Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Review of State Hazardous Materials Transportation Compliance Programs

3.0 Identification of States with Comprehensive Hazmat Transportation Compliance Programs and Exemplary Initiatives

4.0 Review of Selected State Hazmat Compliance Program Activities and Identification of Exemplary Practices

5.0 Summary

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire

Appendix B. Composite Measurement Index

List of Tables

Table 1. Review of FY01 MCSAP Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans: Hazmat Programs
Table 2. State Agencies with Authority over Hazmat Carriers and/or Shippers
Table 3. Elements Routinely Checked in Roadside Hazmat Safety Inspections
Table 4. Hazmat Carrier Compliance Reviews
Table 5. State Selection Criteria Used for Carrier Compliance Reviews
Table 6. Performance Measures Used to Evaluate Hazmat Program Effectiveness
Table 7. Special Activities or Strategies Used for State Hazmat Compliance Programs
Table 8. State Hazmat Education and Outreach Program Descriptions
Table 9. State Hazmat Training Activities
Table 10. State Hazmat Security Activity Planned or Implemented
Table 11. Agency Responsibilities in the Eight Selected States for Each Program Element
Table 12. Hazmat Roadside Inspection Activity in Study States: 2000

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this project is to review the state of the practice for state hazardous materials (HM) transportation compliance programs and to identify exemplary initiatives and programs that could serve as a model for other states to consider. Battelle collaborated with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) to conduct this study on behalf of the Hazardous Materials Division in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

A two-step process was used to gather the required information: (1) a comprehensive survey and analysis of all state hazmat programs, and (2) a selection of eight states for more in-depth study to identify unique or exemplary initiatives that may be of interest to other states. It is recognized that most states have similar overall programs for regulating hazmat transportation in order to be consistent with Federal requirements and as part of the MCSAP grant program. However, not all states are the same in the manner in which they implement their programs and some state processes are more effective than others. Some states may have a different perspective and a unique way of achieving their program goals. The purpose of this project was to look across all state programs and identify highly effective or exemplary programs, as appropriate

The first step was to review the status of state programs by extracting information related to hazardous materials from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs) submitted by each state as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grant Program (MCSAP). Using this information, and working with CVSA and FMCSA, Battelle developed a survey/questionnaire to gather more detailed information on the state compliance and enforcement programs related directly to hazardous materials. This step and the results of the survey are discussed in Section 2 in this report.

The second step was to identify a select number of states for further in-depth review including site visits and interviews. It was not intended that these states necessarily have the "best" compliance programs, but that they have a comprehensive and effective overall program based on the results of the survey analysis. A methodology was developed to select eight states for site visits and this process is described in Section 3 of this report. In Section 4, we identify exemplary programs or initiatives based on the analysis of information gathered from the site visits and interviews.

Each of the individual programs highlighted in this report has been successfully implemented in their respective states and is believed to produce substantial benefits; however, they cannot be definitively shown to warrant immediate implementation in all jurisdictions. While some states were able to demonstrate measurable benefits, such as California with their Commercial Industry Education Program (CIEP), most states are not able to identify the benefits for each element of their overall programs. Each state presents its unique set of industries, geography, climate, hazmat traffic volumes, responsible agencies, and budgetary constraints. Programs that are effective in large states may prove to be hard to implement in smaller states with fewer resources. The CIEP, for example, involves 8 coordinators and 45 trained instructors and provides free training for up to 35,000 employees/drivers each year. Even after adjusting for state size, a smaller state may find such a program to be too large.

2.0 Review of State Hazardous Materials Transportation Compliance Programs

The technical approach taken by Battelle to document state hazmat compliance and enforcement initiatives was to: (a) review the FY01 Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs) submitted to FMCSA under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and (b) develop a survey questionnaire for the states based on the information from the CVSPs for the purpose of updating and confirming information and to document each state's authority to conduct hazmat enforcement activities beyond roadside inspection such as shipper audits. CVSA, a member of the Battelle team, played a key role in the development of the questionnaire. Feedback from the FMCSA Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) was received and incorporated into the survey questionnaire.

2.1 Review of FY 2001 MCSAP Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans

The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) provides funds to states and territories annually, on a Federal fiscal year (FY) basis. There are two components to MCSAP funding: a basic grant that is formula-driven by legislation and incentive grants that are performance-driven and discretionary. Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs) are required to be submitted under MCSAP certification for funds and the plans include state identification of performance measures to evaluate the programs. The CVSPs were considered by the Battelle team to be the best source of existing information on hazmat compliance and enforcement at the state level, although it was recognized that the hazmat information available in the CVSPs was limited.

The CVSPs for FY 2001 were reviewed to determine if the states included a specific reference to their hazmat compliance and enforcement programs or a description of activities related to hazmat inspection and enforcement initiatives. The information obtained from the CVSP review was used to assist in the development of the questions in the survey questionnaire. The review indicated that only a few states included mention of hazmat compliance and enforcement activities in their performance plan. For those states that included hazmat enforcement, little detail was given. Most states had no reference to their hazmat programs and a few included hazmat as a line item in the budget detail. Table 1 summarizes the results of the review.

Although little detail on hazmat is provided in the CVSPs as shown by Table 1, the information served as the initial baseline as to what importance some states may or may not place on the hazmat component of the overall state compliance program. It also indicates enforcement priorities as related to hazmat in some responding states.

2.2 Survey of State Hazardous Materials Compliance and Enforcement Programs

The Battelle Team developed a survey questionnaire in consultation with FMCSA. The questionnaire was organized into six sections:

Section I. Regulatory Authority for State Program,
Section II. Hazmat Compliance Program,
Section III. Resource Allocation,
Section IV. Other Hazmat Safety Programs,
Section V. Education, Training, and Outreach, and
Section VI. Hazmat Transportation Security.

The survey questionnaire was distributed by the FMCSA State Programs Office through the Division Administrators to the states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands) on January 3, 2002. States were requested to complete and return the survey by February 15, 2002 to the State Directors who forwarded them to the contractor. Forty-seven states and two territories returned completed surveys.

The survey questionnaire is included as an attachment to this report (Appendix A). The survey included an assortment of questions that consist of open-ended, fill-in the blanks with data, check-off all that apply, and subjective responses. The latter include those in Section II that allow the respondents to identify their major regulatory compliance issues (question 1) and rate their state program (question 14). The survey was distributed to each state's MCSAP coordinator who further distributed it to the person(s) assigned to complete it. The survey questions cover many functional areas that required information on financial as well as legal and operational aspects of the agency programs. Consequently, responses to the questions varied between states, and in some cases, within a state where more than one agency was involved in the program. Potential weaknesses in the survey included unanswered or incomplete answers to individual questions and, in some cases, responses that resulted from questions being interpreted in a different way than was intended. These weaknesses were taken into account in the selection methodology for state visits and further study.

The information collected from the states that responded was entered into a Microsoft Excel worksheet and was used as the primary component in the selection process to identify states for further detailed study. A separate report on the state survey ("Results of the Survey of State Hazmat Compliance and Enforcement Programs") was prepared and delivered to FMCSA for their internal use. However, highlights of some of the findings are presented here to illustrate key information that was useful in selecting states for further review.

State Regulatory Authority

The responses to the first section of the survey offer a good overview of state regulatory authority over hazmat transportation. The survey requested information on the process the state used when it first adopted the federal hazardous materials regulations (HMRs) and how periodic changes were adopted (either by reference or by legislation). Adoption by reference means the state legislation adopting the federal HMRs made specific reference to the federal citation rather than incorporating the language of the federal law verbatim (adoption by legislation). The responses received from the 47 states and 2 territories indicate that 30 states adopt by reference. Three of the 30 states (Kentucky, New Jersey, and Texas) indicated they also adopted by legislation. Twenty-one states adopted the HMRs by legislation and one by rulemaking. Changes to the federal HMRs are adopted automatically in 29 states, 11 states require legislative action, and 9 states adopt through a rulemaking process.

The survey asked states to identify all agencies in the state with enforcement authority over hazmat carriers. In 43 of the 49 responses, the State Police were listed, 14 states included the Department of Transportation, 7 states included the Department of Motor Vehicles, 20 states included an Environmental Agency, 10 states included the Public Utility/Service Commission, and 13 included other agencies (Fire Marshal, Port Authority, Health, Agriculture, and local law enforcement) and a majority of states have two agencies with authority over hazmat carriers.

The survey also requested information on state enforcement authority over hazmat shippers. In 25 states, the State Police has enforcement authority, as does the state environmental agency in 19 states. Only nine states do not have agencies with enforcement authority over hazmat shippers. Table 2 summarizes state authority over hazmat carriers and/or shippers by agency.

The authority of state enforcement officers to stop and open commercial motor vehicles (CMV) known or suspected to be transporting hazmat is considered by FMCSA to be essential to the effectiveness of a state program. Forty-six of the 49 states indicated they have authority to stop and open a CMV transporting hazmat, and 43 of the 49 have authority to stop and open a CMV suspected of transporting hazmat. Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Washington indicated they do not have authority to stop or open a CMV suspected of transporting hazmat.

State Hazardous Materials Compliance Programs

The second section of the survey involved various aspects of state compliance programs for hazmat. State hazmat transportation compliance programs consist of many components, including regulation, roadside inspections and enforcement, fines and penalties for violations, carrier and shipper compliance reviews, data management systems, and resource allocation. Responses for each of these areas are documented extensively in the separate state survey report.

The State Police is the primary agency conducting hazmat roadside inspections in 40 states. Other agencies with roadside inspection authority for hazmat include: DOTs (9 states), DMVs (5 states), Environment (2), Public Utility Commission (3), State Fire Marshal (Georgia) and Port of Entry (Colorado). Some states have overlapping inspection authority across agencies.

Responses to staffing levels dedicated to hazmat transportation roadside inspections varied considerably from a low of 4 in South Dakota to a high of 591 in California. Obviously, these responses involved differing interpretations for the definition of a hazmat inspector. For the most part, it is believed that these are the number of general motor carrier enforcement specialists with hazmat training, not inspectors "dedicated" to hazmat.

C=Carrier S=Shipper

Table 3 shows the relative uniformity of roadside inspection across the states. All 49 respondents indicated they routinely check for mechanical (equipment), shipping paper, and placarding violations during roadside safety inspections of commercial vehicles transporting hazmat. Only 24 states routinely check carrier safety records. In addition to the roadside inspection elements specifically identified, 21 states also check for compliance with state requirements and laws such as RSPA permits, International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), International Registration Plan (IRP), insurance, and operating authority.

Thirty-five states indicated they perform hazmat carrier compliance reviews (CRs). Of the 34 states, seven of the states did not provide information on the portion of their CRs that were hazmat CRs. Of the remaining 27 states, 17 indicated that CRs for hazmat carriers comprised ten percent or less of all CRs in the state. Table 4 summarizes the hazmat CR component of the state programs that was reported.

The identification of carriers for hazmat compliance reviews are usually based one or more factors. States were asked to estimate what percent of hazmat inspections resulted from periodic inspections, carrier performance, random selection, or other (specified). Twenty-five states responded to this question and the results are shown in Table 5.

The states were asked to identify information sources used by them to identify which carriers required compliance action. Twenty-three states indicated that they use SafeStat as the primary source of data.

Finally, under the Compliance Program section of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the performance measures used to evaluate their hazmat program effectiveness. Table 6 summarizes the responses and shows what performance measures each state is using. Budget/Resources is the measure used by the fewest number of states.

Resource Allocation

In Section III of the survey, respondents were asked to provide information on funding for fiscal year 2001 by major program component and source. Responses to this question indicate most states do not have the program broken into hazmat components in the budget. Twenty-three of the 49 provided no response or indicated the data were not available or not specified in the budget or was part of their MCSAP program.

States were asked to provide the funding by source, federal and state, and estimate the percentage of the overall program budget each represented in fiscal year 2001. Calculation of the percentages varied among the respondents. Of those responding, the majority indicated 80 percent of the funding was federal and 20 percent state. The hazmat programs in Arizona, California, and Idaho are 100 percent state funded according to the survey responses.

States were asked to provide an estimate of state and federal dollars spent on hazmat compliance and enforcement activities for a five-year period from fiscal year 1997 through 2001. Responses are reported in the separate state survey report but the accuracy varies considerably, mainly because of different state accounting and allocation practices. Credible budget and resource information directly related to hazmat compliance was difficult to obtain as part of this effort and is of limited value in constructing any kind of cost-benefit comparison of state programs.

Specialized State Hazmat Safety Initiatives

States were also asked to identify any state or regional activities such as special strike forces or other unique enforcement strategies for hazmat carrier and shipper compliance. The responses are summarized in Table 7. It appears that many states participating in some programs, such as the nationwide Security Sensitivity Visits, did not consider them worthy of mentioning, while others did.

Education, Training, and Outreach

Section V of the survey requested information from the states on their efforts to train enforcement personnel on federal hazmat regulations and regulatory updates and any additional state initiatives. In addition, information on efforts to promote public and industry education and training through outreach activities was requested. Industry education and outreach programs are becoming more significant components of state compliance programs. Table 8 summarizes the programs in responding states. In general, states that provide some type of training to industry do so upon request. All states but one provide training for hazmat enforcement as shown in Table 9.

Hazmat Transportation Security

States were asked if they had implemented, or planned to implement, a plan for addressing hazmat security. Thirty-two respondents answered "none" to the question and 18 indicated they had either implemented or planned to implement a plan. This survey was conducted before the issuance of RSPA's Docket HM-232 on the development of industry security plans.

Table 10 provides descriptions of the hazmat security activities identified by the respondents as planned or implemented.

Overview of State Survey Findings

The results of the state surveys provided significant insight into the overall state hazmat compliance "state-of-the-practice." Although the data collected for some areas of the survey (e.g., Program Budget and Resources) was spotty and inconsistent, the information collected does provide a good overall snapshot of state hazmat compliance programs - both similarities and differences. The results were also useful in providing the baseline information from which to begin to identify effective state programs and exemplary activities and initiatives as discussed in the next section.

3.0 Identification of States with Comprehensive Hazmat Transportation Compliance Programs and Exemplary Initiatives

3.1 Introduction

The next step in the project was to select state programs that are considered "comprehensive" in their approach to hazmat compliance based on the survey data. These programs were considered most likely to include unique or particularly effective initiatives or individual programs that could serve as examples for other states as best practices. The comprehensive database of information collected from the state surveys was utilized as the foundation for this activity. As clearly demonstrated in the separate state survey report, the great majority of state programs are very similar. Nevertheless, there are also some important variations in individual programs from state to state. The project team developed an approach to be able to identify exemplary state programs from this comprehensive yet disparate database of information.

An objective approach was developed to select the sample states based on different types of initiatives that each state employs, the resources allocated, and their results. A common approach for integrating varying components into a single comparison is by combining normalized or unitless measures. This is the approach taken here, wherein different aspects of a state hazmat compliance program are assigned numerical values based on its level of implementation or magnitude, and these values are integrated into a single relative index for comparison. For this project, a Composite Measurement Index (CMI) was created. The selection of program components to be measured and the weights assigned to each are primarily subjective on the part of the project team. This process merely allows a reasonable way of differentiating between the many, disparate state programs and is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.2 Selection Process for Identifying Comprehensive State Programs

The Battelle team carefully reviewed potential components of a hazmat compliance program in order to determine criteria to be used to develop the CMI. Two categories of program components were developed - baseline program components and "enhanced" HM program components. The "enhanced" program components were assigned a higher weighting than the baseline. Program components that the project team considered baseline components of a hazmat compliance program include the following:

• Random enforcement - random inspections and compliance reviews was identified as one essential element of an effective state compliance program.
• Terminal inspections - inspections of carrier facilities beyond the principal place of business (primarily terminals) was considered an indication of a progressive state hazmat compliance program.
• Cargo tank testing facility inspection program - established programs for inspecting cargo tank testing facilities were also considered a baseline element.
• Authority to stop vehicles - the authority to stop vehicles suspected of carrying hazmat was considered especially critical to an effective compliance program.
• Authority to open vehicles - the authority to open vehicles suspected of carrying hazmat was also considered an important indication of a highly effective state program
• HM carrier complaint tracking - states with a system for keeping track of carrier complaints was considered an indication of a progressive state inspection targeting program.
• Active HM training program - an active and creative training program was considered a requirement as a baseline program component.
• HM security plan - having a plan in place or under development was considered an important and progressive hazmat system component at the state level.
• High HM registrants - the project team sought to include consideration of states with a large number of hazmat carriers and shippers as one criterion.

In addition to these baseline components, the project team selected "enhanced" program components that evidenced a more comprehensive state program oriented toward hazmat compliance. These include the following:

• Performance measurement - states that indicated they had established their own internal and external performance metrics were considered more progressive.
• Reviews based on quantitative data - the use of quantitative and objective data to aid in the selection of compliance reviews was considered a plus.
• Uniform HM permitting program - involvement in a uniform permitting program specifically directed at hazmat was considered evidence of a progressive state program.
• HM inspector ratio - a high ratio of HM inspectors to total motor carrier inspectors was considered an "enhanced" attribute.
• Serious highway HM incident reduction - a key discriminator to identify effective HM compliance programs was seen to be the reduction in serious HM incidents.
• Inspectors/inspections to HM registrants ratio - the project team identified several ratios related to the number of HM registrants that could be indicators of comprehensive state hazmat programs including both inspectors and total inspections.
• HM shipper reviews - performing HM shipper reviews was considered an enhanced HM compliance attribute.

The CMI is determined by summing the values assigned to each of the program components discussed above. The baseline components receive a value of 1 if the criteria are met and 0 otherwise. The "enhanced" hazmat program components are given greater weight and receive a value of 2 if the criteria are met and 0 otherwise. States with limited programs in these areas are given 0s. The range of CMI values is from 0 to 24.

Baseline Components that are assigned a value of either 0 or 1

States that reported on the survey that they had the following elements:

1. random enforcement
2. terminal inspections (port inspections are included)
3. cargo tank facility inspections or cargo tank testing programs
4. authority to stop vehicles
5. authority to open vehicles (i.e., break seals)
6. state hazmat carrier complaint tracking (if compliance reviews are conducted based in part on complaints received)
7. active hazmat training program
8. state has or is implementing an hazmat security plan
9. number of state hazmat registrants is in the top 20% of all states

"Enhanced" Program Components that are assigned a value of either 0 or 2

States that reported on the survey that they had the following elements:

1. performance measurement (determined by Section II, question 15 of the survey: a "1" would be given for a check in either items a or b AND any of items c, d, or e - i.e., one external measure and one internal measure). For example, a state that tracks the total number of incidents (item a) and examines trends in hazmat inspection trends (item d) would receive 1 point for this item.
2. carrier, shipper, or roadside inspections or reviews that are based on quantitative data analysis
3. uniform hazmat permitting program
4. ratio of state employees conducting hazmat roadside inspections compared to those conducting general truck roadside inspections is in the top 20% of all states
5. percentage reduction in serious highway hazmat incidents (RSPA data) over the last five years is in the top 20% of all states
6. ratio of inspectors to the state hazmat registrants is in the top 20% of all states
7. ratio of inspections to the state hazmat registrants is in the top 20% of all states
8. hazmat shipper reviews

The table in Appendix B provides the results of applying the CMI index for each of the program elements to each of the survey states. In the left hand side of the table, the states are ranked according to their CMI scores. As would be expected, the scores are not widely distributed, given the similarity in state programs. Also, many states have identical scores as would be expected from the type of index (i.e., scores of 0 to 2 on many different criteria) that was employed. However, there was enough variation to allow the project team to identify a group of states for consideration for further analysis.

The project team was looking to identify from five to eight states for further interviews. A convenient cutoff point was a CMI score of 13 or higher. As shown in Appendix B, this resulted in twelve states with scores from 13 to a high of 17. These states included Ohio, Missouri, New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia. Battelle worked with CVSA and FMCSA to subjectively narrow this list down to eight states for site visits and detailed interviews. The final eight states selected through this process were: Ohio, Missouri, New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Obviously, there is not a lot of difference in the quality of programs among all 12 of the top scoring states. The subjective process used to narrow the list to eight states included consideration mainly of geography and size of state to have representative programs from all regions of the country and from both large and small state programs. All of these 12 states were considered to have comprehensive hazmat compliance programs based on the multi-attribute index used. In fact, the next grouping of states (which included 17 states with scores from 10-12 as shown in Appendix B) were also considered at the same level of comprehensiveness and quality as the top 12, given the degree of confidence in the methodology used. Nevertheless, the project team was satisfied that the results of the ranking exercise provided a good sample of eight states with comprehensive and effective hazmat compliance programs for further investigation.

The right side of the table in Appendix B provides some quantitative data for each state for some of the criteria used in the CMI scoring and further illustrates the relative difference in various elements of the hazmat compliance programs from state to state. The numbers above each of these columns containing the supplemental calculation data indicate which CMI component made use of that data, if any. In addition, the largest, most desirable number in each column is highlighted (except for the incident reduction column, in which the lowest number—indicating the greatest reduction—is highlighted).

3.3 State Site Visits and Interviews

The project team visited the eight selected states to gather more detailed information and gain more insights on effective state hazmat compliance programs and exemplary initiatives being undertaken. As mentioned previously, these states were Ohio, Missouri, New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The site visits were coordinated in advance with the FMCSA COTR and with the state FMCSA hazmat directors. The key contact point within each state hazmat program was then identified and contacted. With the help of the state contact point, a series of interviews was scheduled with key staff from each state in each of the seven program areas of interest: (1) roadside inspections; (2) compliance reviews; (3) shipper reviews; (4) education, training, and outreach; (5) hazmat security; (6) permitting, registration, and routing; and (7) cargo tank inspection and testing. One member of the project team visited each state for one to two days over the period of July 2002 to October 2002.

Extensive interview notes and program material was gathered from each state site visit and has been documented in another report prepared for FMCSA ("Results of State Site Visits on Hazmat Transportation Compliance Programs"). From this information, the Battelle team has identified a number of exemplary state practices that could be considered model elements of a comprehensive and effective state hazmat compliance program. These are discussed in more detail in the next section.

4.0 Review of Selected State Hazmat Compliance Program Activities and Identification of Exemplary Practices

4.1 Introduction

This section presents the results of the site visits to the eight states selected for further analysis as discussed in Section 3.0. Once again, these eight states were selected based upon a very subjective measurement index, not because they necessarily represent the "best" state programs. As the ranking exercise shows in Appendix B, many states were very close in their scoring. However, the project team believes that these eight states do offer an excellent sample set with comprehensive and effective hazmat compliance programs from which to identify and call out exemplary program activities that other states may want to consider.

This section is organized according to the seven program areas identified above. After an overview of each of the states' overall hazmat compliance programs, we identify a program feature or initiative that represents an example of a "best practice" that is being performed in that state. It is recognized that other states not interviewed may already have similar initiatives. While there may be other "best practices" among other states, it is also recognized those mentioned in this report are representative of effective hazmat compliance program activities that all states may want to consider. First, however, we will present an overview of the eight state programs to serve as context.

4.2 Overview of Selected State Programs

This section presents and overview of the structure of the hazmat compliance programs at the eight states selected for in-depth interviews. An outline of the various agencies involved in each state and their primary responsibilities is provided as a frame of reference for the program components discussed in subsequent sections. Table 11 summarizes the state agencies and their responsibilities. In some cases, the responsibilities indicated in the table are limited in some way. For example, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety's activities apply only to shipments of spent fuel and high-level radioactive materials. In all states listed except Missouri, the lead agency for the FMCSA's MCSAP program is actually involved in compliance activities. However, Missouri's Department of Public Safety only administers their MSCAP program.

California

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the law enforcement agency with statewide oversight and transportation enforcement authority for hazardous materials. The CHP program includes licensing, high priority random cargo tank inspection, roadside inspections, compliance reviews, biennial terminal inspections, records inspections, and inspections of carrier hazmat and driver records. Additionally, the CHP regulates the highway routing of radioactive materials and spent nuclear fuel. The state agency with oversight for the hazardous waste program is the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The DTSC requires hazardous waste transporters to register. Statewide, the hazmat compliance program budget in California is approximately $6.5 million.