R & R Trucking, Incorporated

AATCO \~ NEI TRANSPORT

# **302 Thunder Road**

# **P.O. Box 545**

# **Duenweg, MO 64841**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Phone 417.623.6885      Toll Free 800.625.6885  Fax 877.215.4835

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> **1. Are safe havens currently available? How many? Where are they
> located?**
>
> "Public" safe havens are not currently available. The safe havens
> utilized by R & R Trucking are "private" and are associated with a
> particular owned and operated terminal of R & R.
>
> **2. Would a network of safe havens provide a safety benefit?**
>
> Yes, for emergency situations and for hours-of-service relief.
>
> **3. What is the value of a rest stop for the vehicle and the
> driver?**
>
> .
>
> A rest stop, if not for safe haven purpose, would **not** relieve
> drivers from attendance requirements. Rest stop not being defined is
> taken as a driver being relieved of the responsibility of vehicle
> attendance for a period of time. A rest stop allows the driver to take
> care of personal needs, relax, reduce stress and reduce fatigue.
> Drivers are going to take care of personal needs with or without safe
> havens.
>
> **4. Would companies use safe havens or continue using driver teams?
> Does one promote safety more than the other?**

The value of a safe haven with single or team drivers is in the location
/ availability. Relief

from the attendance requirement does promote safety. For local and
deliveries without a

required layover a single drivers would be used. On longer deliveries a
single driver or team

drivers would be used.

> **5. Would the adoption of an industry consensus standard such as NFPA
> 498 promote the development of safe havens?**

The "industry" can adopt any consensus standard; however, under current
regulations the

municipality or state jurisdiction will dictate the requirements. The
cost of a safe haven

would be a major factor. Having a standard adopted by the DOT may entice
some states to

allow safe havens. Who would build/operate the safe haven?

> **6. Do facilities that are being used as safe haven meet the
> requirements of NFPA 498?**
>
> The current standard for safe haven found in 397.5 is specifically
> approved in writing by local, State, or Federal government
> authorities. Some meet the requirements of NFPA 498, some meet DOD
> standards (infrequently used for commercial explosives) and some meet
> other local standards or requirements.
>
> **7. Would you expect companies to convert existing facilities that
> meet NFPA 498 into safe havens?**
>
> The FMCSA would expect motor carriers to comply with the Safety
> Regulations. It would depend on the cost benefit ratio. If a
> quantity/distance factor is required, it would be a major factor in
> the decision.
>
> **8. How can we improve on the safety measures provided in NFPA 498?
> Should we include aggregation limits, time limits, etc.?**
>
> Both the consensus **(NFPA 498)** standard and the FMCSA's standard
> are satisfactory. The carrier or safe haven operator should be allowed
> to improve on these standards as they see fit, but they should be
> supplemented arbitrarily.
>
> **9. If we incorporate by reference NFPA 498 into the HMR, should we
> expect a drop in the number of carriers willing to transport
> explosives similar to what occurred when DOD implemented SDDS MFTRP
> No. 1C than a consensus standard such as NFPA 498?**
>
> Long haul carriers: YES Local and private carriers: NO
>
> **10. Would it be more appropriate to align safe havens with the SDDC
> MFTRP No. 1C than a consensus standard such as NFPA 498?**

Commercial safe havens comply with the FMCSA's Safety Regulations; the
DOD's MFTRP

1.C specifically addresses safety and security concerns for arms,
ammunition and explosives

(AA&E) on their facilities and on carrier owned facilities. The MFTRP
exceeds the standard

requirements for commercial shipments. The cost to operate a commercial
safe haven under

the MFTRP would be cost prohibitive.

> **11. What is the impact of eliminating the requirement for safe
> havens to be approved by Federal, state, or local government
> officials?**

We would support a well written regulation that would allow carriers to
make a sound

business decision to have safe havens; however, state and local laws
should still prevail on

safe haven approval.

Possibly more safe havens would be established if tied to federal
funding at state level. A

safe haven would have to be included in the Motor Carrier Safety /
Compliance audit for

their compliance with the regulations. Enforcement of the standard would
become the issue.

Zoning, if required, would be an issue.

> **12. Would state and local governments allow the development of safe
> havens without prior approval?**

No. Only if mandated by the federal government and tied to federal
funding.

> **13. Are zoning restrictions the primary force against the
> development of safe havens?**

No.

> **14. What emergency response needs must be taken into consideration
> when selecting a location for a safe haven and how should they be
> addressed?**

This should be determined by the state or local authority granting the
safe haven approval.

The emergency response needs would vary depending on the location of the
safe haven and

the type and quantity of explosives authorized. Access to the site,
location of local fire

department, capability of the local fire department, area to be
evacuated in case of a fire,

effect on the community (including traffic and businesses) in case of a
fire or emergency

should be considered.

> **15. Are areas that house carrier facilities (close proximity to
> transportation arteries, industrial parks, etc.) sufficient locations
> for safe havens in terms of emergency response capabilities?**

Yes. It depends on the location of the carrier facilities and the
quantity of explosive material

involved. Each situation would need to be evaluated.

> **16. What costs apply to the operation of safe havens?**

The costs of operating a safe haven are no different than operating any
business with fixed

and variable costs. Property cost, construction cost, operating cost,
and cost of obtaining a

permit or approval, additional insurance, additional taxes, etc

> **17. Would safe haven operators charge a fee to carriers for allowing
> them to use their safe haven?**

Yes, depending upon the costs, they may be prohibitive.

> **18. Is the concept of temporary parking (less than 4 hours) at truck
> stops and carrier terminals a sufficient alternative to safe havens?**

Temporary parking would be of no benefit as we are still subject to the
attendance

regulations. Temporary parking is not an alternative to a safe haven.