Uniform Program, and
a motor carrier operating in a state that does not require a permit.
In the latter case, the
motor carrier would have no new obligations. The Uniform Program is not a federal
mandate requiring states to permit motor carriers that transport hazardous materials.
The program only established uniform procedures and forms for states that elect
to do so. Therefore, if a carrier now transports in a state that does not require
a permit, the carrier can continue to operate in that state regardless of whether
it has obtained the uniform national permit from its base state.
In states that do require
a hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste transportation permit, the following
scenarios would apply.
- If the motor carrier
has both an unexpired permit for that state and a uniform national permit.
On the day that the state begins operating under the Uniform Program, state
officials must recognize the national permit as a valid credential. Therefore,
the unexpired state-specific permit is not necessary and need not be carried
in the vehicle. It is the state's responsibility to inform law enforcement
authorities to accept the national permit and not detain or delay carriers
that are operating under the national permit.
- If the motor carrier
has an unexpired permit for that state and has not yet obtained a uniform
national permit. The state-specific permit would remain valid until its expiration
date. If the state is not yet a participant in the Uniform Program (prior
to the effective date for all states), the motor carrier would need to reapply
for a state- specific permit. Following the effective date of the federal
regulation, the motor carrier would determine its base state according to
the hierarchy established under the Uniform Program rule. If the state has
not joined the Uniform Program, the state cannot enforce any other registration
or permit requirement.
As states enter the Uniform
Program, they will need to notify their currently permitted motor carriers of
the new requirements at least ninety days prior to the expiration date of the
current permit.* New hazardous materials motor
carriers should contact the state(s) in which they operate or the national repository
to determine which states are participating in the Uniform Program and which
states still require state-specific permits (prior to the effective date of
the Uniform Program rule).
Double Assessment of
Registration Fees. At the Reno meeting, industry representatives asked,
"What happens if a motor carrier has just recently registered in a specific
state and then applies for a national permit? Will the base state collect the
equivalent of a full year's registration fee for all states? Would this be double-charging
the applicant carrier?"
At its April 1994 meeting
in Charleston, West Virginia, the Board adopted the following options by which
states can address this question.
Credit for Fees Paid.
During the transition year, a motor carrier's registration fee could be adjusted
by a prorated credit based on the period of overlap between the state- specific
registration and the base state registration. For example: Yellow Freight paid
a $1,200 registration fee to the state of Nevada when it registered in January
1994. Yellow Freight now files for a uniform registration and permit application
in Ohio that will go into effect on July 1, 1994. The Nevada fee as calculated
on the schedule attached to the application for the coming year is $1,275. Nevada
could ask the base state to apply a $600 credit (six months) against Yellow
Freight's calculated fee. Ohio would then collect $675 from Yellow Freight and
forward it to Nevada.
Waiver of First-Year
Fee. A state could elect to waive its registration fee for the program year
in which there is an overlap between the state-specific program and the Uniform
Program. Using the previous example, Nevada would not collect a fee from Yellow
Freight until July 1, 1995. If the state waiving the registration fee also happens
to be the base state, it may still charge the appropriate processing fee for
handing the application on behalf of all other participating states.
Implementation of this transition
rule will require a modification of the fee calculation schedule. The form would
have to include the following three additional data elements for each state:
- the time period covered
by the last registration fee;
- the amount of the last
registration fee; and
- whether the state elected
to waive the fee or credit carriers for the overlap period.
ninety-day notification is based on the maximum time states have to process
a permit application under the current Uniform Program procedures. States should
give carriers as much notice as possible to provide time for the carriers to
prepare the permit application.
The repository would obtain
information about waivers or credits from each state as it entered the agreement.
Shifting Base States.
The transition rules also needed to address the following type of scenario.
A motor carrier domiciled in Nebraska, which is not a pilot state, obtains its
permit from Ohio because Ohio is the pilot state in which the motor carrier
travels a plurality of IRP miles. Prior to the effective date of the Uniform
Program rule, Kansas joins the agreement voluntarily, and the motor carrier
reports a higher percentage of miles in Kansas than it does in Ohio. The next
year, Colorado voluntarily joins the agreement, and the carrier's preponderance
of IRP miles now shifts to Colorado. Would the carrier apply to Ohio in year
one, Kansas in year two, and Colorado in year three?
To avoid continuous shifting
of a motor carrier's base state, the Board adopted the following transition
rule for selection of the base state. It is based on the principle that a motor
carrier should only have to switch its base state once during the transition
from a voluntary program to a mandatory one under the promulgated federal rule.
To the extent possible,
the repository will ask states to declare their intention of participating in
the Uniform Program in terms of level of participation (that is, whether they
will be a Part I, Part II, or Part III state) and the regulated population of
motor carriers (e.g., hazardous waste-only carriers). Any statement of intent
will not be viewed as binding on the state.
The repository will then
compile a table of all statements of intent.
A motor carrier will review
the table to determine which state would be its base state under the Uniform
Program hierarchy following the effective date of the federal rule. This state
would be referred to as the permanent base state.
If the selected permanent
base state is not a voluntary participant in the program, the motor carrier
would select an interim base state (in a manner consistent with the Alliance's
procedures for selecting a carrier's base state) from among all the voluntary
participants at the time the motor carrier first applies for Uniform Program
The motor carrier will remain
based in the interim base state until the permanent base state enters the agreement.
On the effective date for
all states, if the original permanent base state has not joined the agreement,
the motor carrier would select a new permanent base state from among all the
participating states in accordance with the base state selection hierarchy contained
in the Uniform Program.
If at a later date the carrier's
state of domicile became a participating state, the motor carrier could, but
would not be required to, shift its base state subject to the concurrence by
both the state of domicile and the current permanent base state.
The interim base state would
be required to share information, such as information on key management personnel,
with the permanent base state to avoid replication of an application requirement
that the motor carrier had previously satisfied.
Any deviation from this
rule would be subject to the same discretionary provisions allowed under the
Uniform Program, including concurrence by both the proposed base state and the
state that would have been the base state if the waiver had not been requested.
Outlining Procedures and
Requirements for the Entry of New States into the Uniform Program
Upon promulgation of a final
rule by the USDOT implementing Section 22 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Uniform Safety Act, all state and local governments that elect to register and
permit motor carriers of hazardous materials must comply with the entry requirements
set forth in such a final rule. However, the integrity of the reciprocal permitting
system requires that any potential participating jurisdiction must satisfy a
set of minimum qualifications to ensure that it meets its responsibilities to
other participating jurisdictions. To address this issue, the Board adopted
several procedures and requirements for the entry of new jurisdictions into
the Uniform Program.
At the time of application
to become a participating jurisdiction under the Uniform Program, a jurisdiction
- submit a letter from
an authorized executive branch official to the Board requesting entry into
the Uniform Program and the base state agreement;
- enact or plan to enact
legislation authorizing participation by the state or local government in
the Uniform Program, and providing for implementation of the Uniform Program
by that government;
- request an accreditation
review by the Board; and
- agree to become a signatory
to the base state agreement.
The Board defined accreditation as the process of certifying that prospective
state programs are meeting all formal requirements for joining the base state
agreement and operating the Uniform Program. There are three steps to the accreditation
First, the Board will develop
standards that prospective state and local members must meet in order to join
the agreement and operate the Uniform Program. Second, the prospective jurisdiction
will take those standards and develop an integrated implementation and operating
plan. Third, an accreditation review of new jurisdictions will be completed
at the time the jurisdiction applies for participation in the Uniform Program
and every three years after that to ensure ongoing compliance with accreditation
standards. If the board receives complaints about participation from either
another participating state, a motor carrier, or the public, the Board shall
determine if an additional accreditation review is required.
The following is an overview
of the standards, accreditation process, and review process, which may be expanded
as the pilot program obtains new information.
and local jurisdictions must meet standards established by the Board to join
the agreement. These standards ensure the integrity of the base state system
and full reciprocity among participating jurisdictions. In anticipation of joining
the Uniform Program, an applicant jurisdiction must demonstrate that it meets
the following standards.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must have adequate personnel to conduct all aspects of the Uniform Program.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must have the capacity to electronically store specific information associated
with the Uniform Program registration and/or permit and to issue credentials
to carriers within the timeframes established by the Board. The jurisdiction
must also be able to communicate electronically with the repository.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must demonstrate the ability to communicate with all affected motor carriers
regarding the implementation date of the Uniform Program and new forms and
procedures the motor carriers must complete under the Uniform Program.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must conduct and/or seek adequate training for personnel to ensure effective
implementation of the Uniform Program.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must develop an operating budget and establish an equitable registration fee
and a permit application review fee structure. The jurisdiction must possess
the ability to carry out the financial accounting aspects of the Uniform Program,
including the collection and distribution of registration fees to other participating
- The prospective jurisdiction
must develop a plan to ensure full public participation as outlined in the
Uniform Program. This plan must also include an appropriate assurance to motor
carriers that Part III of the Uniform Program will be kept confidential.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must provide evidence of sufficient audit capacity to fulfill the audit requirements
of the Uniform Program. This must include personnel time and training.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must demonstrate that it has communicated with all appropriate enforcement
officials in the jurisdiction to ensure that on-road enforcement officials
recognize the Uniform Program credential, regardless of the state of issuance,
as adequate for the transport of hazardous materials within the jurisdiction.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must have any necessary enabling legislation and implementing regulations
in place when it enters the Uniform Program agreement.
- The prospective jurisdiction
must certify that it will operate the Uniform Program pursuant to the policies
and procedures developed by the Board.
The accreditation process begins when the applying jurisdiction submits an implementation
plan to the Board, along with appropriate enabling legislation, agency regulations,
and the first-year budget. The implementation plan will be reviewed by the repository
staff and an accreditation committee of officials from not less than three participating
jurisdictions to be appointed annually by the Board chair. If the written plan
meets the minimum requirements as outlined, the repository staff will schedule
an onsite accreditation review in accordance with the previously mentioned Alliance
peer review procedures and criteria. A report by the accreditation committee
will be submitted to the Board for its consideration at the next regularly scheduled
The Board may accredit the
proposed program, provide a conditional accreditation by outlining remedial
steps that the applicant jurisdiction must take before registering and/or permitting
carriers, or reject the application. In the case of a conditional accreditation,
the Board may direct staff to conduct a followup review, including a second
onsite visit, to ensure that the conditions have been satisfied.
Revocation. Any participating
jurisdiction that fails to comply with the provisions of the base state agreement
may have its membership in the Uniform Program revoked by a two- thirds vote
of the Board, after a full opportunity for hearing and comment. Such revocation
would occur only after a finding that a participating jurisdiction failed to
pass an accreditation review, or an investigation of a dispute by the Board
demonstrates that the jurisdiction is operating outside of the Uniform Program
policies and procedures. Revocation shall take effect one year from the date
the affected party receives written notice from the Board of its action in order
to facilitate the orderly transfer of motor carriers based in that state to
other base states.
Withdrawal. Any participating
jurisdiction may withdraw from the base state agreement by repealing its authorizing
legislation or by notifying the Board in writing of its decision to withdraw
from the agreement. However, no such withdrawal shall take effect until two
years after the designated executive branch official has given written notice
of such withdrawal to the Board and each participating jurisdiction to facilitate
the orderly transfer of motor carriers based in that state to other base states.
A major condition of a state's
acceptance of a base state registration and reciprocal permitting program was
the availability of basic information about all carriers that might transport
hazardous materials within its borders. To satisfy this condition of participation,
the Alliance directed the repository staff to design and implement an automated
system through which:
- the base state could
enter basic information about carriers registered and permitted in that jurisdiction;
- the base state could
upload information on its carriers into a central database;
- basic information on
all carriers operating under the Uniform Program could be queried; and
- states could enter basic
information about suspensions, revocations, major violations, and public complaints
about specific motor carriers.
The budget for the two-year
pilot included $25,000 for the development of the system and for the purchase
of its hardware. In March 1994, NGA contracted with BOSC Associates to develop
the software at a cost of $18,000. The remaining $7,000 was used to purchase
a Microsoft NT compatible server with four incoming modems.
HARPS Database Structure.
The software system developed by BOSC is referred to as the HazMat Alliance
Registration and Permitting System (HARPS). In July 1994, the first version
of HARPS was delivered to the states. In accordance with the Alliance's recommendations,
the HARPS database architecture included the following data elements.
Part I Information.
The database included entry for each data element in Part I of the original
uniform application. This information enabled the repository and the participating
jurisdictions to query the database for information concerning:
- registered and/or permitted
carriers that operated in Uniform Program jurisdictions;
- the number of carriers
that transported each category of hazardous materials;
- the percentage of a
carrier's activity that involved transportation of hazardous materials (needed
by states to determine the appropriate registration fee rate);
- the number of power
units maintained by each carrier;
- the identification of
carriers by ICC carrier number and/or USDOT census number;
- phone numbers to call
for notification in the event of an emergency; and a carrier's base state.
Type of Credential and
Date of Issuance. Following the approval of a permit application, the base
state entered a twelve-character identification number and the date the credential
was issued into the HARPS database. The credential identifier consisted of three
elements. The first element consisted of three letters that identified the level
of activity authorized by the credential. The classification code is as follows.
Part I Registration
Part II Hazardous
Part III Hazardous
The second element of the
credential identification number was the motor carrier identifierUSDOT
motor carrier census number, ICC number, or state-issued numberthat appeared
on the vehicle. The third element was the two-character abbreviation of the
The decision to limit the
permit information in the central database was based on the Board's finding
that the information contained in Parts II and III of the application would
not convert easily into standard data fields. Therefore, the central database
served only as a pointer, identifying the base state from which any other of
the participating jurisdictions could obtain more detailed information about
a credentialed carrier
Information on Major
Violations. Because the base state was expected to review a carrier's total
operations, not just the activity within the base state, the Alliance recommended
that the central database include information on major violations. To meet this
requirement, the HARPS database structure provided for information on violations,
penalties, and suspensions, including:
- the date of a citation;
- the date of any conviction;
- the amount of any penalty;
- whether or not the permit
- the date of reinstatement;
- whether or not the permit
Information on Complaints.
The Uniform Program calls for the collection and maintenance of information
on public complaints about motor carriers. This information will be used to
contact complainants when a motor carrier's permit comes up for renewal. At
the first pilot state working session in Sacramento in July 1993, the states
requested that documentation be limited to complaints upon which the state had
taken action, for instance, issued a citation. It was also agreed that the central
database would serve only as a pointer system. To accomplish these objectives,
the data fields under the HARPS complaint tracking module included information
- the complainant;
- the complainant's address;
- the complainant's phone
- the date of the complaint;
- the carrier's name;
- the relevant ICC and/or
USDOT census number;
- the location of the
- a brief description
of the incident; and/or
- any state action taken.
To the extent possible,
the entry screens for the HARPS database were designed to mirror the Uniform
Program application. Three statesNevada, Ohio, and West Virginiaelected
to use the HARPS software as provided and purchased Microsoft Windows for Workgroups
and compatible personal computers for data entry. In contrast, Minnesota chose
to integrate the hazardous materials module with its existing mainframe-based
motor carrier master database. Minnesota's decision not to use the "off-the-shelf"
version of HARPS was consistent with the Alliance's assumption that participating
jurisdictions could develop alternative methods for administering the Uniform
Program as long as they were compatible with the basic procedural requirements.
In July 1995, NGA placed
the server in service and installed four telephone lines. Three of the telephone
lines were reserved for the pilot states and Board members, although Board members
did not have access during the test, a fourth line was designated for public
use. The system has the capacity to expand to sixteen lines as more states become
members of the Uniform Program.
Experience With HARPS
During the Pilot Program. The extent to which HARPS satisfied the program
objectives outlined for the Uniform Program information system is mixed, at
best. At a minimum, the system provided a means for states to enter the basic
information for motor carrier applicants and, following the approval of an application,
to print the credentials. In addition, because the system was developed on an
open platform (Microsoft Access 2.0), states were able to develop additional
queries and macros to meet their specific program needs.
Technical problems in the
program prohibited uploading state information to create a central database
consisting of information on motor carriers registered and permitted by all
participating jurisdictions. Efforts to circumvent the technical program were
also unsuccessful during the first year of operations.
The lack of a central database
during the pilot program demonstrated the need for this information once the
Uniform Program is fully operational. The following programmatic issues that
arose during the pilot program could have been easily resolved if information
on all carriers had been readily available in a central database.
- A vehicle transporting
hazardous materials entered Nevada without a permit. The driver claimed that
his company had applied for a permit under the Uniform Program in Ohio but
had not received its credentials. There was no way for Nevada officials to
readily verify this information. The carrier was required to purchase a trip
permit to proceed with its delivery. Although the trip permit fee was eventually
refunded when the driver's information was confirmed, the carrier was inconvenienced.
It also raised concerns with the carrier about the value of the reciprocal
- Ohio levied a civil
forfeiture against a carrier that had registered the previous year in Ohio
but had not applied in Ohio for a Uniform Program credential. The reason the
carrier had not applied in Ohio was because Minnesota was its base state under
the Uniform Program procedures for selecting a base state. If the central
database had been available, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio could
have queried the system before issuing the forfeiture to determine if the
carrier was registered in another state.
- All of the pilot states
needed the information on carriers' operationsnumber of power units,
the IRP percentages, and the percentage of hazardous materials activityin
order to determine their fee structures. This information was not available.
Therefore, rates for the second year of the program are still somewhat speculative.
- One state potentially
interested in joining the Alliance asked repository staff to provide information
on carriers that had received credentials from the pilot states that would
be operating in that jurisdiction. The staff was not able to provide this
In addition to basic deficiencies,
officials in the pilot states identified the following concerns about the HARPS
- Several of the modules
were not user-friendly. In particular, the screens for entering IRP percentages
and categories of hazardous materials were complex and likely resulted in
- The system did not include
a module to calculate the applicant's fees.
- The Microsoft Windows
for Workgroups platform was difficult, if not impossible, to integrate with
other LAN systems, especially Novell, that were used by the administering
- There was not sufficient
technical support for the individual states.
A review of the HARPS program
suggests that there are numerous reasons for these deficiencies and concerns.
The primary reasons were the implementation of a new client/server technology
and the limited financial resources available to the Alliance for developing
The experience with HARPS
during the pilot project did, however, meet the objective of determining the
need for, and issues associated with, the information requirements associated
with the Uniform Program. In an attempt to address the outlined deficiencies
and concerns, the Alliance staff began to explore additional resources for making
the necessary modifications to HARPS. This search was facilitated by the Board's
approval of the staff's recommendation to make HARPS compatible with the Commercial
Vehicle Information System (CVIS) and the Intelligent Transportation System
Shortly after the June 1995
meeting of the Interim Governing Board, the Alliance staff met with officials
from FHWA's ITS program. The meeting resulted in an arrangement through which
RS Information Systems (RSIS), an FHWA Section 8a contractor, was made available
to the Alliance. The scope of work for RSIS's activity was jointly developed
by FHWA and the Alliance and includes:
- a technical review of
the initial version of HARPS;
- consultation with the
Alliance staff and with each of the pilot states to document deficiencies
and concerns in the HARPS program;
- preparation of a specifications
document for review by the Alliance staff and the pilot states;
- redesign of the HARPS
program to address any deficiencies and to expand its capacity, including
the calculation of motor carrier fees and potential electronic filing of applications;
- conversion of all existing
state data to make them compatible with the revised HARPS architecture; and
- development of the appropriate
EDI protocols to link HARPS to the ITS/CVO electronic clearance architecture.
In September 1995, representatives
from RSIS attended a working session of the pilot states to discuss their effort.
The session was followed by site visits to each of the four pilot states to
discuss specific needs regarding and concerns about the HARPS program. A prototype
of the revised system was presented to participating states at a working session
in December 1995. The target date implementing the revised system is June 1,
1996, so that participating states can use the new software for their third
cycle of applications.
Questions Surrounding Confidentiality
At the April 1994 Board
meeting in Charleston, West Virginia, questions emerged about the confidentiality
of information provided by an applicant for a Uniform Program registration or
permit. The pilot states identified two specific concerns. In Ohio, which has
very strict confidentiality requirements, the state holds individual state employees
liable for disclosure of confidential information. In contrast, Minnesota has
a very stringent state freedom-of- information requirement. Because the reciprocal
nature of the Uniform Program requires states to share information for purposes
of enforcing the program, the staff posed the following scenario for the Board's
A motor carrier based in
Ohio and transporting hazardous waste in Minnesota is involved in an accident.
As part of the followup investigation, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
requests a copy of the motor carrier's Part III application from Ohio. Ohio
provides the materials after Minnesota officials have agreed to abide by Ohio's
confidentiality provisions. However, a Minnesota newspaper then files a freedom-of-information
request with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for disclosure of all
information used in determining the outcome of the investigation.
In this example, would Minnesota
officials be bound by their state law to release information that was gathered
from industry under Ohio's stricter confidentiality guarantee? At the December
1994 meeting in Denver, the Board considered a proposed amendment to the Uniform
Program regulation submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to specifically
include reference to protection of confidential commercial and financial information
under the exemption provided by subsection (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). During the discussion, several Board members stated that they believed
that adopting the change would not give as much coverage as everyone would like
to have, but that it could not hurt the Uniform Program. Federal representatives
attending the meeting were unsure about the applicability of FOIA to states.
A representative from the FHWA Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) offered to look
at a confidentiality provision in the federal rule that would override state
As a result of these concerns,
the Board recommended that the final regulation governing the Uniform Program
treat certain commercial and financial information provided by the applicant
for purposes of obtaining a permit under the Uniform Program as privileged and
confidential. This protection would apply to all participating states, the Board,
and the repository staff that might review the information for purposes of enforcing
the Uniform Program. The Board requested that the U.S. Department of Transportation
advise the Board concerning whether such protection of confidential information
could be covered under the federal FOIA or under the Section 22 implementing
The Board also asked each
pilot state to research this same hypothetical situation within its respective
jurisdictions. The research produced the following information about the protection
of confidential data in the four states. The Minnesota attorney general's office
found that data can be classified as confidential and that such "classification
of data itself depends on the applicable federal and state law." The Nevada
attorney general's office advised that Nevada officials would not have to disclose
information provided by Ohio if "disclosure is barred by Ohio law and the
attendant confidentiality agreement, which the Nevada employees shall execute
before access to such information is provided."
An analysis by the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia found that the West Virginia FOIA specifically
"exempts from its purview public records [that] contain trade secrets."
However, a recent court case placed limitations on that exemption. Therefore,
the PSC of West Virginia stated that it was "... unable to conclude with
certainty that Part III information submitted by applicants ... would be exempt
from West Virginia's FOIA."
The lack of a clear-cut
answer in any jurisdiction suggests that the Alliance needs to find a remedial
solution to this issue to ensure that the exchange of information among participating
jurisdictions does not become a barrier to any state's entry into the Alliance
Section V: Enhancement
of Public Health and Safety
The primary goal of the
Uniform Program is to decrease the likely harm to the public health and safety
resulting from the improper transport of hazardous materials.
Defining What Constitutes
Health and Safety Enhancement
Determining whether the
Alliance's proposal for the Uniform Program met this objective was a point of
contention between the Alliance and FHWA throughout the demonstration project.
On several occasions FHWA officials asked how the Alliance intended to document
health and safety benefits. From their perspective, a direct link between the
program requirements and the safety objective could best be demonstrated through
a decrease in hazardous materials transportation incidents.
Even if one agreed with
FHWA's assumption, any possibility of conducting the research necessary to prove
or disprove the link between the Uniform Program and a decrease in incidents
was unfeasible for the following reasons.
- Participating states
were providing initial credentials to motor carriers throughout the pilot
program; therefore, most permitted carriers did not have a sufficient history
of operations under the Uniform Program to make a time series comparison.
- It would be unfair to
attribute the cause of an incident only on the basis of the citation given
at the time of the incident. Any analysis of an incident would have to include
data from the followup investigation.
- The cost of conducting
this type of research was clearly beyond the scope of Alliance activities
funded by FHWA for the pilot program.
Both the Alliance members
and the industry advisors pushed to link the permit application process to existing
federal hazardous materials requirements. Therefore, wherever possible, a Uniform
Program permit requirement (e.g., inspections and financial responsibility)
included a reference to the federal statutory or regulatory citation on which
it was based. In this way, the application process educated motor carriers about
the specific safety requirements. From the Alliance's perspective, an initial
assessment of the Uniform Program's impact on public health and safety should
be based on the extent to which the application process increased motor carrier
awareness of hazardous materials transportation requirements and/or caused the
motor carrier to review its operations to determine whether it was in compliance
with these requirements.
Impact of the Uniform Program
on Health and Safety Enhancement
The staff evaluated this
element of the program in two ways. First, in the industry survey, the staff
asked whether the application process had generated an internal review of the
carrier's operations for specific compliance requirements. The following table
presents the survey results on this question for the forty-five respondents.
Type of Carriage
Years in HazMat Transport
Other HazMat Registrations
Withdrawn, Denied, Suspended, or Revoked
USDOT Safety Rating
HazMat Transport Fines
HazMat Transport Convictions
HazMat Incident Reports
Total Carrier Miles
Assessments for Cleanup
Location of Insurance
Bulk Packaging Certification
HazMat Training Certification
Facilities Owned and
Key Management Personnel
Balance Sheet and
State of Ownership
and Debt Liability
Related Business Concerns
In addition, one carrier
reported in the survey that following a review of the requirements, the firm
decided to drop its hazardous waste transportation activities.
With one exceptionthe
motor carrier's current safety ratinga percentage of respondents reported
that the permit application process had precipitated an operations review. In
Part II of the permit application, respondents indicated that the items that
generated the most internal reviews (approximately 20 percent) included roadside
inspection reports, hazardous materials out-of-service violations, and assessments
or fines. One can assume that a review of these items would point the carrier
to elements of its operations that might require additional attention.
For hazardous waste transporters,
the items that generated the most internal reviews related to key management
personnel. This finding is consistent with the assumption presented by state
hazardous waste regulators that the safe operations, of a hazardous waste transporter
are directly proportional to the integrity of its key managers. Putting hazardous
waste transporters on notice that states will be examining this element of their
operations under the Uniform Program suggests that applicants will also pay
closer attention to the selection of key managers.
The second way the staff
evaluated the public health and safety element of the program was by asking
the pilot states to identify areas in which their knowledge of motor carriers
actions during the application process resulted in higher compliance rates.
Three of the four pilot states indicated that they "were aware of specific
instances where the Uniform Program requirement caused a motor carrier to comply
with a hazardous materials requirement that was not being satisfied at the time
of the carrier's application." The following excerpts are from the states'
descriptions of these instances.
- "Several intrastate
petroleum carriers had insufficient limits on hazardous materials transportation
- "Some carriers
were not aware of the registration or permit requirements in other jurisdictions
until the state reviewed Part II and made inquiries."
- "Several carriers
that had not previously registered under the USDOT HazMat registration program
complied in order to complete the Uniform Program application."
- "Some applicants
did not know what the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was. The application
process has been an educational experience for many of our carriers."
- We experienced a significant
increase in compliance with the USDOT HazMat registration program."
- "Where an applicant
was unaware of a requirement, it gave us an opportunity to instruct carriers
concerning hazardous materials requirements."
fifty carriers did not have the proper level of insurance. Permits were not
issued until proof of insurance was provided."
- "Many carriers
applied for the USDOT registration number concurrently with their application
for the Uniform Program."
400 carriers had outstanding civil forfeiture payments that had to be settled
before the permit was issued."
Based on the data available
from the first cycle of applications, it appears that the Uniform Program application
process is having an impact on motor carrier compliance with hazardous materials
requirements. The staff believes that the Alliance's philosophy that the application
process should serve primarily to educate carriers about hazardous materials
transportation procedures remains valid.
Additional health and safety
benefits should accrue from on-road enforcement and the use of the audit functions
authorized under the Uniform Program to provide continuous feedback to a permitted
carrier about its operations. A question raised by FHWA during the pilot was
how the Uniform Program enforcement and audit authorities provided additional
incentives for safety compliance beyond those associated with the USDOT compliance
As evidenced by the historical
data within several motor carriers' safety profiles, a motor carrier can move
between safety ratings without ceasing operations. This is primarily because
the congressional directive requires that the motor carrier be given up to forty-five
days to take corrective action. State enforcement authoritiesespecially
the ability to assess fines and civil forfeituresprovides an economic
incentive to carriers to comply with hazardous materials transportation requirements.
In addition, evidence that a carrier has misrepresented its certifications of
program requirements could result in the suspension or revocation of that carrier's
Uniform Program credentials.
Section VI: Role and Operations
of the Interim Governing Board and the National Repository
Once the Alliance working
group made the decision to support a program of base state reciprocal registration
and permitting, it became clear that any interstate compact would require both
a governing board to oversee the process and a national repository to coordinate
activities among the participating jurisdictions. To test this concept during
the pilot program, the Alliance selected an Interim Governing Board and recommended
that NGA and NCSL, which had staffed the working group, be retained as the interim
To the extent possible,
the Board and repository staff were asked to operate exactly as they would if
the working group's recommendations were adopted by USDOT as the mandated program
under Section 22 of HMTUSA. This meant that both the Board and repository would
carry out those responsibilities and functions that were recommended by the
Alliance working group in the November 1993 report to the U.S. Secretary of
Role of the Interim Governing
According to the Alliance's
final report, the Board should have the following roles.
- It should establish
and oversee a program for accrediting the operations of participating jurisdictions
to ensure that each member of the agreement has the ability to register and
permit motor carriers in accordance with the uniform requirements.
- It should interpret
the agreement and, when appropriate, recommend changes or additions to promote
- It should conduct a
dispute resolution process under which states, industry, and the public could
raise concerns about violations of the agreement or the uniform standards.
- It should oversee the
administration of a national repository to provide staff for the Board and
for the members of the agreement.
To carry out these functions,
the Alliance selected an Interim Governing Board consisting of eight members,
four of whom represented the participating states. The remaining four at- large
members of the Board were selected from the membership of the Alliance working
group and represented the following four categories of working group members:
- Governors' designees;
- state legislators;
- state law enforcement
- local officials.
At its first meeting in
November 1993, the Board acknowledged it would play a dual role during the pilot
project. It would serve first as an extension of the Alliance working group,
making refinements and additions to the Uniform Program. Toward this end, the
Board elected to retain both the industry and consumer representatives during
its first year. Only after the participating states began to register and permit
carriers would the Board focus on its long-term roles of overseeing administration
of the agreement and resolving disputes among the participating states and between
states and the regulated industry.
Interim Governing Board
Procedures. The first order of business for the Board was the adoption of
bylaws and procedures to govern its own operations. At the first Board meeting
in Columbus, Ohio, November 23, 1993, the Board asked the staff to develop
a recommendation that was reviewed and approved at the second Board meeting
in Charleston, West Virginia, April 1112, 1994.
The adopted rules included
the following provisions related to the membership and operations of the Interim
1.The Board will be composed
of members from the following categories:
- state legislator;
- local representative;
- enforcement community
- at-large member; and
- one member from each
of the pilot states.
2.The positions of chair
and vice-chair will not be held by a member representing a pilot state. The
remaining four members of the Board will select the chair and vice-chair.
TERMS OF OFFICE
1.The term of office shall
cover the entire two-year pilot project and, if necessary, until the effective
date of the federal regulation implementing the Uniform Program.
2.Upon the effective date
of the Uniform Program, the Board shall be dissolved and bylaws regarding the
permanent Governing Board will take effect.
3.Current members of the
Interim Governing Board representing pilot states will be eligible for permanent
Governing Board positions.
4.Vacancies occurring in
Board membership shall be filled by appointment made by the chair with the advice
and counsel of the other members of the Board. Appointments to vacancies shall
expire at the same time as original members of the Board.
1.The chair of the Interim
Governing Board shall not vote except in the event of a tie. Each remaining
member of the Board shall have one vote, and Board actions shall require a majority
vote to achieve adoption.
2.Each member of the Board
representing a pilot state may designate a substitute who shall have the full
powers of a member of the Board.
3.Other members of the
Board, when absent from a meeting of the Board, may exercise their voting authority
by providing a proxy to another member of the Board.
4.Substantive issues of
the Alliance agreement, such as plan administration, compliance, procedures,
and interpretations, may be raised in writing. Within thirty days, the Board
shall either place the matter on its next agenda for action or refer the matter
to the repository for action.
5.For matters placed on
its agenda, the Board is empowered to:
(e)review facts and make
to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation regarding the uniform program;
(h)prepare and file a report
of its findings, interpretations and recommendations; and
regarding the pilot program.
One industry representative
and one representative of environmental/consumer interests will continue to
serve as nonvoting members of the Interim Governing Board through June 30, 1994.
1.The full Board meets twice
annually unless determined otherwise. Times and places will be determined by
2.Special meetings of the
Board may be called by a majority vote of the Board. These meetings may be held
by conference or facsimile transmission.
3.Meetings of the pilot
states may be scheduled between meetings of the full governing Board, if necessary.
4.All Board meetings shall
be open to the public. To discuss contracts and personnel, the chair has the
authority to call an executive session of the Board.
CHANGES TO THE MODEL PROGRAM
1.The Board will be charged
with evaluating the model program elements at the end of the pilot project.
The Board can recommend changes to any model program element by a majority vote.
will be submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to assist with the
The chair has the authority
to establish any committees that may be necessary to accomplish the objectives
of the Uniform Program pilot.
One amendment to the interim
bylaws related to continued industry participation in the Uniform Program was
adopted at the December 1994 Board meeting in Denver. At that time, the Board
approved the formation of an industry advisory panel consisting of representatives
from each state trucking association in the pilot states and officials from
several national motor carrier associations.
Uniform Program Procedures.
The majority of the Board's efforts during the first year focused on the adoption
of operating policies and procedures for the Uniform Program. This information
was published in a state administrator's manual, which was adopted by the Board
at its third meeting in Charleston, West Virginia.
The state administrator's
manual includes copies of relevant Uniform Program documents (e.g., Section
22 of HMTUSA and the Alliance's proposed federal regulation) and operating policies
and procedures adopted by the Board during the pilot program. The manual includes
the following program materials:
- assumptions and principles
on which the Uniform Program is based;
- Section 22 of the Hazardous
Materials Uniform Transportation Act of 1990, as amended;
- proposed federal regulation;
- uniform application
form and instructions;
- instructions for processing
the uniform application;
- dispute resolution procedures;
- request to participate
- membership of the Alliance,
the Board, and the repository; and
- transition rules.
Discussions related to the
substance of these provisions are provided throughout this report.
Copies of the state administrator's
manual are available from NGA.
Most of the Board's activity related to dispute resolution involved expansion
and interpretation of the provisions of the Uniform Program outlined in the
November 1993 report. In many cases, these actions were precipitated by unexpected
nuances in the program as the four pilot states actually began administration.
For example, Minnesota raised an issue about Minnesota-based carriers that incidentally
operated in a neighboring state. Under other multistate compacts (e.g., the
International Fuel Tax Agreement), the carrier may be treated as an instate
carrier with the approval of the other states in which the carrier operates.
The Board adopted a similar policy for purposes of the Uniform Program.
Other issues focused on
the transition to the Uniform Program and the workload associated with the immediate
registration and permitting of all motor carriers operating under the Uniform
Program. In many cases, the Board approved waivers or deadline extensions of
Uniform Program provisions during the first year of operation. Of particular
note was the introduction of "letters of filing," evidence that an
applicant made a good-faith effort to comply with the Uniform Program even though
the substantive review of that carrier's application had not been completed.
The letter of filing allowed the carrier to transport hazardous materials in
all of the participating jurisdictions during the review period.
In one instance, the Board
did act on one state's violation of Uniform Program procedures. Alliance rules
require a state that has mistakenly received an application from a carrier for
which that state is not the base state to return the application to the carrier
with instructions to send it to the appropriate base state. Ohio law requires
that checks sent to any state department must be deposited within forty-eight
hours. In Ohio, applications were initially sent to the Public Utilities Commission's
(PUCO) accounting division, which deposited the checks and then passed on the
application to the transportation division for substantive review. The Board
found that even though the PUCO transportation division delegated authority
to its accounting division for the financial management of the program, that
did not relieve the state of the procedural requirement of determining whether
the application had been submitted to the appropriate base state. In response,
PUCO agreed to train the accounting staff to check applications for the correct
base state before depositing any funds.
Changes to the Uniform
Program. Finally, the Board approved numerous changes to the uniform application
and instructions. These changes fell into three categories. Primary among these
was the extent to which specific data elements did or did not provide information
on which the pilot states made decisions about issuing permits. For example,
neither of the states that tested the use of fingerprints for the Part III disclosure
statement found that the decision to approve or reject the application was affected
by this requirement. Therefore, in May 1995, the Board voted to delete the request
for fingerprints from Part III of the Uniform Program application. However,
a state may still use fingerprints in those instances where the application
review raises questions about one or more of the key management personnel employed
by the applicant firm.
The second category of changes
concerned instances in which the Alliance found that it had violated the principle
of using secondary data where they were available. In particular, the Board
found several instances where information requested on the application could
be obtained from other sources, such as USDOT's SafetyNET database or the Motor
Carrier Management Information System. To alleviate the concern that these sources
may be inaccurate or out-of-date, the Board directed the staff to revise the
application instructions to alert potential applicants to review their motor
carrier profiles because that was a major source of information about the carrier's
The third category of changes
involved clarification of information requests. In these instances, the changes
generally involved simplification of the application form or additional instructions.
A complete discussion of
related issues considered by the Board during the pilot program and recommended
changes to uniform procedures and forms is provided in Section VII: Recommended
Changes to the Uniform Program Based on the Pilot Project Experience.
Evaluation of the Board.
To determine the effectiveness of the Board during the pilot program, state
program administrators were asked to give their opinion as to how the Board
had satisfied the five Board functions delineated in the Alliance's final report.
The following table provides the survey results from the four states.
Ensuring the Integrity
of the System
Forum for Input on
The "somewhat dissatisfied"
response related to ensuring the integrity of the system resulted from one pilot
state's concern that the peer review process had concentrated primarily on each
state's procedures rather than on the substantive review of permit applications.
To elaborate on this concern, one state wrote, "We understand that the
first priority was to review uniform procedures and administration, but the
review did not serve to check whether the elements of the permit that pertain
to the violation history and safety profile had been adequately scrutinized.
The peer review team needs to independently select the files to be reviewed."
As a result of this concern, the Board requested that the repository staff and
the pilot states revisit the issue of criteria for rejecting permit applications
based on the state's experience during the first application cycle.
Role of the National Repository
The Interim Governing Board
was staffed by NGA and NCSL, which functioned together as an interim repository.
As with the Interim Governor Board, the repository was asked to operate in the
same manner that a permanent repository would be requested to function once
the Uniform Program was officially adopted. According to the November 1993 Alliance
report, the repository was responsible for the following activities.
- Maintaining a central
database to include information on registered and permitted shippers and carriers.
If feasible, the repository should use other existing databases for this purpose.
- Providing online access
to the database for members of the agreement to enforce the agreement and
requirements under the Uniform Program.
- Maintaining an accurate
and current list of all states that, under their RCRA authority, require registration
and permits for transporting state-designated hazardous wastes that are not
listed in the hazardous materials table. The list shall include the definition
(i.e., characteristics and quantities) of such wastes as set forth in state
law or regulation.
- Managing the dispute
resolution process by which members of the agreement can resolve differences,
including differences regarding interpretation of the agreement. A dispute
resolution may also include mediation between a carrier or shipper and its
- Conducting an accreditation
process for state and local programs to ensure the integrity of the base state
- Designing, coordinating,
and/or conducting training for members of the agreement, states interested
in joining the agreement, localities, industry, and other interested parties.
- Serving as a national
clearinghouse for industry and other interested parties on state participation
and information related to exceptions (e.g., additional covered substances
that states determine to be hazardous wastes under their RCRA authority).
- Serving as a clearinghouse
for routing designations and restrictions while under contract to USDOT.
- Performing other appropriate
tasks as authorized by the Board to support administration of the agreement.
The staff performed the
following additional responsibilities for the pilot project:
- documenting the experiences
of the pilot states; and
- conducting onsite visits
to assess the extent to which the pilot states had adopted, and were operating
under, the provisions of the Alliance's Uniform Program.
The following information outlines the major activities conducted by NGA and
NCSL, which served as the interim repository during the course of the pilot
Meetings of the Board.
During the two-year demonstration, NGA and NCSL staffed five meetings of the
Board. Meeting support included securing meeting facilities and lodging; notifying
Board members and other interested parties; preparing briefing materials, especially
briefing papers on each issue for consideration by the Board; developing the
meeting agenda, and preparing and disseminating meeting minutes.
Working Sessions of the
Pilot States. Throughout the pilot project, the participating jurisdictions
and staff recognized the need for the states to get together on a regular basis
to share experiences, raise program issues, and develop recommendations for
consideration by the Board. NGA and NCSL facilitated three working sessions
and numerous conference calls among pilot state representatives.
Peer Reviews. NGA
and NCSL coordinated peer reviews in each of the four pilot states. Activities
included scheduling the peer reviews, developing the peer review forms, and
preparing summaries of the peer reviews for presentation to the Board. In addition,
each of the peer reviews was used as a pilot state working session. Therefore,
the staff developed an agenda of outstanding issues prior to each peer review.
Preparation of Program
Documents. The repository staff prepared drafts of the following program
documents during the demonstration project:
- Uniform Program state
- fee calculation worksheet;
- peer review form;
- revised application
- revised Uniform Program
- Uniform Program audit
Copies of these documents
were circulated to the Board and other interested parties for comment. With
the exception of the audit manual, which is still in draft form, the Board approved
each program document following discussion and amendments. [Note: The draft
audit manual was provided to the participating states in September 1995.] At
its January 1996 meeting in Reno, the Board agreed that the audit manual should
not be finalized until the states conducted more audits using the draft documents.
A copy of the draft audit manual is available upon request from NGA.
Development and Maintenance
of a Central Database. In March 1994, NGA contracted with BOSC Software
Developers to write a database program in which the pilot states could enter
basic information on motor carriers for which they were the base state, and
upload that information to a central database. The program would allow the pilot
states to query the central database; print Uniform Program credentials; and
enter information concerning major violations, suspensions, and revocations
of the Uniform Program permit and public complaints about permitted carriers.
The software package that
became know as the HazMat Alliance Registration and Permitting System (HARPS)
was delivered to the states in July 1994. Concurrently, NGA purchased an NT
server to serve as the central database. Although the software performed the
basic functions for state entry of data and printing of credentials, the link
to the central database was never implemented.
A full discussion of the
problems associated with HARPS and recommended changes are provided in Section
IV: Reciprocity Provisions of the Uniform Program.
Outreach to Other Interested
States. The Board and the Industry Advisory Panel both recognized that the
value of the Uniform Program to the regulated industry increased with the addition
of more states in which the national credential would be accepted in lieu of
individual state permits. Toward this end, the repository staff conducted briefings
in Wisconsin, New York, and Colorado aimed at soliciting additional participation
in the pilot. Although there was some interest, these states and others expressed
concerns about joining a program that was not yet authorized by USDOT under
its rulemaking authority in Section 22 of HMTUSA.
Evaluation of the Interim
Repository. To evaluate the interim repository, the participating state
survey asked each respondent to indicate his or her level of satisfaction with
the interim repository.
Maintenance of Central
Listing of State Programs
Management of Dispute
Management of Accreditation
Information and Assistance
to Participating Jurisdictions
Secretariat to the
The major area of concern
was the failure of HARPS to perform as promised. At its meeting in Boston in
May 1995, the Board requested that the staff work with staff of the participating
states to make HARPS more responsive to state needs. At the same time, the Board
also made a commitment to USDOT that any improvements in HARPS would be consistent
with the emerging Commercial Vehicle Information System Network, which will
be the information backbone of all ITS efforts in support of commercial vehicle
operations. As a result of this commitment, NGA has worked with the ITS program
to obtain the services of RSIS, a USDOT Section 8(a) contractor, to develop
the next version of HARPS. The HARPS 2.0 prototype was presented to the participating
states in December 1995, with a fully operational target date of June 1, 1996.
The second area of concern
focused on the timeliness and accuracy of information about existing state hazardous
materials registration and permitting programs. This information was needed
to determine whether applicants for the uniform permit were in compliance with
all state programs. NCSL addressed the states' concern by updating the information
in the state program matrix.
Finally, the states were
not completely satisfied with the assistance that NGA and NCSL provided both
in terms of its timeliness and scope. This concern is due largely to the fact
that both NGA and NCSL did not have the financial resources to devote full-time
staff to this project. This situation has become more critical based on the
lower level of federal financial support for the Alliance program year beginning
July 1, 1995. Even at this interim stage, the participating states require full-time
staff assistance, and the Alliance needs to secure adequate financial resources
to provide such assistance. Recommendations for full funding of a national repository
are outlined in Section VII.
Expenses of the Interim
Experience during the pilot
suggests that the repository needs a full-time staff. Under the current FHWA
funding, staff can only spend a portion of their time on Alliance activities.
As stated, this has affected the timeframe in which the staff has been able
to respond to requests for information from the pilot states. This situation
becomes more acute as more states enter the compact.
The repository must have
sufficient resources to ensure the quality of the central data function. It
also needs resources to support the peer review process. Finally, the repository
must have the resources to conduct Board meetings. It is anticipated that there
will be quarterly Board meetings. Emergency meetings may be needed, but, to
the extent possible, these will be issue-specific and handled through conference
Based on these assumptions,
the repository would need an annual budget of approximately $400,000. The estimated
annual budget includes the following.
Costs include salaries and fringe benefits for an executive director, a
mid-level staff assistant, and secretarial support.
Expenses include rent, equipment and furnishings, local and long- distance telephone
service, supplies, general copying, and postage and freight.
Based on the experience during the pilot, the staff recommends the following
subcontracts in addition to general liability insurance and accounting services.
To support the Board on legal issues, the repository should have access to legal
services on an as-needed basis. To facilitate the data requirements imposed
on participating jurisdictions, the repository should retain a computer specialist
to work with the automation managers in the lead agencies. To provide twenty-four-hour
access to basic information about the Uniform Program, the staff recommends
that the repository establish an Internet web site that would contain basic
information about participating states, state-designated hazardous wastes, Uniform
Program requirements, and a link by electronic mail to the repository.
budget includes travel for the eight Board members and two staff member to quarterly
Board meetings, for two state administrators and one staff for eight peer reviews,
and for one state administrator or staff to make up to ten technical assistance
trips per year. [Note: The budget does not include travel for attendance at
The budget includes room rental and audio/visual equipment for the quarterly
The budget includes the following printing costs:
- copies of the administrators'
manual for distribution to states and localities and for sale to industry
and other interested parties;
- briefing packets for
quarterly Board meetings, including copies for registered attendees;
- a quarterly newsletter
for distribution to states and trade organizations; it would also be posted
on the web site; and
- alliance stationary,
including envelopes, labels, and mailers.
The staff recommended that the budget include a contingency fund equal
to 5 percent of the estimated budget. This fund could be used, with approval
by the Board, for specific purposes such as an emergency Board meeting.
At the same meeting, the
staff proposed a method of funding the repository through an industry surcharge.
The Board tabled consideration of this proposal until its next meeting. (A discussion
of the industry surcharge is provided in Section VIII under Outstanding Issues.)
Section VII: Recommended
Changes to the Uniform Program Based on the Pilot Project Experience
Recommended changes to the
Uniform Program fell into three general categories. First, as the Board began
to develop procedures and policies, it adopted an initial set of program modifications
to clarify unresolved issues and to facilitate the pilot states' implementation
of the proposed Uniform Program. Second, on the basis of the pilot project evaluation,
the Board made numerous modifications to the registration and permitting application.
Finally, the complexity of the double-apportioned registration fee recommendation,
developed in response to the American Trucking Associations' (ATA) successful
challenge of many states' flat-fee structures, required additional attention.
Initial Uniform Program
On January 12, 1995, the
Board transmitted a number of amendments to the Uniform Program to the Secretary
of Transportation. The changes resulted primarily from questions that arose
once the pilot states began to focus on the methods by which they would administer
the base state registration and reciprocal permitting system. A description
of each of these amendments follows.
Complaint Tracking Under
the Public Participation Provisions. The Board adopted an amendment
to the program requiring that states report only the name, address, and phone
number of the complainant and the state in which the complaint was filed. The
repository complaint-tracking database will serve only as a pointer system.
All other information would be retained in the state in which the complaint
Calculation of the Percentage
of Hazardous Materials Activity. The Board amended Section V.F. of
the Uniform Program (pages 45 of the Alliance's final report) to offer
optional methods of calculating the percentage of hazardous materials activity.
The original provision required that the applicant provide the absolute percentage
by weight for less-than- truckload carriers and by percentage of placarded/marked
shipments for truckload shipments. The amended provision requires the applicant
to select either the absolute percentage or to select the mid-point of a ten-percentile
range. The states' experience during the pilot resulted in further amending
the provision to eliminate the use of absolute percentages. As of July 1, 1995,
all carriers must report their hazardous materials activity as falling within
one of the ten-percentile ranges.
Incidental Travel Between
States. The Board adopted a new provision that would permit participating
states to execute bilateral agreements with neighboring states to allow a carrier
that incidentally crosses state lines to report its activity as though it is
an intrastate carrier.
Definition of Terminals.
For purposes of the Uniform Program, the Board adopted the following definition
A facility owned, leased,
or operated by the applicant where:
- applicant's motor vehicles
used to carry hazardous materials are loaded, unloaded, or dispatched incidental
- applicant's motor vehicles
used to carry hazardous materials are cleaned, maintained, and inspected;
- applicant's motor vehicles
used to carry hazardous materials are fueled or repowered;
- applicant stores hazardous
materials incidental to transportation; and
- applicant maintains
its records, including vehicle-maintenance files and hours-of- service records
related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Definition of Power
Units. In Part I of the uniform application, an applicant is required
to report the average number of power units operated during the previous twelve-month
period (calendar or fiscal) on which the application is based. The following
power units are exempt from the reporting requirement:
- power units that do
not operate on public highways; and
- power units that do
not meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle as defined in 49 CFR
The Uniform Program Application
The Alliance wanted to use
the demonstration to test the following three assumptions related to the Uniform
- To the extent possible,
data required of carriers as part of the Uniform Program application process
should include only information that a motor carrier must collect and maintain
in the regular course of doing business.
- Data required by states
as part of the uniform state registration or permitting process shall be limited
to data elements that are specifically needed to meet the requirements of
the Uniform Program.
- To the extent possible,
the Alliance should use data from secondary sources for the purpose of reviewing
a motor carrier's qualifications to transport hazardous materials.
for Other Purposes. To evaluate the extent to which the 199495
application was consistent with this principle, for each data element, respondents
to the industry survey were asked, "Does your company maintain this information
for any other purpose?"
Of the thirteen data elements
in Part I of the application, most of the respondents indicated that they kept
this information for other purposes. At the high end of the scale, 90.9 percent
of the respondents indicated that they maintained information about numbers
displayed on their vehicles, the USDOT HazMat registration number, and the number
of power units. The lowest rated data element was the "percentage of hazardous
materials activity," for which only 65.9 percent of the respondents indicated
that they maintained this information.
Of the thirty data elements
in Part II of the application, again most of the respondents replied "yes"
to all of the data elements. Surprisingly, 34.10 percent of the respondents
said that they did not maintain information about registrations/permits that
were withdrawn, denied, suspended, or revoked. One explanation may be that they
do not maintain it because it does not apply to them. Of the eight data elements
in Part III, 75 percent of the respondents indicated that they do not maintain
fingerprint cards for any other purpose.
In general, it appears that
the data elements contained in the application do not violate the Alliance principle
to focus on information that is maintained by carriers for other purposes. In
one instance, a carrier suggested that it did not maintain IRP mileage but does
keep IFTA mileage, which would serve the same purpose. [Note: The Alliance had
already approved use of IFTA mileage as a substitute for IRP mileage in the
199596 Part I application.]
Relevance of Information
Requested. To evaluate the principle that data elements in the application
should be relevant to a determination of the carrier's qualifications, the staff
asked the pilot states to report the number of times an applicant's response
to a specific data element triggered a request for additional information, raised
questions about the carrier's qualifications, or was the basis for denying a
permit. The following table shows the number of times that each data element
served one or more of these purposes out of a total of 4,342 Part II applications
and 314 Part III applications.
Type of Carriage
Denied, Suspended, or Revoked
USDOT Safety Rating
HazMat Transport Fines
Data Element (continued)
Insurance Form Location
Insurance Policy Information
Emergency Plan Certification
HazMat Training Certification
Part III (covers
only applications processed to date)
Key Management Personnel
In most cases, the data
elements did raise questions about a carrier's fitness or were the basis for
denying a permit in one or more cases. However, as evidenced by the data, there
are data elements that did not serve this purpose. [Note: The above table represents
information for only those applications for which the base states had completed
the review process.]
Availability of Information
From Other Sources. Finally, the pilot state's use of the USDOT safety profiles
suggested that the information in SafetyNET was either more accurate or more
timely than the information provided by the applicant. The Board concluded that
certain data elements on the original application contained the same information
that was available from secondary sources.
However, there were instances
where information provided by the applicant and information contained in the
applicant's safety profile was inconsistent. In some cases, this happened because
the safety profile had not been updated. The Board expressed concern that a
carrier's application might be denied because the safety profile information
was incorrect. Therefore, the Board recommended that the accompanying application
instructions specifically inform carriers that their safety profile would be
used extensively during the application review, urge applicants to obtain a
copy of their profile and review it for accuracy prior to submitting a permit
application, and provide information on how to obtain a copy of the motor carrier
As a result of the review
of these three basic assumptions, the Board adopted the following modifications
to the Uniform Program application. A copy of the revised application and instructions
is provided as Appendix F.
The format of Part III was changed to match that of Parts I and II. Also,
a change was made in the way an applicant certifies that all information found
in the application is correct. Whereas previous versions of the application
had a signature line at the end of each part, the revised application has one
certification signature block in a separate Part IV that must be completed by
Several states requested
a place for state processing numbers in order to use bar-coding to track the
Uniform Program application. In addition, Part I (registration) was expanded
to two pages to make reading and entering the data easier. Jurisdictions asked
that instructions be inserted at the end of Parts I, II, and III indicating
that Part IV (general certifications) must be completed.
All references to the reporting
period for information in Parts II and III were changed from five to three years
to make the request coincide with the effective period of a Part II or Part
The following is a list
of other modifications to the Uniform Program application approved by the Board
during the pilot project.
Part I Modifications
- Section 4: "Contact
person" was changed to "Person to contact concerning this application"
to clarify that this individual is the person to call or fax concerning the
- Section 7: The contact's
fax number was added to facilitate communication with the carrier.
- Section 9a: Federal
representatives asked that this section be changed to read, "USDOT HazMat
Registration Number," to avoid confusion about what number the applicant
should provide. This language is consistent with the federal literature.
- Section 10: The language
was changed to read, "Phone number at which the carrier can be contacted,"
to ensure that the applicant provided a number associated directly with the
motor carrier, not an emergency response service (e.g., 800 number).
- Section 11: This new
item defines the twelve-month period for which the applicant is providing
- Section 12: In response
to applicants' concerns about aggregating fleet information, the instructions
were modified so that an applicant could file a separate Section 12 for each
fleet for which the applicant maintained IRP information.
- Section 12a: The data
request was changed to the average number of vehicles in its fleet over twelve
months rather than the total number.
- Section 12b: The revised
application includes the following three changes.
The applicant is requested
to report the IRP percentage under "Other North American" for Mexico
and Canada operations so that the total percentage for international carriers
will still approximate 100 percent.
- The applicant is asked
to provide the total percentage as a check to see that the sum of all the
percentages reported approximates 100 percent.
- Mileage information
maintained under IFTA was formally approved as an alternative method of calculating
percentages if the carrier did not register its vehicles under IRP.
Section 12c: In a further
modification of this data request, the option of reporting the absolute percentage
of hazardous materials activity was eliminated.
Part II Modifications
The following modifications
were made to sections of the application related to the general permitting of
hazardous materials transporters.
Section A.1: The data request
under "Corporate Structure"was changed as follows:
Type of carriage:
Language was inserted in
the instructions to explain that "other" includes government agencies.
- Section A.4: This data
request, related to hazardous materials transportation violations, was moved
to Section D, which now includes any data request related to major violations
associated with the transportation. Also, the new D.3 was written to reflect
that the applicant should only report state violations exceeding $1,000 to
make it consistent with other data requests in Section 4.
- Section B: The request
for information on permits held was moved from Part II to Part III.
- Sections E.1 and E.2:
Language was inserted requesting the carrier to provide specific information
regarding remedial actions and fines assessed exceeding $50,000 for cleanups.
- Section F: The Board
determined that information on tank trucks was useful for emergency response
planning. However, the mere existence of tank trucks in an applicant's fleet
was not relevant to the issue of a Part II permit. Therefore, this data element
was moved to Part I and modified so that the applicant reports the number
of tank trucks according to their capacity (above or below 3,500 gallons),
not by the specific MC/DOT designation.
- Section I: The data
request pertaining to financial responsibility was modified as follows.
The words "and will
maintain" were added to Section I.1 to expand the certification that previously
required the applicant to have the minimum coverage at the time of the application.
In addition, language was
added concerning financial responsibility requirements for intrastate motor
carriers, if applicable. Some intrastate carriers are not required to have the
federal levels of insurance, but state laws exist that require intrastate carriers
to carry insurance.
Section J.2: The certification
related to bulk packaging was corrected to accurately encompass 49 CFR 100 to
180 rather than 172 to 180.
- Section J.6: A new specific
certification related to the retention of shipping papers was added.
- Section J.7: The old
general certification related to all applicable laws was deleted and replaced
with a new specific certification related to compliance with the hours-of-
Part III Modifications:
- Section A: To facilitate
the base state's understanding of the applicant's corporate structure, the
data request relating to incorporation was amended to include a table of organization
showing the applicant's position in relationship to parent and subsidiary
firms and an organization chart of key management personnel.
- Section C.2: The two
states that used fingerprints as part of their background investigations reported
that the availability of fingerprints did not add to the state's ability to
assess the applicant's qualifications. Therefore, the fingerprint requirement
was deleted with one exception. If the initial background investigation of
any key management personnel raises questions about the identity of any person
for which information is provided, the state may request fingerprints for
the person whose identity is in question.
- Section D: The data
request for financial information was deleted based on its lack of value in
determining an applicant's qualifications.
Although the Board believes
that these amendments to the application significantly improve the registration
and permitting process, the Board is committed to continuously reexamining the
application form and instructions.
"Safe Harbor" Fee Formula
Although one objective of
the Uniform Program was to reduce the administrative burden on industry to obtain
state registrations and permits, it was not the Alliance's intention to change
the net revenues raised by the participating states for enhancement of hazardous
materials transportation safety. Therefore, one element of the pilot project
was to determine whether states could generate the necessary revenues to conduct
a hazardous materials transportation program under a base state registration
approach. As suspected, this issue had less to do with the design of the Uniform
Program than with the pilot states' adoption of the "safe harbor"
fee formula that addressed legal objections by ATA to flat registration fees.
Minnesota and Nevada both
elected to establish a registration fee of $30 per double- apportioned power
unit. Although Minnesota did not have a revenue amount established by law or
regulation, the total revenue of $159,585 was considerably less than the $500,000
to 700,000 anticipated for meeting program requirements.
Nevada statute requires
that fees "
pay the cost of inspection, issuing a permit and other
regulation." The Nevada Highway Patrol is also required to "... deposit
20 percent of the money collected from fees imposed pursuant to this section
with the state treasurer for credit to the contingency account for hazardous
materials (State Energy Response Commission)." Under its previous formula,
the state generated approximately $978,000 annually from a population of approximately
1,000 motor carriers. Under the double-apportioned formula, Nevada generated
$30,000 in total fees.
At the December 1994 meeting,
the Board examined whether the recommended safe harbor formula contained some
inherent flaw. Based on the discussion, the Board found the following.
- The variations of the
formula used by the states, particularly including permit review costs in
the apportioned registration fee, did not take full advantage of the revenue-
generating options under the fee structure.
- The states had established
artificially low rates per apportioned power units. These rates needed to
be recalculated based on the revenue requirements.
From the industry perspective,
the forty-five motor carriers responding to the industry survey reported that,
on average, they paid considerably less in registration fees to the pilot states
than they did in the previous year. The following table shows the average registration
paid this year under the Uniform Program compared with the average fee paid
the previous year.
Under the Uniform Program
Fees Last Year
Even if the double-apportioned
formula had the anticipated impact of changing the relative burden between intrastate
and interstate motor carriers; the net impact on state revenues should have
been minimal. Clearly this was not the case.
The discussion at the December
1995 Board meeting demonstrated that the pilot states were not clear on how
the formula evolved during the Alliance's deliberations. The design of the safe
harbor formula was based on the four potential roles that a participating state
might play in the Uniform Program. These include the following.
- Acting as an agent for
all participating states, collecting and distributing registration fees in
accordance with each participating state's registration fee structure. To
reimburse the base state for serving this function, industry supported the
inclusion of a registration processing fee.
- Collecting a registration
fee from each motor carrier that transports hazardous materials. Although
based on historical data from the previous year, the registration fee might
be called a "user fee" for operating on the state's highways during
the time covered by the registration or permit credentials. The safe harbor
formula calls for a double-apportioned fee that takes into account the percentage
of the motor carrier's operations in each state (based on IRP mileage) and
the percentage of the carrier's activity that involves transport of hazardous
materials. Hazardous materials activity for bulk carriers is based on the
percentage of placarded loads; for less-than-truckload carriers, the activity
is based on the percentage of hazardous materials cargo by weight. Revenues
generated through the double-apportioned formula may be used for any expenditure
associated with the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
- Reviewing Part II of
the Uniform Program application to determine the fitness of carriers to transport
hazardous materials. The amount of this charge should be based on the actual
cost of reviewing and then issuing or rejecting the Part II permit. A separate
fee associated with the review of Part II of the application can be assessed
only if the state has not included the cost of the application review in the
- Reviewing Part III of
the Uniform Program application to determine the fitness of carriers to transport
hazardous waste, if the participating state elects to use the Part III review
for hazardous waste transporters. The amount of this charge should be linked
to the actual cost of reviewing and then issuing or rejecting the Part III
For the current program
year, all of the pilot states elected to charge a $50 application processing
fee. Two statesNevada and Minnesotaestablished a $30 per power unit
rate for the double-apportioned registration fee. The other two states decided
to waive this fee during the first year of the pilot program to determine the
level of motor carrier participation before establishing a rate that would generate
the needed revenue. None of the pilot states elected to charge a separate Part
II review fee. Two statesMinnesota and Ohioelected to use the Part
III hazardous waste review. Minnesota assessed the applicant for the actual
cost of the review. Ohio had a $600 application fee and charged $39 per set
of fingerprints included in the Part III application.
The safe harbor formula
was not designed to reduce overall state revenues. Its purpose was solely to
address some of the equity issues, raised by interstate carriers in particular,
concerning flat fees. There was no question that the double-apportioned registration
fee shifts the revenue burden from interstate to intrastate carriers. The question
remains whether it shifts the burden too much.
An Alliance staff analysis
suggested that states should use the Part II review fee to bring revenues closer
in line with the cost to a state of administering the Uniform Program for each
carrier. The following example shows why including the Part II permit fee under
the general registration fee fails this test.
Carrier ABC, an interstate
carrier, is based in Nevada. Its IRP activity in Nevada is 10 percent. Its hazardous
materials activity is 25 percent. It reports 100 power units.
Carrier XYZ, an intrastate
carrier, has 100 percent of its mileage in Nevada and a 50 percent hazardous
materials activity. It reports ten power units.
Nevada charges a $50 processing
fee, a $30 per power unit registration fee, and no Part II review fee. Because
Nevada is not a Part III state, it does not charge a Part III review fee.
ABC pays the following amount to Nevada.
$50 per applicant
$30 per apportioned
power unit (100
units * .10 IRP * .25 HazMat
activity * $30 per power unit)
Part II Review Fee
Part III Review Fee
XYZ pays the following amount to Nevada.
$50 per applicant
$30 per apportioned
(10 units * 1.00 IRP * .5 hazmat
activity * $30 per power unit)
Part II Review Fee
Part III Review Fee
Assume that the Nevada Highway
Patrol (NHP) needs $250,000 annually to administer the program (i.e., for processing
registrations and reviewing Part II applications). For the pilot program, Nevada
serves as the base state for approximately 250 carriers. By using the registration
processing fee, NHP will generate $12,500. The remainder of the administrative
expenditures could be generated through the Part II review fee. For 250 carriers,
the average Part II review fee would be $950 per carrier. Because the Uniform
Program permit is good for three years, the Part II review fee at the time of
application should cover NHP's annual expenses for three years. Therefore, the
application fee at the time of the three-year permit would be $2,850.
[Note: There are limitations
on the specific uses of revenues generated by different elements of the fee
formula. Any funds generated through the registration processing fee, the Part
II review fee, and the Part III review fee must be used exclusively for administering
the Uniform Program requirements. If the state's registration program is the
vehicle for generating revenues for external activities (e.g., emergency response
planning and training and on-road enforcement), these funds can only be generated
through the general registration fee.]
Although this fee may seem
excessive, it should be compared with the fee schedule for the state's old permitting
program. The following table shows that the fee structure is not out of line.
The $450 increase represents
the shift in burden from interstate to intrastate carriers. Under Nevada's graduated
flat rate, an interstate carrier with one vehicle would pay $1,500 per year
for its permit or a total of $4,500 over three years. Under the Uniform Program,
a carrier would pay $2,925 the first year and $125 the second and third years
for a three-year total of $3,175, a decrease of $1,375.
An outstanding issue is
whether motor carriers would have a problem front-loading the three-year permit
review fee. A state could assess the review fee on an annual basis ($950 per
year), with the understanding that the payments are installments for review
of the Part II permit that is good for three years.
As long as the Part II review
fee is based on the actual costs to the state of reviewing an application, ATA
has indicated that it has no problem with the flat review fee. In addition,
the fee is charged by only the base state for issuing the Part II permit that
is good in all participating states. For carrier ABC, the fee in year one would
be $2,975. In year two and year three, the fee would be the apportioned $125.
Use of the Part II review
fee also addresses one other equity question. If one assumes that review of
the Part II application is generally the same for both an interstate and intrastate
carrier, the flat review fee equalizes this cost between the two categories
of carriers. If the state includes the Part II review in its general registration
fee, the burden for paying for the actual review is shifted to intrastate carriers.
Interstate carriers benefit from this system because they pay the Part II review
fee to the base state, compared with the current system under which they may
pay a permit fee to each state that requires a permit.
This analysis used Nevada
as the example, but the situation would be similar in each of the other pilot
states. Therefore, the staff recommended that each of the pilot states seriously
consider using the Part II review fee in the coming year and that the evaluation
of the safe harbor formula be postponed until the end of the second year of
the pilot. With better information about the number of carriers and the number
of power units covered by the program, states should be better able to project
revenues and establish appropriate fee rates.
Further staff analysis uncovered
a second reason why the double-apportioned formula resulted in such a dramatic
decrease in state hazardous materials revenues. States did not anticipate that
the IRP percentage for some carriers would be carried to the fifth and sixth
decimal place. Therefore, the registration fee to some states is infinitesimal.
For example, one Nevada-based carrier paid $1.26 in registration fees to Minnesota
under the current formula. In response to this finding, the Board recommended
that the safe harbor formula be modified so that the double-apportioned number
of hazardous materials power units be rounded up to the next whole number.
Section VIII: Summary and
After one full year of registering
and permitting motor carriers under the proposed Uniform Program, the Alliance
strongly believes that its recommendations meet and, in some cases, exceed the
uniformity mandate in Section 22 of HMTUSA. There are, however, program areas
that require additional attention. This section looks at the states' and industry's
general assessment of the Uniform Program and outlines major issues that need
to be considered by the Board and FHWA in the coming year.
State Assessment of the
Industry Assessment of the
Pilot state support for
the Uniform Program is best evidenced by the fact that all four states have
elected to continue to register and permit hazardous materials carriers under
the base state, reciprocal approach outlined in the Uniform Program. The term
pilot state was dropped from all references to participating jurisdictions as
of July 1, 1995.
From the states' perspective,
the next order of business is to bring other states under the Alliance umbrella
to increase the benefits of the Uniform Program credentials and to spread the
administrative load associated with multistate carriers across more participating
jurisdictions. Although several states have expressed varying levels of interest
in joining the Alliance, some have expressed concern about implementing a program
that might change significantly following the adoption of the federal regulation
governing the Uniform Program. This uncertainty about the final program requirements
has been the most significant barrier to expanding membership in the Alliance.
At its June 1995 meeting
in Boston, the Board approved a resolution to seek an amendment to Section 22
that would make the mandate consistent with similar uniformity mandates for
state motor carrier regulations in Section 4008 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991. The language on uniformity related to state motor carrier
registration under IRP and for fuel taxes under IFTA requires any state that
elects to register motor carrier vehicles to join IRP, and any state that wishes
to collect fuel taxes from motor carriers to do so in conformity with IFTA.
The Section 4008 mandates do not require that the specific requirements or procedures
of these two multistate agreements be promulgated as federal regulations.
The Board believes that
the Alliance has demonstrated its ability to create, implement, and oversee
a program that meets the Section 22 uniformity mandate without having the specifics
of the Uniform Program incorporated in federal regulations. Furthermore, if
the specific requirements and procedures associated with the Uniform Program
are established under federal rulemaking procedures, the Board believes that
it would greatly limit the Alliance's ability to adjust the program as conditions
Therefore, the Board recommends
that Congress amend Section 22 to read, "any jurisdiction that elects to
register and/or permit motor carriers to transport hazardous materials must
do so in conformity with the Uniform Program." Under this proposal, the
Secretary of Transportation would retain the authority to preempt any state
program or program provision that the Secretary ruled was inconsistent with
the uniformity mandate. In addition, Congress should establish a deadline of
not less than three years for compliance with the mandate, and similar to the
case with IRP and IFTA, provide some minimum level of financial support to the
Alliance to facilitate state entry into the Uniform Program.
While any state entering
the agreement would be required to conform with the amended Uniform Program
described in Appendix E, the Alliance recognizes that there are still outstanding
issues that must be addressed. The Alliance is committed to continuing the open
process used by the Alliance working group and the Board involving nonmember
states, the regulated industry, the federal government, and the general public
in resolving these issues. A discussion of outstanding issues follows.
As part of the industry
survey, motor carriers that had applied for permits in the four pilot states
were asked, "In general, do you believe that the Alliance Uniform Program
meets your expectations of a base state, reciprocal process for registering
and permitting carriers that transport hazardous materials and/or hazardous
Of the forty-five respondents,
twenty-seven (60%) answered "yes," and eighteen (40%) replied "no."
Of the twenty-five respondents who had applied for Part II hazardous materials
credentials, thirteen (52%) answered "no." In contrast, fourteen of
the twenty respondents who applied for Part III hazardous waste credentials
(70%) replied "yes."
The higher rate of disapproval
for Part II applicants seems to be a result of the fact that this is a new requirement
for many of them. Prior to the demonstration program, Minnesota, Ohio, and West
Virginia did not have a hazardous materials transportation permit requirement.
On the other hand, many hazardous waste transporters historically have been
subject to stringent state permitting requirements. In addition, the respondents
who had applied for Part III permits reported that the average cost of completing
the Uniform Program Part III permit was $433.65. These same carriers reported
that last year they averaged $20,436.13 in administrative costs to obtain the
required permits in each state. Therefore, the immediate benefits of a single
application are more evident to these carriers.
The following are excerpts
from the additional comments provided by respondents who answered "no"
when asked whether the Uniform Program met their expectations.
- "The application
was submitted to us with a short timeframe ... and then the deadline [for
issuing credentials] was extended through the issuance of the letter of filing.
It seems to be a standard course of operation that our government can extend
its own deadlines without penalty, yet expects industry to meet all deadlines
or suffer severe penalties .
My company has not received
any substantial savings in either cost or time from applying for the required
- "Part I, Section
12 does not allow for multiple IRP fleets
. Note that the IRP miles
do not reflect hazardous materials files. Total power units should be based
on the average number per year, not at the cut-off date."
- "To be uniform
[the program] should cover all states. It took from September to April to
get the credentials.
- The application is too
long. It requires information the carrier does not have. The enforcement division
of MNDOT was not properly briefed about the program. Simplify the application/instructions.
Do private fleets need to collect the same detail as for-hire carriers? Simplify
the fee calculation. State staff should have expert status on the application
process, its requirements, and why. Comparable to the Internal Revenue Service,
which does not take responsibility for incorrectly answering questions. Should
do a comprehensive audit the first time. Our application was sent back twice.
- The hazardous waste
portion of the application is overly burdensome and intrusive into the private
lives of individuals and should be amended, especially fingerprints."
- "Another way to
make paperwork and expense for those of us who already have too much."
- "The application
asks for too much detailed information that does not seem relevant to the
permitting process, such as fingerprints."
- "The form was too
long, and an excessive amount of time was needed to complete it. There should
be one set rate [review fee] regardless of base state. Once you have the permit,
you should not be required to fill out the form again. I also feel there should
be uniform hazardous materials regulations for all states."
- "I don't believe
that carriers should be assessed fees by the federal government and various
state governments to transport hazardous materials."
- "Obviously, the
Part III section of the application is creating significant delays in the
processing of these permits. We continue to oppose the Part III section as
unnecessary and burdensome to both industry and the states."
- "Training that
was provided by PUCO and the Ohio Trucking Association provided insight into
the requirements. The fees are not clearly identified and correlated to the
fee computation. It took a team of lawyers to decide what question D.3 meant.
The certifications are redundant."
- "The questions
were quite time consuming to answer. They were not relevant and many of the
questions are open to interpretation."
- "Instructions were
too complicated, not clear. It required phone calls for interpretations. If
all states had a uniform set of regulations, this would meet our needs."
- "Part III should
be thrown out entirely. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USDOT,
and state EPA hazardous waste should be rolled into one application and one
fee. If money is to be raised for enforcement, make all persons paynot
- "Generally in support
of the program. Some requirements seem unnecessary, especially in Part III.
Fingerprints are a problem. Concerned that there should be some control over
fee levels. A flat fee is appropriate."
- "Training and technical
people contacted for help were rude and bothered by calls. Acted as if we
were stupid for calling. Instructions were vague. Please write in simpler
- "One base state
and no single-state fees. Motor carriers' workload to process is unreasonable
and should be incorporated with federal registration. Fingerprint requirements
for waste handlers are unreasonable."
- "The costs don't
reflect the cost of placing the permit in each vehicle. Our estimated cost
is 100 hours or $40,000. The state should maintain a database with information
so that a trooper can verify the permit number."
Although a "yes"
response to this question indicated general support for the Uniform Program,
several respondents provided additional comments. The following are excerpts
from those comments.
- "The fingerprint
cards and information on management personnel went too far. Method of fee
calculation should be simplified. We disagree that information for hazardous
waste needs to be much more extreme than for hazardous materials."
- "Get it uniform
as soon as possible. States continue to impose and modify transportation fees
while the pilot program goes on. If the USDOT has a registration program and
that money is going back to the states, why do these individual states impose
their own fees? Where will it end?"
- "New Jersey has
not yet entered into IRP; therefore, I was not sure on this section of the
application (percentage IRP mileage in each state). I feel that the application
was complicated and very time consuming for the four states that were involved."
- "Add date completed
to the form."
- "Part III instigated
internal review of hazardous waste transportation. We made the decision to
discontinue transportation of hazardous waste. Recommend that program guidelines
and definitions be required to help consistency."
- "I strongly object
to the fingerprinting requirements. Financial disclosure is not necessary
to determine carrier's safety record."
- "Ohio needs to
correct its records and stop trying to impose fines on companies for not having
this permit, when in fact the permit is in place in the company's base state."
Industry concerns fell into
three categories. First, the application was longer than it needed to be. Second,
the formula for calculating fees is too complicated. Third, the program needs
to be uniform for all states. As noted in Section VII, the Board approved several
changes to simplify the application and to remove information requests that
did not appear relevant to the registration or permitting process. Concerning
the fee calculation formula, the Alliance reiterates that the safe harbor formula
is in response to ATA's opposition to flat fees, not the policy preference of
the Alliance or individual states. A final concern suggests that many carriers
did not understand that this was a pilot program to test a program that would
eventually be implemented by all states.
The following is a discussion
of the three major issues that the Alliance believed to be unresolved at the
end of the two-year pilot program.
At the June 1995 meeting in Boston, the Alliance considered a staff proposal
for an industry surcharge to fund the repository. The surcharge would be based
on the number of states in which a carrier reports IRP mileage (or its equivalent).
For example, if the surcharge was $5.00 per state and a carrier operated in
ten states, the annual surcharge would be $50.00. The surcharge formula would
be added to the fee worksheet.
have raised questions about applying the surcharge to all states in which the
carrier operates. Alternatives offered include applying the surcharge only to
participating states or to states in which the carrier transports hazardous
The proposal focused on
IRP states as the base for the following reasons.
- The amount of money
needed will not change. Therefore, a smaller base would require a higher rate.
For the 199495 program year, the four pilot states received permit applications
(Part I and II) from 4,342 carriers that reported that they cumulatively operate
in approximately 66,000 jurisdictions. A $5.00 per state surcharge would generate
$330,000. If one assumed that all 4,342 carriers operated in all four pilot
states, the cumulative number of jurisdictions would be approximately 17,000.
(It is know that this is not the case because the total number of carriers
includes many intrastate firms.) In this best case scenario it would take
a per-state surcharge of $19 or more to generate the same $330,000.
- Because the number of
participating jurisdictions will change from year to year, the base would
- Most carriers do not
segregate hazardous materials miles from IRP miles. Therefore, the Alliance
would be placing an additional recordkeeping requirement on many motor carriers.
- Finally, the Uniform
Program permit allows a carrier to transport hazardous materials in any state
in which it operates. This is the same rationale that the Alliance used when
asked by industry to drop the list of states on the credentials. Distinguishing
between hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials states raises on-road
enforcement issues and would require the applicant to take additional actions
if it decided to begin transporting hazardous materials in states where it
currently does not.
The surcharge rate would
be based on the annual funding requirements for the repository and the base
against which the surcharge would be applied. By February 28 of each year, the
staff would prepare a recommendation to the Board to approve the surcharge rate
based on the following:
- annual budget for the
repository to be approved at the same time;
- the number of carriers
and the cumulative number of states in which they report IRP for the previous
- any funding for the
repository received from an outside source (e.g., FHWA); and
- any surplus generated
from the rate charged during the previous year.
The Board would adopt the
budget and the surcharge rate by March 31.
At the Boston meeting, the
pilot states indicated that they might not be able to assess the industry surcharge
without legislative approval. Although they recognized that each state must
make a contribution to the repository operations, they questioned whether the
Alliance should mandate the method by which all states would collect that contribution.
For example, one state suggested that it might increase its registration fee
to cover its share of repository operations. Based on these questions, the Board
moved to table consideration of the industry surcharge until the next meeting.
Local Registration and
Permitting Programs. Throughout the pilot program, industry representatives
raised concerns about provisions in the Uniform Program that allow for local
registration and permitting programs. In general, industry representatives felt
that the local provisions were unnecessary because the congressional intent
of Section 22 included the elimination of local hazardous materials transportation
The Alliance maintains its
long-standing position that the language in HMTUSA is ambiguous. In fact, the
Alliance still questions whether the Secretary of Transportation could legally
apply the Uniform Program to local units of government because the language
in Section 22 refers only to state programs, and HMTUSA defines states as the
forty-eight contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Eliminating variance
in local registration and permitting programs seems to be a logical extension
of the Section 22 mandate. For that reason, the Alliance included provisions
that allowed for local registration and permitting but would require a locality
to accept the credentials issued by any other participating jurisdiction. Therefore,
a motor carrier would never be required to apply to more than one entity for
suggest that they intend to address this issue in the rulemaking process. However,
the Alliance contends that USDOT cannot preempt local programs through rulemaking
under the current Section 22 language. The Alliance believes that this issue
can only be addressed through congressional action that makes Congress' intent
on this issue explicit.
Relationship to Other
Safety Programs. In the spring of 1995, the Alliance staff had several
conversations with FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) concerning the continuation
of the Alliance Uniform Program following the completion of the currently funded
contract to pilot the recommendations contained in the Alliance Final Report.
This report was submitted to the Secretary of Transportation on November 17,
1995. In a January 12, 1994, letter to Associate Administrator George Reagle,
the Alliance stated that one of its objectives for the pilot was to examine
ways in which the requirements for hazardous materials transportation permits
under Section 8 (the federal permit) and Section 22 (the state uniformity mandate)
could be designed to avoid any unnecessary, duplicative requirement on the regulated
industry. The Alliance's informal position has been that the Alliance permit
review is more comprehensive than anything proposed to date by FHWA for the
Section 8 permit. Therefore, any motor carrier that meets this more comprehensive
Uniform Program review could be exempt from a less stringent federal requirement
(i.e., the Uniform Program credential would satisfy both Section 8 and Section
22 permit requirements).
In response, OMC officials
have indicated their desire to explore the possibility of a single permit requirement
through the creation of a working group of state and federal government officials
and industry representatives. One suggestion was to increase the membership
of the Alliance Interim Governing Board to include federal and industry representatives.
During these conversations,
OMC officials also suggested that they still have problems with the concept
of differing state and federal requirements. This raises some of the same questions
that emerged at the outset of the pilot when the preamble of FHWA Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (June 17, 1993) concerning Section 22 stated that the federal
program "would preempt only a state permit requirement dealing with transportation
of the same hazardous materials [designated as high-risk materials in the proposed
rule] and only to the extent such a state permit is based upon a demonstration
of safety fitness."
Furthermore, OMC officials
questioned the need for elements of the Uniform Program that they felt were
already covered under other federally sponsored activities such as the Compliance
Review and CVIS. They also suggested that state hazardous materials permits
might not be consistent with the department's goal of creating one-stop shopping
for all commercial vehicle credentials and permits.
The Alliance has continually
stated its objective to coordinate the Uniform Program with other federal and
state motor carrier programs. The Alliance Final Report includes the assumption,
"To the extent possible, the state Uniform Program will complement the
federal registration and permitting program." In Section 8 of the final
report, the Alliance made the following specific recommendations to the Secretary
- Explore options for
the consolidation of the state and federal registration programs, including
"USDOT contracting with states to administer the federal registration
program or elimination of the federal program, enabling states to increase
their own registration fees to cover the cost of a state and local emergency
planning and training program."
- "... Since the
uniform state program is more stringent than the federal program and includes
the USDOT safety rating as an evaluation criteria ... the Secretary [could]
waive the federal requirement for motor carriers that have obtained a permit
under the Uniform Program." [Note: At the time of the report, FHWA had
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking stating that the safety rating would
also be used as the standard for the Section 8 hazardous materials permit.]
- Promote a one-stop repository
for up-to-date information on hazardous materials routing designations by
eventually contracting with the Alliance repository to maintain an accessible
electronic database of designated routes.
At the June 1995 Board meeting,
FHWA officials made presentations on the status of federal motor carrier safety
initiatives. As programs such as CVIS become operational, these opportunities
will increase. It is in the Alliance's best interest to work with the federal,
state, and private entities that administer these programs to ensure that the
Uniform Program can take advantage of them and avoid duplication. None of these
programs diminishes the role of the Alliance and the Uniform Program as a means
by which states can regulate the safe transportation of hazardous materials
within their borders as authorized under Section 22 of HMTUSA.
Commitment to Continuous
As noted throughout this
report, the Alliance believes that the pilot program has served its primary
objectives of testing the provisions of the recommended Uniform Program and,
where appropriate, amending the Alliance's initial recommendations. However,
the process of implementing an effective and equitable program requires continuous
reassessment and, when necessary, amendment. Participating states and the staff
continue to receive inquiries from applicants, credentialed motor carriers,
and industry representatives about specific program requirements. These inquiries
raise legitimate issues that could not have been anticipated prior to the actual
implementation of the Uniform Program.
At the June 1995 meeting,
the Interim Governing Board agreed to continue serving in its capacity until
the effective date of the federal mandate. The Board is committed to continuously
monitoring the effectiveness of the Uniform Program and to responding to industry
inquiries. Resources permitting, the Alliance will issue annual updates to this
report following the conclusion of each program year.
Interim Governing Board and Staff
|Interim Governing Board
Nancy Brown - State of Kansas
Elmer Bietz - State of South
Stephen Hermann - Arizona Highway
Grace Goodman - New York City
James Rhode - Nevada Highway
Elizabeth M. Parker - Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Steven Lesser - Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio
Jami McClellan - West Virginia
Public Service Commission
National Governors' Association
Kyle E. Winston
National Conference of State Legislatures
Identification as a meeting attendee does not imply concurrence with this report
or any Alliance determination.
Larry Matz - California
Tom Ross - Colorado
Julia Pine - Illinois
Al Nardone - Minnesota
Ward Briggs- Minnesota
Chris Conway- Minnesota
Ted Coulianos- Minnesota
Linda Kolden- Minnesota
Peter Marcotte- Minnesota
Wes Pemble- Minnesota
David Jones- Minnesota
Shelley Meyer- Minnesota
Steven Peterson- Minnesota
Randy Zahn - Nevada
Dennis R. Colling
Joseph Grindley - Nevada
Gloria Hooper - Nevada
- New Hampshire
Cheryl Fortier - New
Kevin Auerbacker - Ohio
Alfred P. Agler - Ohio
John Canty - Ohio
Gregory Price - Ohio
Carlisle Smith - West
Loretta Bitner - West
Robert Brooks - West
- West Virginia
B.J. Pettigrew - West
Carl E. Sanders
- West Virginia
Carolyn Barr - Consolidated
Paul Bomgardner - American
Larry Davis - Ohio
Tank Truck Carriers
Cynthia Hilton - Association
of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters
James Magner - National
Private Truck Council
Joseph McDade - Yellow
Lisa Peterson - Minnesota
C.R. Preston - Conoco/DuPont
Scott Randall - Chemical
Robert Stanley - West
Virginia Trucking Association
John Thompson - BOC
Roger Wigen - 3M
Colorado Sierra Club
of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration
Darrin G. Jones
Carl M. Mochi
of Transportation - Research and Special Programs Administration
Pilot Program Events
Governing Board Meetings
Columbus, Ohio - November
Reno, Nevada - January
Charleston, West Virginia
- April 11-12, 1994
Denver, Colorado -
December 8-9, 1994
- June 1-2, 1995
Pilot State Peer
Carson City, Nevada
- November 14-15, 1994
Charleston, West Virginia
- January 23-24, 1995
St. Paul, Minnesota
- February 23-24, 1995
Columbus, Ohio - March
Pilot State Working
- July 12, 1993
St. Paul, Minnesota
- August 1-2, 1994
- May 1, 1995
The following is an alphabetical
listing of the briefing papers prepared by the Alliance staff for consideration
by the Interim Governing Board during the course of the two-year pilot program.
- Access by Localities
to the Alliance Database
- Accreditation of State
and Local Uniform Programs
- Alliance Repository
Expenses and Funding
- Calculation of Hazardous
Materials Activity for Non-Cargo Loads
- Clarification of Radioactive
Materials Transportation Elements
- Criteria for Review
of Part III of the Uniform Application Form
- Criteria for Review
of Registration and Permit
- Criteria for Reviewing
- Dispute Resolution
- Federal Freedom of Information
- Fee Collection and Distribution
- Future of the Alliance
Pilot State Program
- Incident/Violation Reporting
- Interim Governing Board
Membership and Duties
- Key Management Personnel
- Letters of Filing and
- Local Hazardous Materials
Registration and Permitting
- Membership of the Alliance
- Modifications to the
Uniform Program Application
- Nevada Pilot State Target
- Outline of State Program
- Permanent Governing
Board Membership and Duties
- Pilot Project Evaluation
- Point Scoring System
for the Uniform Application
- Power Unit Definition
- Procedures for Entry,
Revocation and Withdrawal
- Proposed Alliance Dispute
- Record Keeping Requirements
- Reimbursing Registration
Fees to Carriers Not Approved for a Part II Permit
- Relationship of the
Alliance Uniform Program to Other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Programs
- Repository Data Elements
- Repository Dues Structure
- Responsibility of States
That Perform Part III Reviews
- State Time Periods for
Reviewing Current Permits
- Transition Rules
APPENDIX E Revised
Proposed Uniform Program
This section contains a
description of the Uniform Program for state regulation of motor carriers that
transport hazardous materials developed by the Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation
Procedures (the Alliance). The Alliance adopted the original provisions by a
vote of twenty-two to one with one abstention on May 25, 1993, at its final
meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. The Alliance staff then submitted to the members
a draft program with specific language based on the policies adopted at the
St. Louis meeting. Following their review, a final revised program was presented
to the members on September 10, 1993. This revised version is the result of
a two-year pilot program conducted by the states of Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio,
and West Virginia.
A.The overriding policy
objective of the Uniform Program for regulating hazardous materials transportation
is the protection of public health and safety. The Uniform Program is designed
to promote safety through increased compliance with a single set of registration
and permitting requirements versus the existing myriad of state programs.
B.The primary purposes of
the registration provisions of the Uniform Program are to:
- Identify persons who
transport, ship or cause to be shipped hazardous materials by motor carriers,
- Generate revenues for
state programs that promote the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
C.The primary purpose of
the permitting provisions is to identify "qualified" motor carriers
of hazardous materials and to ensure states participating in the reciprocal
agreement that the base state has demonstrated due diligence in reviewing the
operations of the motor carrier in accordance with the policies and procedures
associated with the Uniform Program.
D.The Uniform Program will
apply only to those states that elect to regulate the transportation of hazardous
materials beyond any state role authorized under the federal registration, safety
permitting, and routing requirements under HMTUSA.
E.The subject matter of
Section 22 in no way restricts or affects the rights of states, political subdivisions
or Indian tribes or enact or enforce their laws governing the conduct of motor
carriers transporting hazardous materials within their jurisdictions under the
uniform national registration or permit. Jurisdictions, subject to the Uniform
Program, shall not be prohibited from enjoining or otherwise restraining the
operation of hazardous materials motor carriers in their state, based on violations
of federal laws or regulations, failure to comply with the terms and conditions
of a uniform permit or registration, or for violations of applicable state or
local laws and regulations.
G.Within the Uniform Program
there will be some flexibility for state administration. The primary area of
flexibility is the level of regulation within a given state. For example, a
state may choose only to register hazardous materials transporters.
H.Both interstate and intrastate
motor carriers shall be subject to the requirements and procedures adopted under
the base state agreement.
I.Both state registration
and permitting will be conducted under a base state approach. There will be
full reciprocity among participating states to accept registration and permits
and to enforce provisions of the Uniform Program that may result in suspension
or revocation of the motor carrier's right to transport hazardous materials
based on actions by that carrier within that state.
J.The Alliance's support
of reciprocity is contingent on the rights of states to maintain their individual
enforcement authority. This provision is not severable, and should the USDoT
reject the Alliance's position that state enforcement authority should be fully
preserved, the Alliance's support of reciprocity is withdrawn in its entirety.
Furthermore, USDoT's regulations should include language that, if a court of
competent jurisdiction determines that states may not, for cause, enjoin or
otherwise restrain the operation of an hazardous materials motor carrier in
their state, the provision for reciprocity among the states shall be deemed
non-severable and null and void. Should that occur, non-base states shall not
be required to honor permits issued by base states. (For purposes of the Uniform
Program, "for cause" is defined as "not arbitrary and capricious.")
K.Participating States will
be subject to some form of program audit or accreditation in order to ensure
accurate revenue collection and distribution and guarantee the integrity of
the reciprocity provisions of the Uniform Program.
L.While the Uniform Program
might draw from other base state agreements, the broad nature of hazardous materials
transportation regulation (identification, fee collection, permitting, safety
inspection) will require establishment of a separate, comprehensive base state
of the base state agreement will be administered by a national repository.
N.To the extent possible,
the state Uniform Program will complement the federal registration and permitting
O.The Alliance cannot mandate
the administrative structure for hazardous materials regulation within an individual
state. The Alliance, however, supports the concept of one-stop shopping for
all motor carrier registration and permitting and in-state coordination of all
agencies involved in the regulation of any hazardous materials.
P.Localities have a role
in the safe transport of hazardous materials, particularly related to emergency
planning and response. The Uniform Program should consider and make provision
for the ability of localities to carry out these responsibilities. Specific
policies and procedures governing the relationship between localities and their
respective states are internal state issues subject to parameters set forth
in the Uniform Program.
Q.Revenues generated through
registration fees shall be used by the state for purposes that enhance the safe
transportation of hazardous materials as mandated in HMTUSA.
R.Revenues generated through
permitting fees shall be used only to cover the costs associated with administering
the permit process. States may develop a fee structure associated with the level
of effort required to review individual applications as long as the state provides
an estimate of charges to the applicant and establishes an appeals process.
S.The Uniform Program regulations
promulgated under Section 22 shall not impede a state's ability to regulate
the generation, fixed storage, treatment, or disposal of any hazardous material,
waste, or substance authorized under other federal or state laws or regulations.
T.Data required by states
as part of the uniform registration or permitting process shall be limited to
data elements that are specifically needed to meet the requirements of the Uniform
U.No provisions of the Uniform
Program shall exceed the most stringent requirements contained within any of
the currently operating state hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or radioactive
materials transportation programs.
V.Where feasible, the application
shall not request information from carriers which is readily available and accessible
through secondary sources or databases.
II.Participation in a Base
A.All states (and localities,
where applicable) that elect to register and/or permit motor carriers to transport
hazardous materials and/or shippers to offer for transport and/or transport
hazardous materials shall belong to a base state agreement under which a registration
or permit in one jurisdiction is accepted by all jurisdictions.
B.The agreement shall be
authorized and generally defined in the federal regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Transportation under Section 22 of HMTUSA. Procedures and policies
associated with the agreement shall be adopted by the signatories to the agreement
("signatories"). Interpretation of the agreement shall be made by
a governing board that is representative of the signatories. Interpretations
of the agreement still must meet the uniformity criteria within HMTUSA and may
still be subject to a preemption determination by the Secretary.
associated with the implementation of the Uniform Program shall reside in a
national repository established by, and under the direction of, the governing
D.Financial support of the
governing board and national repository shall be provided by the participating
jurisdictions. The base state may pass through its contribution to the national
repository to the motor carriers registered by that base state. (See Section
XVI.D. for provisions related to repository budget and required revenues.)
III. Carriers and Shippers
Covered under the Uniform Program
A.The Uniform Program pertains
to all persons who offer for highway transportation or transport:
- Hazardous materials of
a type and amount that requires the transport vehicle to be placarded pursuant
to 49 CFR 172, or
- "Hazardous substances"
and/or "marine pollutants" when transported in bulk packaging as
defined in 49 CFR 171.8, or
- Hazardous waste of a
type and amount that requires the shipment to be accompanied by a Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest contained in 40 CFR 262, including "state designated
hazardous waste" means additional hazardous wastes that have been officially
determined by states that have been authorized by EPA to manage the RCRA program
within their respective states. To differentiate these wastes from those included
in the USDoT hazardous materials table, they will be referred to as "state-designated
wastes." Inclusion of these wastes are subject to the following conditions:
- The state registers these
"state-designated wastes" with the national repository.
- Registration and permitting
requirements placed on carriers and shippers to transport these "state-designated
wastes" are the same as those imposed for all general categories of hazardous
IV. Registration of Shippers
A.States that elect to register
shippers shall do so in the same manner as prescribed under the federal registration
program. The decision to include shippers in the state registration program
shall be determined by the individual states. The Alliance recommends that a
state's decision take into account the equitable distribution of financial burden
among all carriers and offerers of hazardous material.
B.State registration of
shippers shall apply only to offerers that maintain facilities in that state,
including distribution facilities, terminals, and warehouses.
C.Revenues generated from
shipper registration fees shall not be allocated among the states.
D.The state shall establish
an equitable and reasonable fee structure for shippers.
E.At the time a shipper
registers under the federal registration program, the shipper shall submit a
copy of its federal registration form with the appropriate fee to the state
agency designated to administer the program.
V. Registration of Motor
A.States that elect to register
motor carriers shall do so through a national base state system. States that
choose not to participate in the program may designate one other public entity
in the state to operate a registration program as long as such program is the
same as that for states in the Uniform Program.
B.The base state shall:
- Process the registration
form for each carrier for which it is the base state.
- Collect registration
fees for all participating jurisdictions that have a registration program
and in which the motor carrier reports mileage.
- Distribute fees to the
- Conduct the necessary
audits to ensure that the motor carrier is accurately reporting its hazardous
materials transportation activity.
- Transmit information
on carriers registered in that state to the national repository.
C.The state shall establish
an equitable and reasonable fee structure for carriers.
D.The Alliance strongly
encourages states to adopt a fee structure based on a company's apportioned
hazardous material transportation activity within each state. The apportioned
fee could be a per company or per vehicle fee. The level of hazardous material
transportation activity within a state shall be based on two factors: the percent
of activity in the state and the percentage of the motor carrier's total activity
that involves the transport of hazardous materials.
E.The percentage of activity
in each state shall be the same as the percentage of activity calculated for
purposes of the International Registration Plan. If a carrier is not required
to report mileage under IRP, it may choose an equivalent method to calculate
it's percentage of activity. Motor carriers that do not register their vehicles
through the IRP (or its equivalent) shall calculate mileage within states for
purposes of the Uniform Program in the same manner as that required for the
IRP, if no other method exists. A state may request evidence that the shipper
has filed its federal registration and paid the associated fees.
F.The percentage of hazardous
materials activity for less-than-truckload shipments shall be the weight of
all hazardous materials shipments divided by the total weight of all shipments
in the previous year. For truckload shipments, the percentage of hazardous materials
activity shall be the number of placarded or marked shipments divided by the
total number of shipments in the previous year. A carrier that transports both
less- than-truckload and truckload shipments of hazardous materials shall calculate
the percentage of hazardous materials activity on a proportional basis. Carriers
are required to mark one of ten ranges of hazardous materials activity on the
Uniform Program Application. However, if a motor carrier cannot by the nature
of their business calculate its hazardous materials activity then the base state
and motor carrier may search for an alternative calculation method acceptable
to the base state. The decision to pursue other options shall be based upon
- The applicant clearly
falls outside a category of carrier to which the adopted methods of calculating
activity percent apply.
- The applicant is making
a good faith effort to comply within the spirit of the Uniform Program.
- The base jurisdiction
determines BOTH that the assumptions on which the alternative methodology
are valid AND that the results or applying that methodology do not appear
to understate the applicant's liability.
- The base jurisdiction
informs the applicant that acceptance of the methodology and results during
the application process does not waive the right of the base jurisdiction
to verify the validity of the methodology and results through a desk or on-site
G.The registration shall
cover a one-year period and shall be based on the motor carrier's actual activity
for the previous year. Under the Uniform Program the carrier may choose a twelve
month reporting period equal to the calendar year, carrier's fiscal year, or
H.Each applicant must provide
a telephone number at which the MOTOR CARRIER can be contacted following an
incident or emergency. This number (which may be connected to voice-mail or
an answering machine) should be available 24 hours a day. This is not the emergency
response number provided on the shipping papers or manifest.
I.A motor carrier shall
register in the state that is its principal place of business. If such state
is not a signatory to the agreement, the motor carrier shall register in the
state in which it conducts a plurality of its operations. If a carrier feels
that a state other than its principal place of business or the state in which
it conducts a plurality of its activity is more appropriate as the base state,
the motor carrier may petition the governing board for designation of another
state as the base state.
J.Government agencies (federal,
state, and local) may be subject to the registration requirements under the
K.An intrastate carrier
in states that elect to register carriers shall show their allocation as 100
percent in the state in which it operates.
L.All data gathered for
purposes of registration shall be public information.
M.The base state shall provide
a Uniform Program credential to the motor carrier that indicates that carrier
is properly registered and able to transport hazardous materials in any participating
jurisdiction. A copy of the credential must be maintained in the cab of any
motor vehicle transporting hazardous materials under that credential. The identification
number is a unique identifier linked specifically to a particular motor carrier.
The number for a motor carrier that is registered shall be as follows:
- Uniform Program Registration-(Carrier
USDoT Census Number or ICC Number)- the issuing state's two letter state mailing
code. Example UPR- -AL. This shall be the unique identifier format for a carrier
that is registered only.
- Uniform Program Materials-(Carrier
USDoT Census Number or ICC Number)- the issuing state's two letter state mailing
code. Example UPM- -AL. This shall be the unique identifier format for a carrier
that is registered receives a Part II permit.
- Uniform Program Waste-(Carrier
USDoT Census Number or ICC Number)- the issuing state's two letter state mailing
code. Example UPW- -AL. This shall be the unique identifier format for a carrier
that is registered and received authority to transport hazardous waste in
a state requiring Part III approval.
- If a carrier does not
have either the USDoT or ICC numbers, then an ID number issued by the base
state may be substituted.
N.Under the Uniform Program
procedures states have up to 48 hours to process and return a registration only
application. If it is reasonable to expect the base state cannot process the
application in that time frame, the base state may issue a letter of filing
to the carrier. Refer to the section on transition rules for further explanation
of letters of filing.
Section VI. Permitting
A.The Alliance envisions
no additional requirements for permitting shippers of hazardous materials other
than those provided for under other federal and state laws and regulations.
VII. Permitting of Motor
A.Permit programs may be
operated at any level of government as long as such programs are uniform and
reciprocal. All entities issuing permits must use the uniform application form
and procedures and must accept a national permit issued by any other entity
that has an accredited program consistent with the Uniform Program.
B.A state that both registers
and permits shall use a single form for both processes. The registration information
shall appear as Part I of the permit application. Information relating to the
hazardous materials permit shall appear as Part II of the permit application.
C.A motor carrier shall
apply to its base state for a permit. The base state shall be the principal
place of business or the state that administers the permit program in which
the motor carrier conducts a plurality of its hazardous materials transportation
activity. If a carrier feels that a state other than its state of domicile or
state in which it conducts a plurality of its activity is more appropriate as
the base state, the motor carrier may petition the governing board for designation
of another state as the base state.
D.A state may require further
background disclosure for transporters of hazardous waste, or, low-level radioactive
waste requiring a manifest under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.
The information requirements associated with the background disclosure shall
be contained in Part III of the Uniform Program application.
E.If a carrier transports
hazardous waste and operates in any state that requires a Part III disclosure
("Part III State"), the motor carrier shall apply to its permitting
base state in accordance with subsection VII(C), above. If the base state does
not require the Part III disclosure, the base state shall forward Part III of
the application to the state that does require the Part III disclosure in which
the motor carrier records a plurality of its miles among all Part III states
in which the motor carrier operates.
F.The national permit confers
on a motor carrier the authority to transport hazardous materials in all states
that participate in the Uniform Program. The credentials for permits covered
under Part II and III of the Uniform Program shall be the same as the registration
credentials. To review the registration credentials please reference Section
G.The base state shall:
- Process the permitting
application for each carrier for which it serves as the base state.
- Collect the permit fee
associated with the costs to the state of issuing the permit.
- Conduct any pre-permit
investigation or audit.
- Issue indicia to the
company that must be carried inside each vehicle transporting hazardous materials.
- Determine whether violations
of the permitting requirements should result in suspension or revocation of
the national permit.
- Perform periodic reviews
of the motor carrier's operations.
H.The permit shall be valid
for a period of three years unless there is substantial change in the motor
carrier's operations during the permitting period. At the beginning of the second
and third year of the permit period, the motor carrier, as part of the annual
registration process, shall certify that there are no substantial differences
in its operations and reaffirm its certification to comply with applicable transportation
and environmental laws and regulations.
I.The company, in its permit
application, must certify that each vehicle and driver complies with the vehicle-specific
and driver-specific requirements.
J.The base state, based
on responses to "trigger" questions contained in the application,
may conduct additional investigations into a motor carrier's operation prior
to issuing a permit to determine that the motor carrier has, in fact, complied
with the certifications in the application.
K.Failure to comply with
the certification is grounds for denying, suspending, or revoking a permit.
L.Permit requirements for
all carriers of hazardous materials will appear in Part II of the uniform permit.
Additional information and requirements for carriers of hazardous waste and
low-level radioactive waste requiring a manifest under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulation will appear in Part III of the uniform permit.
M.Government agencies may
be subject to permitting requirements under the Uniform Program.
related to commercial relationships, routes, and specific products and financial
information gathered on individual motor carriers as part of the permitting
process shall be confidential and may only be used by the base state, other
states in which the motor carrier operates, and the national repository when
such information is required to enforce compliance with permitting requirements.
O.Commercial and financial
information provided by motor carriers for the express purposes of registration
or obtaining a permit will be treated as privileged and confidential.
P.Under the Uniform Program
procedures states have up to 30 days to process Part II of the application and
60 days for Part III. If it is reasonable to expect the base state cannot process
the application in that time frame, the base state may issue a letter of filing
to the carrier. Please reference the section on transition rules for further
information about letters of filing.
Q.Power Units For the purposes
of the Uniform Program, definition of a power unit is the same as "truck"
and "truck tractor" as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. The following categories
of vehicles may be excluded from the average reported:
- Vehicles that are used
exclusively for the transportation of personnel, as opposed to freight, including
fleet maintenance vehicles even if they incidentally carry some hazardous
materials for the purposes of maintenance on the fleet;
- Power units that do
not operate on public highways.
R.For the purposes of the
Uniform Program, "terminal" is defined as: a facility owned, leased
or operated by the applicant where the:
1,Applicant's motor vehicles
used to transport hazardous materials are loaded, unloaded or dispatched incidental
2.Applicant's motor vehicles
used to transport hazardous materials are cleaned, maintained or inspected;
3.Applicant's motor vehicles
are used to transport hazardous materials are fueled or repowered;
4.Applicant stores hazardous
materials incidental to transportation;
5.Applicant maintains records
related to the transport of hazardous materials including vehicle maintenance
files and hours-of-service records.
VIII. Selection of Base
A.In addition to the hierarchy
outlined above, the third option -- petitioning the governing board for designation
of a base state other than that provided for under option one (principal place
of business) or option two (plurality of mileage) -- requires that the state
that would be the base state under option one or option two must be consulted
with and must agree that any exception approved by the governing board furthers
administration of the base state agreement and does not allow the petitioning
carrier to evade any pending action by a state that would have been the base
state without exception.
B.The definition of principal
place of business shall be "the participating state in which the applicant
has an established place of business, where mileage is accrued by the fleet,
and where operational records of such fleet are maintained."
C.In cases where the federal
highway administration has authorized more than one alternate location for locating
records, the base state shall be the state in which the applicant shows a plurality
IX. Single-Trip Permits
and Incidental Travel Between States.
A.A motor carrier shall
not have the option of circumventing the full national permit application process
through issuance by any state of a single trip permit that implies any authority
to transport hazardous materials outside the state issuing the permit. Any state
issuing a single-trip permit shall inform the repository of such action for
purposes of informing the potential base state of the existence of a non-permitted
carrier domiciled in that state.
B.The manner in which a
state deals with a motor vehicle owned or operated by a non- permitted hazardous
materials carrier shall be governed by the laws and regulations of that state.
C.A base state shall have
the option to execute bilateral agreements with neighboring states to allow
a carrier who incidentally crosses state lines to report its activity as though
it is an intrastate carrier.
X. Transition Rules
A.When moving from a single-state
registration and permitting system to a base state approach a motor carrier
should not be unduly burdened by the transition.
B.If a motor carrier is
a credentialed operator in a state, the transition from single-state to base-state
system should not result in any interruption in authority to transport hazardous
materials in that state.
C.Motor carriers should
not be reassessed for registration fees paid to a state for the time period
covered by those paid fees.
D.On the day that a state
begins operating under the Uniform Program, if a carrier has an unexpired permit
for that state and has not obtained a uniform national permit, the state-specific
permit would remain valid until its expiration date. If the state is not yet
a participant in the Uniform Program (prior to the effective date for all states),
the motor carrier would need to reapply for a state-specific permit. Following
the effective date of the federal regulation the motor carrier would determine
its base state based on the established procedure. If the state has not joined
the Uniform Program, the state cannot enforce any other registration or permit
E.As states enter the Uniform
Program, they should notify their currently permitted motor carriers of the
new requirements at least 90 days prior to the expiration date of the current
permit. New hazardous materials carriers should contact the state(s) in which
they operate or the national repository to determine which states are participating
in the Uniform Program and which states still require state-specific permits.
F.During the transition
year a motor carrier's registration fee may be adjusted by a prorated credit
based on the period of overlap between the state-specific registration and the
G.A state may elect to waive
its registration fee for the program year in which there is an overlap between
the state-specific program and the Uniform Program. If the state waiving the
registration fee also happens to be the base state, it may still charge the
appropriate processing fee for handling the application on behalf of all other
H.To avoid shifting a motor
carrier's base state each year as new states join the Uniform Program, a motor
carrier should only have to switch base state once during the transition from
a voluntary program to a mandatory one based on the following criteria:
- To the extent possible,
the repository shall ask states to declare their intention under the Uniform
Program in terms of level of participation, i.e., whether they will be a Part
I, Part II, or Part III state and the regulated population of motor carriers
(e.g., hazardous waste only). Any statement of intent should not be viewed
as binding on the state.
- The repository will then
compile a table of all statements of intent.
- A motor carrier will
review the table to determine which state would be the base state under the
Uniform Program hierarchy following the effective date of the federal rule.
This state would be referred to as the permanent base state.
- If that state is not
a voluntary participant in the program, the motor carrier may select an interim
base state from among all the voluntary participants at the time the motor
carrier first applies for a national permit.
- The motor carrier will
remain based in the interim base state until such time that the permanent
base state enters the agreement.
- On the effective date
for all states, if the original permanent base state has not joined the agreement,
the motor carrier may select a new permanent base state from among all participating
states in accordance with the base state hierarchy.
- If at a later date the
carrier's state of domicile became a participating state, the motor carrier
may, but will not be required to, shift base state subject to the concurrence
by both the state of domicile and the current permanent base state.
- The interim base state
would be required to share information with the permanent base state to avoid
replication of a application requirement that the motor carrier had previously
XI. Letters of Filing
A.When the demand for processing
applications by a base state, particularly a new participating jurisdiction,
makes it unreasonable to complete application reviews within the timeframe established
under the Uniform Program, such state may issue a "letter of filing"
to indicate that a carrier is in compliance with the application requirements
of the Uniform Program.
B.Letters of filing should
contain an expiration date of no more than 365 days following the issuance of
the letter of filing. If necessary, subsequent letters of filing may be issued.
C.Letters of filing shall
only be issued to carriers that have filed complete applications. If the application
is incomplete, the base state shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies
and indicate that the issuance of the letter of filing is subject to the applicant
providing, in writing on the appropriate forms, the missing information.
D.Law enforcement officials
in all participating jurisdictions shall honor letters of filing as evidence
of temporary compliance with the Uniform Program.
XII. Owner/Operator Vehicles
A.A permitted motor carrier
that transport hazardous materials under its permit using owner/operator vehicles
is responsible for the operations of such vehicles and drivers, including all
assurances and certifications contained in the uniform permit, as if such vehicles
were owned and operated by the permitted carrier and the driver was employed
by the motor carrier, including providing information on the owner/operator
that would be required in the Part III business disclosure for hazardous waste
transporters. Violations of hazardous materials transportation requirements
that result from the operations of an owner/operator vehicle while operating
under a motor carrier's permit authority shall be viewed as violations by the
permitted motor carrier and shall be reported to the base state at the time
of future application or renewal of the national permit.
B.This provision does not
apply to instances when one motor carrier contracts with a second motor carrier.
In this case, the subcontractor must have its own national hazardous materials
transportation registration and/or permit issued under the Uniform Program.
For the purpose of the Uniform Program, a subcontractor is defined as "a
person or entity with whom a transporter of hazardous materials contracts to
perform a service related to the transportation of hazardous materials."
XIII. Local Regulatory
A.In addition to local registration
and permitting options outlined in other sections of this document, localities
may regulate routing in compliance with the procedures contained in HMTUSA and
subsequent federal regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
A.Enforcement of the Uniform
Program, by individual states, may be conducted through, but not limited to,
the following activities:
- Inspections. The
physical examination and certification of specific vehicles, tanks, containers,
cargo, and/or drivers.
- On-Site Reviews.
On-site examination of a carrier's or shipper's operations including physical
inspections and review of the company's operating systems.
- On-Site Audits.
Examination of a company's records to verify information on which a permit
is based and to determine compliance with the state Uniform Program requirements.
- Desk Audits. An
in-house review of a company's records sent by the company to the regulatory
agency, generally triggered by a suspected compliance violation.
- Reports. Periodic
reports that describe the motor carrier's activities.
- Roadside Inspections.
Inspections of vehicles and drivers while en route, primarily at weigh stations
and ports of entry.
- Spot Checks. Inspection
of vehicles and drivers by law enforcement officers based on probable cause
or statutory authority.
- Consumer Complaints.
Investigations of alleged violations triggered by a public inquiry.
- Cross-matching of
Data. Comparison of available data from two or more independent sources
(e.g., MCSAP inspections and hazardous material motor carrier registrations).
- Investigative Authority.
Use of subpoenas, depositions and other interrogatory powers.
B.The enforcement powers
listed above are available to both the base state for purposes of issuing, denying,
suspending, or revoking the national permit and to any other state in which
a motor carrier operates for purposes of investigating the carrier's operations
associated with the transportation of hazardous materials within that state.
States that have identified "state-designated hazardous wastes" as
provided for under subsection III(B) may use the enforcement authorities, outlined
above, to ensure safe transportation of such wastes.
C.Penalties for violation
of hazardous material transportation requirements, including restricting the
operations of a motor carrier within a non-base state, shall be those of the
state in which the violation occurs and is identified by state authorities.
Any revenues generated from penalties shall not be allocated among the states.
D.If a motor carrier is
restricted from operating in a non-base state at the time the Uniform Program
becomes effective, the restrictions in that state shall remain in effect until
the motor carrier satisfies the conditions on which the restriction was based.
E.Officials of the state
in which the violation occurs shall notify the base state and the national repository
of the violation.
F.The base state shall conduct
a review to determine whether the violation triggers potential suspension or
revocation of a registration or permit. The governing board shall oversee the
suspension and revocation process to ensure fairness and resolve disputes.
G.For cause, the base state
may suspend the national permit and determine the conditions under which the
suspension is lifted. If a national permit is revoked, before again transporting
hazardous materials, the motor carrier must reapply for a new national permit
under the full application process provided for under the Uniform Program.
H.The base state shall notify
the national repository of any pending actions against a shipper or carrier
that may result in suspension or revocation of a permit. The base state shall
notify the national repository of the final disposition of each case.
I.Violation of any requirement
imposed by an individual state (e.g., "state-designated hazardous wastes")
that is not also a violation of a requirement associated with the national permit
shall not be grounds for suspension or revocation of a carrier's national registration
J.Any base state that suspends
or revokes a registration or permit shall provide the suspended carrier with
a letter that details the reasons for the state's action and outlines steps
the motor carrier must take to be reinstated. The base state shall provide the
national repository with a copy of the letter of suspension or revocation.
K.To the extent possible,
enforcement of the uniform state hazardous materials transportation requirements
shall be conducted using existing enforcement standards and procedures under
state law and existing federal regulations.
XV. Dispute Resolution
A.The by-laws adopted by
the participating states shall include a process by which signatories to the
agreement may adopt policies and procedures for implementation of the Uniform
Program and that are necessary and proper to the administration of the Uniform
Program. The policies and procedures shall include specific procedures for dispute
B.The dispute resolution
procedures shall include procedures by which a non-base state can challenge
the issuance of a permit by the base state.
C.Such procedures shall
ensure an opportunity for public notice and participation in the development
of such policies and procedures.
D.Nothing in such procedures
prohibits a state or political subdivision, Indian tribe, and other person affected
by such policies and procedures from seeking redress in any administrative process
or court of competent jurisdiction.
XVI. National Repository
A.A national repository
shall be established to administer the base state agreement.
B.The repository shall report
to a governing board that is representative of the signatories to the agreement.
C.The repository shall have
the following functions:
- It shall maintain a central
database to include information on registered and permitted shippers and carriers.
If feasible, the repository should use other existing databases for this purpose.
- With the exception of
proprietary information related to commercial relationships, routing, specific
products and financial information, information in the database shall be made
available to the public, except for enforcement of the program on a need to
know basis. The repository may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of
providing public access to the database.
- Provide on-line access
to the database for members of the agreement for purposes of enforcing the
agreement and requirements under the Uniform Program.
- Maintain an accurate
and current listing of all states that require registration and permits for
transportation of state-designated hazardous wastes under their RCRA authority
that are not listed in the hazardous materials table. The list shall include
the definition (i.e., characteristics and quantities) of such wastes as set
forth in state law or regulation.
- Administer the dispute
resolution process by which members of the agreement can resolve differences
including interpretation of the agreement. Dispute resolution may also include
mediation between a carrier or shipper and its base state.
- Administer an accreditation
process for state and local programs to ensure the integrity of the base state
- Design, coordinate, and
conduct training for members of the agreement, states interested in joining
the agreement, localities, industry, and other interested parties.
- Netting of apportioned
registration fees among the member states.
- Serve as a national clearinghouse
for industry and other interested parties on state participation and information
related to exceptions (e.g., additional covered substances that states determine
to be hazardous wastes under their RCRA authority).
- Under contract to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, it may serve as a clearinghouse for routing
designations and restrictions.
- Perform other appropriate
tasks as authorized by the governing board to support administration of the
D.The repository shall be
funded through assessments of member states, and where applicable, localities.
The assessment shall be based on the number of shippers and carriers registered
or permitted by the state. The total amount generated through the assessment
shall not exceed the annual operating budget of the repository less any income
from other sources (e.g., federal grants or contracts). An annual budget and
projection of needed revenues through assessment of participating jurisdictions
will be presented to the Governing Board not less than six months prior to the
fiscal year for which the budget applies.
XVII. Public Participation
A.Public participation in
the base state permitting system is critical. Interested citizens must have
a mechanism for providing information into the system about specific carriers
who may constitute a threat to public health and safety.
B.The repository will establish
a comment and complaint tracking and retrieval function to promote public participation.
Citizens may alert a permitting authority that they wish to be contacted when
a specific motor carrier is being reviewed by registering their name telephone
number and address either with the repository or issuing agency. The names of
citizens who have lodged a complaint or comment shall be maintained in a central
database and indexed by carrier. When a state reviews an application, it shall
query the database for all registered names. Individuals who have registered
would then be notified by the base state of the pending application and given
the opportunity to provide additional information during the review process.
Individuals who request notification in writing with respect to a specific carrier
or a carrier operating in the requester's state without making a complaint also
would be notified through this process. Action taken on a permit application
would be communicated to individuals who had registered complaints about the
motor carrier. Parties outside the base state will have the same standing as
parties within the base state with regard to permit proceedings in the base
state. Interveners should exhaust administrative remedies prior to engaging
in litigation. The burden of proof shall be on the intervener.
C.The public shall have
access to information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and
proceedings of the governing board. Information on complaints shall be available
to the public (including the company against who a complaint is lodged) relative
to the evidence and nature of the complaint. Rules for appropriate protection
of anonymity shall be developed.
D.The Uniform Program requires
states to report only the name address and telephone number of complainant and
the state in which the complaint was filed. The repository will function only
as a complaint data base.
Appendix: 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
- Company name
- Mailing Address
for purposes of correspondence
- Street Address, if different
- Person to contact concerning
- Contact title
- Contact phone number
- Contact fax number
- USDoT motor carrier census
- ICC motor carrier number
- Intrastate carrier State
ID Number, if applicable
- USDoT, ICC, State ID
- USDoT HazMat Registration
- EPA transporter identification
number (where applicable)
- Does the carrier require
a uniform manifest
- 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
- Average number of cargo
tanks owned, operated, or leased
- Classes of hazardous
- 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.
- Corporate Structure
- Type of Carriage
- Type of Business
- Number of years the applicant
has transported general freight
- Number of years the applicant
has transported hazmat
- Permits Withdrawn, Denied,
Suspended, or Revoked
- USDoT Safety Rating
- Most recent USDoT Safety
- If unrated, has carrier
requested a safety rating
- History of applicants
major violations related to hazmat
- Assessed or paid fines
- 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
- Financial Responsibility
- Certification that the
applicant executed Form MCS82 or MCS90
- Location of the form
- Insurance Information
- Other Certifications
- Current commercial drivers
- Complies with USDoT bulk
- Emergency Response Plan
- State designated routing
- Training requirements
- Retention of shipping
- Hours of Service
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
- Facilities Owned and
- Identification of Key
- 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
- Renewal of Current Permit
- Acknowledging that Applicant
is Subject to Audit
- Certification of Accuracy
Revised Uniform Program
here to download copies of the application form in ZIP format
need to extract these GIF files and use a graphics viewer to see them properly).
Carrier Registration and Permit Application for the
Program of theAlliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation Procedures
General application instructions:
Annual Renewal of Three
- The application may
be submitted by mail or in person to the designated state agency in the applicant's
base state. (A list of designated agencies is provided as Attachment A to
- The application should
be completed by all motor carriers of hazardous materials who operate in states
that administer the registration and/or permit programs for hazardous materials
transporters, as indicated on the application cover page.
- The term "applicant"
as used in the application refers to the company or individual seeking a registration
- The application must
be completely filled out. Do not leave any item blank. If an
item does not apply to the applicant, write "N/A" and, if appropriate,
include a brief explanation.
- The application should
be computer processed, typewritten, or filled out clearly and neatly with
ink. Pencil will not be accepted. Illegible responses will result in your
application being returned for correction.
- If the space provided
on the form is not sufficient to answer any questions, attach additional sheets
(in the same dimensions as the application) to the back of the application.
Refer to the continuation sheet(s) on the original form.
- Remittance of all registration
and/or permit fees is required at the time the application is submitted to
the base state. The base state will not process the application unless all
applicable fees are enclosed.
- All questions and all
information requested shall be answered completely and truthfully. Fraudulent,
deceptive, or misleading answers may result in denial or revocation of permit
and potential initiation of enforcement activities. Applications will be returned
to applicant if requested information is missing or omitted. Applicant is
expected to make reasonable efforts to check his/her company records so that
complete and accurate answers are provided. Falsification may subject applicant
to additional penalties as provided for under state law.
- If the applicant encounters
difficulty in completing the form or has any questions, please contact the
base state for assistance. Correcting errors before submitting the form will
greatly reduce the possibility of enforcement actions and/or delays due to
return of your submittal for amendment.
- After completing all
applicable sections (Parts I-III), the information must be certified by an
authorized representative of the applicant in Part IV.
A permit issued under the
Uniform Program is valid for three years, if and only if, for the second and
third years in which the permit is valid, the carrier registers using Parts
I and IV of the Uniform Program application and submits all required registration
fees. If a participating jurisdiction levies a Part II or Part III review fee,
such fee is to be paid only in those years in which the applicant must submit
Part II and/or Part III of the application. It should not be paid in years in
which the applicant is subject only to the annual registration.
[Note: In order to stagger
review of the three year permit, permits issued by Ohio in 1995 are valid for
a period of two, three, or four years. Ohio will inform a carrier as to the
time period in which the initial period is valid. Subsequent permits for Ohio-based
carriers will be for three years in accordance with the Uniform Program.
Identification of an Applicant's
All applicants shall use
the following procedures for determining the base state to which the applicant
MUST submit its application for registration and/or permit under the Uniform
a.Determine the nature of
the applicant's hazardous materials transportation activity (i.e., hazardous
materials, hazardous waste, and/or radioactive materials) and the states in
which it transports these materials.
b.States have the option
of administering the following levels of the Uniform Program:
1)only a registration program
2)a registration and a permit
program (Parts I and II), or
3)a registration, permit,
and hazardous waste disclosure program (Parts I, II and III).
The applicant must first
determine the states in which it operates and the program "level"
operated by each of the states in which it operates. See Appendix A of the application
for a listing of participating jurisdictions and their program level.
c.Once the applicant has
made the determination above, the applicant MUST use the following hierarchy
for selecting the correct base state.
If a motor carrier does
not operate in a state that is a participating jurisdiction, the carrier is
not subject to the Uniform Program and need not submit an application for a
registration and/or permit.
If a motor carrier operates
only in a state or states that require only the Uniform Program registration
(Part I), the motor carrier's base state shall be:
(A)the state that is the
motor carrier's principal place of business, i.e., where the applicant maintains
its central records related to the transportation of hazardous materials, or
(B)if the state that is
the motor carrier's principal place of business is not participating in the
Uniform Program, the state that is a participating jurisdiction in which the
motor carrier records a plurality of total miles traveled based on the percentages
report in Part I, Section 12b of the application (page A-2).
If a motor carrier operates
in one or more states that require the Uniform Program permit, the motor carrier's
base state shall be:
(A)the state that is the
motor carrier's principal place of business, if such a state is a participating
jurisdiction and requires the national permit; or
(B)if the state that is
the motor carrier's principal place of business is not a participating jurisdiction
or does not require the national permit, the state that is a signatory and requires
the national permit in which the motor carrier records a plurality of the total
(C)if the applicant transports
hazardous waste in a state that requires the Part III disclosure, the applicant
should STILL submit its application to the state identified above regardless
of whether it requires Part III.. That state, if not a Part III state, will
subcontract with the Part III state in which the applicant reports a plurality
of miles in Part I, Section 12b of the application.
A motor carrier may request
that the Governing Board approve a participating jurisdiction as the base state
other than that identified by the method set above, if, and only if, the following
criteria are satisfied:
(A)such request is not based
on an attempt by the motor carrier to circumvent any requirement of the Uniform
Program or avoid enforcement of the program requirements by its current base
state or any other participating jurisdiction;
(B)approval of the request
will improve administration of the Uniform Program; and
(C)the Governing Board consults
with the jurisdiction that would otherwise be the base state and such jurisdiction
concurs with the motor carrier's request.
Part I.Registration Application
1. Provide the name of the
applicant company. All motor carriers of hazardous materials who operate in
a state(s) that administers the Uniform Program must apply to the base state.
1b. If the base state determines
that the applicant has miscalculated its program fees resulting in a refund,
the administering agency will need the Employer ID Number in order to issue
a refund. Providing this optional information request at the time of application
will expedite the refund process.
2. Provide the mailing address
for the applicant.
3. Provide the street address
of the location where records are kept, if different from the mailing address.
4. Provide the name of the
person within the applicant company who should be contacted concerning any questions
or requests for additional information regarding the Uniform Program application.
5. Provide the contact's
6. Provide the contact's
7. Provide the contact's
8a. Provide the applicant's
USDoT Motor Carrier Number as defined in 49 CFR Part 391.21.
8b. Provide the identifying
number issued to the applicant by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
8c. For intrastate carriers,
provide the state identification number, if one is issued by the state motor
8d. Indicate which of the
above numbers is displayed on the applicant's vehicles by placing a check or
"x" in the appropriate boxes..
9a. Provide the USDoT HazMat
Registration Number issued to the applicant by the US Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration. If the applicant does not carry
hazardous materials of a type or quantity that requires a federal hazardous
materials registration number, please put "N/A" in the space provided.
9b. Provide EPA Identification
Number(s), if the applicant company is required to have such number in accordance
with federal requirements for transporting hazardous waste under 40 CFR 263.11.
If the applicant's services does not require an EPA ID number, please put "N/A"
in the space provided.
9c. Indicate whether the
applicant company transports hazardous waste subject to the manifest requirements
of 40 CFR 262.20 et. seq., or applicable state law relating to the Uniform Hazardous
10. Provide a 24-hour phone
number where the CARRIER may be contacted in case of an incident or emergency
involving a power unit owned or operated by the applicant company. This number
can include voice-mail, an answering machine, or an answering service during
non-business hours. This number CANNOT be the number for a commercial emergency
response telephone service such as Chemtrec.
11. Indicate the 12 month
period for which information in this application is provided. The applicant
may use the calendar year, fiscal year, or program year (e.g., IRP registration
year). If the applicant elects to change the reporting year in a subsequent
application, the applicant must inform the base state of its intention.
12a.Applicant shall provide
the average number of power units owned, leased or operated for the time period
indicated in Part 1, Section 11 on page A-1. For purposes of the Uniform Program,
the definition of a power unit is the same as "truck" and "truck
tractor" as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. The following categories of vehicles
may be excluded from the average reported.
- Vehicles that are used
exclusively for the transportation of personnel, as opposed to freight, including
fleet maintenance vehicles.
- Power units that do
not operate on public highways.
12b.Applicant shall provide
the International Registration Plan (IRP) percentages (or their equivalent)
for miles traveled in each state for the previous IRP reporting year. All percentages
should be rounded to two decimal places (e.g., 13.247 percent should be reported
as 13.25 percent) and the sum of these percentages must equal 100 percent. Spreadsheets
with this information (on 8.5 x 11 inch letter-size paper) may be substituted
for Section 12b, but must be referenced in Section 12b of the application. Intrastate
carriers should allocate 100 percent to the state in which they operate.
If a carrier maintains IRP
mileage, it must use its IRP percentages. If the carrier maintains IFTA fuel
tax reporting mileage, but not IRP mileage, it must use the IFTA percentages
for this purpose. If the carrier does not maintain mileage records for either
IRP or IFTA, the carrier must calculate the apportioned mileage and provide
a brief explanation of the methodology used to calculate the percentages.
NOTE TO NEW CARRIERS: A
carrier that has operated for less than 12 months should estimate the IRP mileage
percentages (or their equivalent) for the states in which it anticipates it
will operate. When the applicant applies for renewal in the subsequent year,
the base state will compare the estimate with the actual mileage and may adjust
the carrier's registration fees accordingly.
12c.Each applicant must
provide the percentage of its operations that can be considered transportation
of hazardous materials. The percentage of hazardous materials activity for less-than-truckload
shipments shall be the weight of all hazardous materials shipments divided by
the total weight of all shipments for either the last calendar year or the applicant's
fiscal year. For truckload shipments, the percentage of hazardous materials
activity shall be the number of placarded or marked shipments divided by the
total number of shipments for the most recent 12 month period for which this
information is available. A carrier that transports both less- than-truckload
and truckload shipments of hazardous materials shall calculate the percentage
of hazardous materials activity on a proportional basis.
The applicant should place
a check mark in the box next to the range that corresponds to the percentage
of the applicant's total operations that involves the transportation of hazardous
materials. Any worksheets or documentation that supports the applicant's answer
to this item should be retained and are subject to review during an audit of
the carrier's operations.
NOTE TO NEW CARRIERS: A
carrier that has operated for less than 12 months should estimate the percentage
of its activity which involves the transportation of hazardous materials. When
the applicant applies for renewal in the subsequent year, the base state will
compare the estimate with the actual hazardous materials activity percentage
and may adjust the carrier's registration fees accordingly.
13. If the applicant owns,
leases, or operates cargo tanks, please provide the average number of units
for each category in the space provided. Otherwise, please put "NONE"
in the space provided.
14. Mark each class and
division of hazardous materials that the applicant expects to transport during
the registration period covered by this application.
15. Provide the total amount
of fees submitted with the application. The total should include:
- the application processing
- registration fees for
participating states (if applicable),
- the Part II permit review
fee (if applicable), and
- the Part III permit
review fee (if applicable).
To calculate the appropriate
fees, each applicant MUST USE the Uniform Program Fee Worksheet (pages W-1 through
W-4) of the application and SUBMIT a copy of the completed worksheet with the
Part II. Permit Application
Note: Questions B, D,
and E may trigger a request from the base state for additional information from
All motor carriers of
hazardous materials that operate in states that require a permit under the Uniform
Program must submit the application to the base state. A prerequisite to a permit
application (Part II) is completion of the registration application (Part I).
Methods for determining the base state are described under Part I, section A,
Section A: Corporate Structure
- Mark the type of carriage
(private or for hire) the applicant conducts. If other (e.g. government agency),
- Mark the type of business
structure of the applicant. If your type of business is not listed, mark "other"
3a. Provide the number of
years the applicant has been in the business as a commercial motor carrier under
the current name.
3b. Provide the number of
years the applicant has transported hazardous materials under the current name.
Section B: Permits Withdrawn,
denied, Suspended, or Revoked
Indicate yes or no. If yes,
list and explain any hazardous materials transportation registration/permit/licenses
held by the applicant in the last three years that have been withdrawn, denied,
suspended, or revoked. For each event, provide
- the action taken,
- the reason for that
- date of the action,
- the type of permit or
registration involved, and
- any reinstatement of
This information should
be provided as Attachment II.B to the application.
(A "yes" answer
with an inadequate explanation will trigger a request to the applicant for more
detailed information about the circumstances in question. The base state also
will contact the jurisdiction(s) that took the action(s) to determine whether
the deficiencies that precipitated the action have been resolved.)
Section C: USDoT Safety
1. Provide the applicant's
most recent USDoT Safety Rating issued by FHWA Office of Motor Carriers.
NOTE: Before submitting
an application, the Alliance recommends that an applicant obtain a copy of its
carrier safety profile (CSP) and, if necessary, attach a listing of any discrepancies
in the report to the application. You can obtain your CSP by contacting:
MCMIS DATA DISSEMINATION
Post Office Box 13028
Arlington, VA 22219
The charge for each carrier
profile is $27.50.
2. If the applicant is unrated,
attach a letter or other evidence of the applicant's request for a safety rating.
The letter should be provided as Attachment II.C.2 to this application.
NOTE: Any change in the
applicant's safety rating, while a Uniform Program permit is in effect, must
be reported immediately to the base state.
Section D: History of Applicant's
Major Violations Related to the Transportation of Hazardous Materials
1. Indicate yes or no. If
yes, list federal, state and local fines over $1,000 that the applicant has
been assessed or paid for hazardous materials transportation violations in the
last three years, including pending violations. Include all hazardous waste
For each violation, provide
the requested information.
- Date of assessment
- Issuing agency
- Type of violation
- Type of hazardous material
- Final agency assessment
- This information should
be provided as Attachment II.D.1 to this application.
Persons completing the application
should check with company officials knowledgeable about such fines and violations
to ensure full and acceptable disclosure. (Any violations may trigger a request
for additional information, including but not limited to interviews with the
jurisdictions that imposed fines and interviews with appropriate company officials.)
2. Indicate yes or no. If
applicant has been fined or convicted in last three years for transporting hazardous
materials without a license, permit, registration, or similar type of credential,
please provide the following information.
- Date of fine/conviction
- Issuing agency
- Type of violation
- Type of hazardous materials
- This information should
be provided as Attachment II.D.2 to this application.
(A "yes" answer
may trigger a request for more detailed information on convictions and penalties.
The base state may interview representatives of the jurisdictions that discovered
the violation to gain details.)
3. Answer yes or no as to
whether the applicant's parent company, any subsidiary and/or corporate officer
or director of the parent or any subsidiary has been convicted, assessed, paid
or otherwise found culpable in legal proceedings related to hazardous materials
transportation at the federal, state, tribal or local level in the last three
years. If yes, provide the requested information for each conviction, fine,
- Date of the action
- Nature of the violation
- Cause or reason for the
- Remedial action taken
to mitigate the situation, if any.
- Provide this information
as Attachment II.D.3 to the application.
- (The base state may request
documentation of such legal proceedings from the applicant, if appropriate.)
Section E: Reportable Hazardous
Materials Transportation Incidents
Indicate yes or no. If yes,
provide the requested information for each instance in which the applicant was
involved in an incident involving hazardous materials related to the information
asked on this section of the application.
For each incident, reportable
under 49 CFR 171.15(a)(1), provide the following information.
- Cause of the incident
- Details of the remediation
- Agency that supervised
- Provide this information
as Attachment II.E to the application.
(An inadequate explanation
will trigger a request for additional information about such incidents. The
base state may contact the jurisdiction where the incident(s) occurred for more
information. The base state may ask for a copy of the applicant's emergency
response plan and details of its hazardous materials employee training program.)
Section F: Terminals
List the number of and address
of all applicable terminals owned and operated by the applicant.