UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

**HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES DURING
TRANSPORTATION**

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast

Washington, D.C.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

9:00 a.m.

[Participants]{.underline}

BEN SUPKO

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration

SUSAN GORSKY

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration

ALLISON MOORE

National Volunteer Fire Council

LAURI MOORE

Delphi

DAVE MADSEN

AORC/Autoliv

JERRY WARD

Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board

KRISTENE BIGEJ

Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board

JEFF DIXON

Science Applications International

Corporation

MICHAEL GREGORY

Orica USA

PAUL BOMGARDNER

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

NANCY McNABB

National Fire Protection Association

[Participants:]{.underline}

CYNTHIA HILTON

Institute of Makers of Explosives

LON SANTIS

Institute of Makers of Explosives

GWENEVERE MARSHALL

Military Surface Deployment and Distribution

Command

Fort Eustis, Virginia

GARY BANGS

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives

TERESA MARSHALL

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives

DAVID SHATZER

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives

ASHOK KAPOOR

Office of Packaging and Transportation Safety

Department of Energy

MICHAEL HILDER

Office of Chief Counsel

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration

AARON YATES

Baker Hughes

BEN BARRETT

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers

Institute

CHARLOTTE TUCKER

BNA Daily Environment Report

ED MAZZULLO

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration

A G E N D A

[AGENDA ITEM]{.underline}: [PAGE]{.underline}:

Welcome 4

Ben Supko

Introductions 5

Opening Remarks 9

Susan Gorsky

Brief Overview 11

Ben Supko

General Statements

Cynthia Hilton 17

Institute of Makers of Explosives

Lauri Moore 25

Delphi

Discussion 30

P R O C E E D I N G S

9:01 a.m.

Welcome

Ben Supko

MR. SUPKO: All right. Let\'s get started. The reason we\'re here \-- and
by the way, I\'m Ben Supko. I work for Susan and I work for Ed in the
Office of HAZMAT Standards with PHMSA, and I\'d like to welcome you to
our meeting. The meeting was announced on July 3rd, 2008, in the Federal
Register, as you all probably have seen. Specifically, we want to spend
the next few hours looking at safe practices for the storage of
explosives while they\'re in transportation.

Also, I should note that today\'s meeting is being transcribed. It\'ll
be available on the docket. The docket number is PHMSA-2005-22987. And
whenever you speak, if you don\'t have a name card, just say your name
and your company so Frank knows who you are when he puts your name into
the transcript.

All right. Today\'s agenda is pretty simple. The plan is to do some
introductions, because if I have to speak everybody should have to
speak. Some remarks from Susan. She\'ll give an overview of the rule and
kind of what we\'re looking for from the meeting. We\'ll have some
general statements. If anybody wants to say something general, that\'ll
be your opportunity there.

Then we\'ll go into the discussion, which is the meat of the meeting. We
don\'t want it to be like a normal public meeting where you just read
your comments. We want to kind of get involved, maybe roll up our
sleeves and figure out some good options, good alternatives.

But I guess we should \-- do you want to \-- well, let\'s start by \--

MS. GORSKY: Let\'s go around the room and have people introduce
themselves, if they don\'t mind.

Introductions

MS. A. MOORE: Hi. My name is Allison Moore from the National Volunteer
Fire Council. I\'m here \--we\'re trying to get more involved in the
HAZMAT arena, so I\'m here trying to \--

MS. L. MOORE: Lauri Moore from Delphi Automotive. We do air bags and
seatbelts and a number of other things. We\'re also now shipping,
importing and exporting, \-- materials.

MR. MADSEN: I\'m Dave Madsen from Autoliv. We also manufacture air bags,
and we\'re branching out into other areas, too. But I\'m also the
co-chair for a NAAHAC organization, North American Automotive HAZMAT
Action Committee, and I\'m also representing them.

MR. WARD: I\'m Jerry Ward. I\'m with the Department of Defense Explosive
Safety Board, and we set the standards for storing and handling DOD
military explosives.

MS. BIGEJ: Kris Bigej. I also work at DDESB. I work for Jerry.

MR. DIXON: My name is Jeff Dixon. I work for Science Applications
International Corporation, a government contractor. I support Mario
Harley at NOSA, and I\'m here sitting in for him to take notes because
he was unable to be here today, so.

MR. GREGORY: My name is Michael Gregory. I\'m with Orica USA. I\'m the
Eastern Region safety, health, and environmental manager. I\'m in a
similar situation. My supervisor, Doug Maggert, could not be here. I\'m
here to take notes and observe, and also here as a guest of Cynthia.

MR. BOMGARDNER: Paul Bomgardner with the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance. The Alliance represents roadside inspectors throughout North
America, so they\'re at these inspection sites and weigh stations. I
handle the hazardous materials issues for the Association.

The last known study on HAZMAT was done by CVSA back in 1990, when it
had to be typed. So it\'s the last thing done, 18 years ago.

MS. McNABB: I\'m Nancy McNabb. I\'m the director of government affairs
for the National Fire Protection Association. My expertise is not in
explosives, but of course, back at our headquarters in Quincy, Mass., we
do a lot of standards related to the storage and handling of hazardous
materials. I\'m here on behalf of Guy Colona and his team that knows
much more about it.

MS. HILTON: I\'m Cynthia Hilton with the Institute of Makers of
Explosives, and we have a big stake in this issue and we\'re grateful
for the time you\'re devoting to it.

MS. G. MARSHALL: I\'m Gwenevere Marshall. I work for SDDC, and that\'s
the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command in Fort Eustis,
Virginia. We\'re responsible for the movement of all DOD cargo as well
as the HAZMAT and ammunition worldwide.

MR. BANGS: I\'m Gary Bangs. I\'m with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, otherwise known as ATF. We regulate the
commerce of explosives.

MR. SANTIS: My name is Lon Santis. I\'m the manager of technical
services for the Institute of Makers of Explosives. The IME is the
safety and security association for the commercial explosives industry.

MR. SHATZER: I\'m Dave Shatzer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, Explosive Technology Branch.

MR. KAPOOR: Ashok Kapoor from U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Packaging and Transportation Safety. I\'m a safety engineer and, as you
know, we handle everything.

(Laughter.)

MS. GORSKY: And I\'m Susan Gorsky, and I\'m the regulations officer in
the HAZMAT Standards Office at PHMSA. We write the HAZMAT regs,
including the regulations that apply to the transportation of explosives
and storage during transportation, and they\'re not very good. That\'s
why we\'re here.

MR. HILDER: My name is Mike Hilder. I\'m with the Office of Chief
Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

MR. YATES: My name is Aaron Yates. I\'m here representing Baker Atlas, a
division of Baker Hughes. We\'re an explosive manufacturer.

MR. BARRETT: Ben Barrett. I\'m with SAAMI, the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute.

MS. T. MARSHALL: Teresa Marshall \-- manager, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

MS. TUCKER: Charlotte Tucker. I\'m a reporter with BNA Daily Environment
Report.

MR. MAZZULLO: Ed Mazzullo, PHMSA, Office of Hazardous Materials
Standards.

MR. SUPKO: Okay.

MS. GORSKY: Next, me.

MR. SUPKO: Susan.

MS. GORSKY: All right.

MR. SUPKO: I\'m going to send around a sign-up sheet, which will also be
in the transcript and in the docket.

MS. GORSKY: I\'ll do it last.

MR. SUPKO: Now it\'s Susan\'s turn to talk.

Opening Remarks

Susan Gorsky

MS. GORSKY: I don\'t have anything prepared. We wanted to try to set a
little bit of the context for you. As you know, the requirements for
storing explosives during transportation are a little bit complicated in
that either you have to attend them all the time or park them in a safe
haven. And there are no standards for safe havens and the states have to
approve them, so there aren\'t a whole lot of them.

And what we want to try to talk about today is, do we have a problem
where we need to find a solution. If so, is that a regulatory solution;
is there another solution to the problem that we can work on; is there a
combination of initiatives that we should undertake.

And if it is a regulatory solution, what kinds of alternatives are there
for regulations. If you read the ANPRM, which I think Ben is going to
talk about in a little bit more detail, you know that we talked about
some industry standards that might be adaptable for a standard for safe
havens. We want to get some feel for what you think about that and any
other, alternative suggestions that you might have.

We have not made up our minds on this issue. We are looking for an
answer, and that\'s why we wanted to get as many smart people who work
with explosives in the room as we could. We\'ve got a nice cross section
here of the industry and the regulators, a state representative, an
emergency response representative.

So I think we have an opportunity here to try come up with some sort of
an approach that might actually work for most of us and that could help
us move these things where they need to get to without causing some
inordinate burden on them as they\'re going from Point A to Point B.
That\'s pretty much all I have to say.

Brief Overview

Ben Supko

MR. SUPKO: Thank you, Susan. So now I\'m going to go on with the brief
overview and just give you an idea of what the NPRM said and the little
history on it and what the current regulations say so we can move on
with our discussion.

The HM238 requirements for the storage of explosives during
transportation was published on July 3rd of this year. Basically, what
we wanted to do with it was go through the comments we had already
received on a previous ANPRM and reopen the public meeting and then
extend the \-- open the comment period and allow \-- I think it was
December \-- October 1st for comments so that we could include the
transcript. You guys can review that. Anybody can review it and see if
they want to put some comments in then.

The general \-- the idea is, you know, we\'re concerned about the
current requirements. They lay out here\'s the definition for a safe
haven, but it doesn\'t go into depth of what should be included in a
safe haven. We just wanted to elaborate on what we should do there.

The whole purpose of the meeting and the ANPRM is just to make you fully
aware of our concerns and where we stand, and to hear your concerns as
well. We know we don\'t know everything, and we need your input in this
area. So, any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

The scope changed a little bit from the initial ANPRM, which covered \--
you can see there it was November 16th of \'05, so it\'s been a while.
But the original one covered security. It focused on highway
transportation, it focused on safety measures, it focused on finding a
solution to the safety problem, but it also touched on security, it
touched on storage by rail and vessel, and it also dealt with other
high-hazard materials.

From between that time and seeing the comments we received, we\'ve
narrowed the scope significantly. We left out the security and all the
other aspects and we\'re just focusing on the storage of explosives
during transportation by motor vehicle at this point. Did I say
security? I meant safety. It\'ll touch on security of course because we
know they are intermixed slightly, but the goal is to focus on safety.

So, what are the current requirements. Currently, you have the Hazardous
Materials regulations. If I had the FMCSA ones, they would look exactly
the same. But that\'s what they look like.

Explosives generally are regulated like any other hazardous material,
but they are more stringently regulated. You have your hazard
communication: labels, placards, markings, things like that, and then
you get into approval processes and being assigned a classification and
stringently regulated packaging. You know, they already are, I would
say, our most regulated hazard class.

From there you go into the same thing as every \-- hazardous material
has at this time, a security plan. Security plans are going to cover
personnel security, en route security, and unauthorized access. So, you
know, anywhere that an explosive would be stored during its transport
should be included in its security plan. That is en route security. So
we\'ve already covered there slightly, but of course it\'s not as
specific as we would like it to be.

Also, there are additional requirements for Class 1 materials in the
modal requirements: 174, 175, 176, 177 of the HMR. We\'re focusing on
177 because we\'re focusing on highway, and in that section is loading
and unloading. It provides some details. No projections. Don\'t unload
with a metal hook, you know, certain things for explosives that you
should be aware of. No smoking and so forth. Other than that, you know,
that\'s about where we stop on explosives.

FMCSA picks up and they get into the safety of an issue. They have
general requirements. Generally, FMCSA focuses on driving and parking
requirements for trucks, and that includes hazardous materials as well.
The parking requirements I\'m sure you\'ve seen, if you\'ve seen NFPA
498 or similar industry consensus standards. They follow the same
guidelines. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Let\'s see. Can\'t be parked within five feet
of a travel portion of the highway. You can\'t be within 300 feet of a
tunnel, dwelling, or place where people work or congregate. You can do
it for brief periods of time, but that\'s only when it\'s \-- you can\'t
avoid it.

The other one is you can park on private property with \-- but you have
to have the consent of the person that owns the property.

So from that point, it outlines the general parking requirements. Then
it goes into the safe haven issue. Basically, it says if you have
explosives you can\'t leave them unattended. Then it gives some examples
of where you could if you had a carriers facility. You can leave it
there. But otherwise, it would have to be in a safe haven.

Then the FMCSA regs define safe haven. They say a safe haven is an area
specifically approved in writing by federal, state, or local government
authorities for the parking of unattended vehicles containing Division
1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 explosive material. That\'s in Section 397.5(b) of the
Federal Motor Carrier regs. That\'s all it provides. It gives the
definition.

From that point, states select locations. This is what FMCSA says.
States will select locations where safe havens can be placed and they
would approve the location. There are no specific requirements other
than the definition.

So this is where the problem comes in. A simple solution to the problem
will be incorporating a consensus standard. This is what we discussed in
both the APRMs, different standards we could use. This was one of them.
National Fire Protection Association\'s NFPA 498 Standard for the Safe
Havens and Interchange Lodge for Vehicles Transporting Explosives.

This is very straightforward. It was designed for highway
transportation. To me, it plugs right in with FMCSA. I think they might
have worked together on it. But it fits in well. It\'s widely used and
accepted by the explosives industry.

The main points with NFPA 498, it provides the safety \-- some safety
guidelines. One would be vehicle inspection. Another, five feet between
the trailers. When you bring the trailer in, you just drop the trailer
off. The tractor is removed from the safe haven. There\'s no cutting or
welding repairs, no firearms, no smoking, and no longer \-- they can\'t
be stored in the safe haven longer than necessary, and NFPA 498 says a
maximum of 100 hours.

And, you know, that\'s just an obvious option. Another rather obvious
option is the IME publication, Safety Library Publication No. 27,
Security in Manufacturing, Transportation, Storage, and Use of
Commercial Explosives. This one looks like this. It was developed in
January of \'05, and it provides detailed information on security,
training, loading, unloading. Very similar to NFPA 498 in terms of
storing explosives.

It also talks about a dual driver program, locked cargo compartments, a
route plan, two-way communication, GPS vehicles, and, like I said, safe
havens in accordance with NFPA 498. So it refers back to 498, which is
partially why it makes 498 a pretty obvious option. You can tell what it
was intended for.

So from this point, that\'s the overview. I hope it\'s enough, but if
it\'s not, if I missed something, now is the time where you make \--
anybody who wants to say anything general, maybe that I overlooked or
didn\'t mention in my discussion. Or if they just have a general
statement they just want to make, right now would be the time if you\'re
interested. After this we\'re going to go into discussion on specific
issues, more interaction.

Yes, Cynthia.

MS. HILTON: We have a couple of general \--

MR. SUPKO: Okay.

General Statements

Statement by Cynthia Hilton

Institute of Makers of Explosives

MS. HILTON: First of all, once again, we really appreciate you taking
the time to look at this. We want to start off making it very clear we
regard this as a very beneficial action. I\'m sure that there are some
rulemakings that you get engaged in and people want to come in and, I
don\'t know, you know, do certain things that are not well received.

Anyway, so some of the things that I just want to state is that we think
this is fully within your statutory authority to do this and that you
have the expertise and that your rules, whatever comes out of the end of
the pipe, should be seen as sufficient for this area.

And I say that because one of the things that, and we may need to have
discussion about this, in your rulemaking you talk about storage for
explosives, and it shouldn\'t escape anybody\'s attention that NFPA 495
talks \-- excuse me. I got ahead of myself. FMCSA talks about 1.1, 1.2,
and 1.3. So, you know, we\'re here to not \-- to support that standard.
In fact, we have no problem with that standard except for three things,
which I\'ll tell you what they are.

Before I say that, let me just say that we\'re also aware of companies
who have abused the sort of not totally precise requirements here, and
we do not support that. So we do not condone activities that anybody
looking at the facts would say \"This looks like a circumvention of
permanent storage.\" So we\'re not here condoning that. If we have a
destination and it\'s pretty clear, we started at A and we\'re headed
towards B and we\'ve stopped, you know, that should be a presumption
that we are in transportation.

The three things that we would suggest need to be improved on the
current FMCSA standard is, as you pointed out, there really isn\'t a
standard. It is, quite frankly, in my view, impossible to comply with
this. It says you get approval from a local, state, or federal agency.
So, you tell me; if the local environmental office says I can do it but
the local safety office says I can\'t, or the federal says I can and the
state says I can\'t, I mean who trumps who? At what point \-- you know,
the dogcatcher says I can do it.

To us, it would be very good news if there could be some kind of
performance-based standard that we could judge these actions and that
when we would go to seek approval we could say we measure up to this
thing. Then if there is a denial, then we can get into discussions about
whether or not this is a NMBB kind of reaction here or is there some
legitimate thing that should be addressed.

We have suggested 498, and I want to be really clear here. What we\'re
suggesting is Chapter 4, which addresses safe havens. Then, you\'d
mentioned the 100-hour limit. There is no time limit in Chapter 4.
That\'s for the interchange lots. So that might be another issue that we
want to talk about.

But under Chapter 4, which addresses safe havens, as you mentioned,
there are a number of things that they suggest should happen at the
site. I won\'t list them here, but those would be, in our view,
performance type standards that we would like to see in a regulation.

As you know, and I keep looking at Susan, but in other contexts we have
come to the Department asking for regulation in certain areas. We have
shown the agency different consensus standards, but industry in general
is not \-- would prefer that you translate those into some kind of
common concepts and put those things in a rule. That allows us to then
take something like 495, which would address all those performance
standards, and say \"This is what I\'m going to use to meet those
standards.\"

MS. GORSKY: I\'m sorry. So if I understand, your view is rather than us
just incorporating NFPA you would like us to lay out a performance
standard that NFPA or any number of other standards might meet. Am I
understanding you correctly?

MS. HILTON: No. The way I\'d look at it is like what you did under your
security plan rule.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MS. HILTON: Okay?

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MS. HILTON: Thank you. And the next thing that we think needs to be
improved in the FMCSA standard is there is \-- and also in the 498, is
there\'s nothing about reporting of thefts and losses. You know, this
can happen two ways. You could either cite to the ATF standard or you
can have your own standard and, you know. But there should be some kind
of reporting requirement.

And the third thing is if you carefully read the FMCSA requirement it
appears that there is a monitoring requirement if you are at, you know,
consignee, consignor, motor carrier facility, and no monitoring
requirement if you\'re at a safe haven. Now, clearly, if you adopt 495,
Chapter 4, you\'ll have a monitoring requirement, but not knowing where
this will go, I mean, that\'s clearly a weakness in the current
standard.

Having said that, in your questions we thought it would be helpful to
say to you that we did go out to our members and got a lot of comments
back. They want you to know that where these are used is like the buffer
between the shipment, the transit, the delivery time, you know, the
truck waits for the train, the train waits for the ship. You\'ve got to
put these things somewhere. Another place that was mentioned to me was
you have a pickup on Friday and a delivery on Monday and there might be,
you know, a time there. It\'s highly unlikely that you\'re going to get
the national network of safe havens.

These things are not \-- except for these what I\'m calling chokepoints,
because I\'ve got people saying \-- I should have my little list here.
You know, which one was in Seattle? Which one was in \-- I should get my
list out. But I\'ve got about five places that people wish there was a
recognized safe haven.

We \-- once again, as you mentioned, Ben, you know, reading through the
comments, some people said they should be mandated. We don\'t
necessarily understand that. We\'d like to remind everybody in the room
that this comes from an attendance requirement. 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 should
be attended, of which safe havens is an option for attendance.

So we do believe attendance should be mandated, but we shouldn\'t be
mandating how we achieve attendance. Frankly, if you were headed that
way, I mean, we\'d just much prefer team drivers, better use of
equipment, less fuel, more direct, you know, all of those kinds of
things.

And then let me just mention, you said that you had taken security off
the table, but you know, we get a pushback a little bit. I think that
\-- or, you know, we think that, for instance, some of the standards
that we\'ll be looking at \-- signage. That\'s going to be good for
safety. Some might argue not so good for security. We would hate to get
to the end of this process and think we\'ve got all our dots and
whatever crossed and then I\'m surprised \-- I don\'t think I heard
anyone from TSA \--

MS. GORSKY: Let me just let you know, we did invite TSA to participate.
Unfortunately, they were not able to send anyone today. They are
interested in the rulemaking. When Ben says that security is off the
table, what we really mean is that our primary focus here is to look at
the safety issues associated with the storage of explosives.

We know that there is a security component, as Ben said. We know that we
will have to work with TSA, and if there is a way that we can
accommodate safety and security in this process, we will certainly be
looking at that. But our main focus as an agency is safety. We are
trying to keep the security experts, you know, on security and the
safety experts on safety to the extent we can. As you know for HAZMAT
transportation that is not always possible because so much of what we do
has an impact. The security stuff impacts safety, and vice versa.

So we do expect that TSA will be participating to some extent in this
process. It\'s not clear yet to what extent that is, but they are very
interested and they would have liked to have been here today.

MS. HILTON: Well, having said that, I\'ll just say, you know, our view
is, if you have something that is equally valued, that safety needs to
trump security because you save lives every day. I mean, I think the
fire service would agree with that.

And when we have this, you know, known threats out there, then that is
\-- you know, in times of heightened security, then maybe there\'s the
exception thing. You know, in times of tightened security we get off the
road to the, you know, nearest place. We remove the placard. You know, I
don\'t know. I don\'t want to say what might happen there. But we need
to be open to the fact that there might be times and circumstances that
we need to do things just a little bit differently.

The goal here being that these are products that are important to our
economy and we need to be reasonable in how we\'re going to get them
from A to B.

Oh, and I am corrected by my awesome person. I don\'t know what\'s wrong
with my brain. I have said 495 a billion times. I mean, every time I say
495, 498.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: Thank you.

MR. MAZZULLO: You mentioned reporting. Reporting of what?

MS. HILTON: Thefts and losses. Maybe it\'s \-- there is an ATF
requirement right now. We are not convinced that the \-- you know, the
LTLs, the \-- you know, outside of our little network may not be aware
of \-- they have a reporting requirement for transportation, and it
exists. Unless you come up \-- you know, you can reference theirs. You
can be happy with it. You should look into the reporting requirement. If
you\'re happy with it, you should cite it. If you think it should go
into some other reporting requirement, because you do have other
reporting requirements. But there should be a reporting requirement, we
think.

MR. SUPKO: Any other general statements?

Statement by Lauri Moore

Delphi

MS. L. MOORE: I\'m Lauri Moore. I work for Delphi. I just want to say
that last week I did some investigation because I have some work that
I\'m doing that\'s bringing explosives, Class 1.3, from Germany.
Destination is Mexico. And the way that I have to come right now is
through the U.S. because of the carrier route and what they want to do.

I made a phone call to the State of Texas trying to figure out, okay, do
I have a safe haven in the State of Texas that \-- because of border
crossing times with the Mexican army that I have to get across the
border and they have to be met and escorted and all this stuff, it\'s
really a coordinated ballet that we have to do to get this into Mexico.

I called the State of Texas and asked where the safe havens would be
such that, you know, if I get close to the border and I can\'t make it
across at the right time, what am I going to do. Got told first \-- the
first reply was, \"We don\'t know what you mean.\" The second reply was,
\"No, we don\'t have any.\"

So I\'m kind of now at the mercy of the carrier and hoping that the
carrier has set something up. But my closest one that I could find was
in New Mexico, which is at the other side of where I want to be.

So I\'m very concerned about putting in route plans and relying on a
third party carrier that might not know all the ins and outs of this,
even though we say they\'ve trained them and they understand what those
requirements are. I\'ve been dealing with some third party carriers that
say they know what the requirements are but really don\'t, in my mind,
meet the intent of what those requirements are.

Then we always get to the question of, well, what constitutes storage,
what is the time frame. Can it sit for eight hours, can it sit for 12
hours, can it sit for \-- when do I have to put it in a secure lot. Can
I find a secure lot to take it to that will be able to segregate and
keep that material there. If not, when does it have to come off the
truck and go into a magazine or storage or some other type of storage.
That\'s my \-- I feel that\'s less safe, me unloading again and loading,
you know, reloading.

So I\'m very concerned about that. I\'m concerned about also the cost
associated with doing all that. I was speaking with Dave last week. I
mean, just to get \-- I have two skids of material that I have to bring
from Germany into Mexico. It\'s going to cost me \$19,000 to get those
two skids from Germany into Mexico. That\'s just the transportation
cost. That\'s not the material cost or anything, just transport cost. So
it is very costly to try and find carriers that are capable of taking
this material and taking it in.

And I\'m only making air bags. I\'m not, you know, high explosives. So I
just feel that it\'s very undefined, at least in the carriers\' minds
that I\'ve talked to recently, what they can and cannot do. I think
there\'s just a lot of confusion. Even though the rules are sitting
there, I don\'t know that they\'re really well understood. So I think
anything that will clarify and set down, you know, this is the training
required, this is what we need to do, that will help not only me, the
offeror but it will, I think, help the carrier situation. Maybe I won\'t
worry so much when I\'ve got it in transport.

MR. SANTIS: I had a question for Lauri after that very interesting
story. We actually have some members that cross the Mexican border
fairly frequently with Class 1 materials, but I\'m not real clear on why
you believe you have to have a safe haven here. Going back to what
Cynthia said and keeping people focused, this is about attendance. So,
where is the attendance going to break down on this shipment? I\'m
missing that.

MS. L. MOORE: My whole thing is when I go out to contract my carrier I
always have to say two drivers in my request to the carrier because they
always \-- I guess from my standpoint, all carriers don\'t understand
that it\'s two drivers. That gets to be a point.

MR. SANTIS: A carrier shouldn\'t have 1.3 material in his possession if
they don\'t understand what some of the basic regulations are.

MS. GORSKY: Well, that\'s the \"should.\"

MR. SANTIS: They should not be given care of that material, in my
opinion.

MS. GORSKY: But you\'re right. And there is \-- I\'m sorry James is not
here. There is an FMCSA requirement for people who transport high
explosives, as I recall, to get a permit from FMCSA.

MR. SANTIS: Now, if this is a one-driver operation, yeah, I can see
where, you know, a safe haven \-- he\'s not going to be able to meet his
driver\'s hours of service and so forth. So if that \-- that must be the
driving \-- then that\'s the driving factor here, sure.

MS. L. MOORE: When I contract, you know, I\'m always making sure that,
okay, did you specify in the contract two drivers or a safe haven. Those
are my \-- you know, those were my choices. So, if the carrier should
not choose to have two drivers, then obviously the plan has to show a
safe haven. And I\'m always asking, when we do a contract, that the
carrier provide me with a detailed security plan if I\'m going to
contract with that carrier.

MS. HILTON: If I can just point out, I think one of the things Lauri
said that I think we all need to, you know, think about is this whole
notion of apparently you want to go this way in Texas and the closest
safe haven is that way in Texas. Once again, I know the data is going to
show that that isn\'t the safest thing to do, I mean, in general. So we
want to \-- I\'ll just leave it at that.

Discussion

(PowerPoint presentation.)

MR. SUPKO: So, at this point, we\'re going to get into some
question-type slides aimed at getting some participation. Feel free to
jump right in.

Okay. That helps. We know there\'s one in New Mexico.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOMGARDNER: Paul Bomgardner, CVSA. As I think you\'re well aware,
that 1990 report is really the last time anybody took a look at what\'s
available as far as safe havens go in the United States. Some of the
things they found in that report were appalling at best. There were safe
havens around. What they found is most times the approval came from
either the fire marshal or the fire chief of the little town. It ran
across the board as far as what the states or how the states approved.
Really, nobody is in charge of the henhouse, okay? So they just give it
to the fire authorities in a lot \-- they gave it to the fire
authorities in a lot of these cases.

But that system was really open to abuse because what they also found is
that the fire chief or the fire marshal in that jurisdiction had a
cousin who owned a restaurant, had a little \-- you know, pretty big
parking lot. So it was like, \"You are now a safe haven,\" blessed, and
I mean, there was \-- obviously, there were no standards then. There are
still no standards. So basically, they could designate whatever they
thought or what they deemed to be a safe haven.

There were a number of times where they designated places where the
property owner did not even know that they were a safe haven. As soon as
they found out through the study that they were being looked at as a
safe haven, they said, \"Whoa. I don\'t want to be a safe haven,\" so
they withdrew. So a number of those things went away.

State approval or, you know, state-run safe havens, good luck on that.
When I was with the Maryland State Police years ago, we were building
the I-95 inspection area, the new, big weigh and inspection area up
there. One of my questions was, okay, when my inspectors put an
explosive vehicle out of service, we need a place to put them. And they
went, \"Next question?\" They did not even want to discuss it, and the
word \-- the big liability came up. They did not even want to have \--
let people even get the idea that we were holding explosives vehicles
there for any time whatsoever along that road. So they did not even want
to discuss putting in safe havens anywhere.

I mean, look at it. Safe \-- states don\'t even want to build rest areas
for drivers, much less put in safe havens for explosives carriers.

The best, I think, that you\'re going to find out there today are
company-owned and operated safe havens. I know that some of the major
explosive carriers have their own facilities that they use, and I don\'t
know if they rent them out or let other people use them. I doubt it,
here again because of the liability issues.

DOD, I believe, has some safe havens, but that\'s military, and I don\'t
know if they\'re open to the public. I don\'t think so.

MS. G. MARSHALL: Not always.

MR. BOMGARDNER: Right. So it\'s \-- yeah, they are few and far between
out there. You can have standards. This is my opinion. You can develop
standards. NFPA 498 would be fine. States would probably adopt that
standard. But you will probably not see any state build state-run and
-operated safe havens.

MR. MADSEN: Dave Madsen. Oh, I\'m sorry. Somebody else?

MR. SUPKO: Go ahead.

MR. MADSEN: One real quick thing is just to clarify. When I had
introduced myself, I forgot that I\'ve been assigned from another
organization to come here, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council,
so I need to represent them.

But just to comment on Paul\'s comments, what we as a \-- the Autoliv
company, we manufacture explosives. What we find out is that safe havens
are run by special companies or operated and owned by companies. If we
had a hot shot run that we had to run for our company, we\'re out.
There\'s no place to \-- no place for a safe haven, which is an extra
cost. We have a second driver at all times. But that\'s something that
we did find out, and we are looking for some type of standard that can
definitely help in that area.

MS. G. MARSHALL: I\'ll piggyback. My name is Gwen Marshall. I work for
SDDC at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Your question about where are our safe
havens located, we have three currently. Actually, the carriers have
three locations currently. Two are in Joplin, Missouri, and we have one
in Richmond, Kentucky. And most of these facilities are paid for by the
carriers because of the expense.

I can say that one of the locations, at one time they came up with
something on the other side of \$500,000 in order to make it to DOD
specifications and standards. We were reamed back in 2001 royally by GAO
in terms of the way we had our facilities located. Most of the carriers
didn\'t have a standard, like he said. So as a result, we had to shut
everybody down, and the only location that we could store our munitions
that was transported on behalf of DOD was at military specific locations
where we have standards.

As a result, these three locations located in Kentucky and in Missouri
came to our standards. We currently have policies in place where we have
security clearances, we have to make sure they have dual drivers
depending on whether or not it\'s Category 1 or Category 2 munitions,
Category 1 being items that \-- if I gave it to you, it\'s ready to
fire. They have to have more secure policies in place before anyone can
store those at any locations. Namely, those particular items are only
stored at DOD facilities. We don\'t allow a PAT 1 or a PAT 2 in any of
those locations that are owned by the carriers.

I can say that the two carriers that have taken the initiative to be up
to standard by DOD go way out of the way in order to be compliant.
Whenever they have questions they come to us, \"Is this okay?\", before
they even spend the money, which is good. We go out to the facilities.
We have our safety officers and we have some of our business processing
people to go out that are located at SDDC, and we use also the \-- I
guess you can say our Army experts down in McAlester to go out with us
to make sure that we are right before we tell these people, \"Okay. You
can do this, this, and this.\"

But the locations are currently \-- we only have three currently.

MS. HILTON: I\'m so glad I\'m sitting by Gwen. The two carriers that
she\'s representing happen to be members of ours, and it should, first
of all, be stated that there are standards. There are standards out
there for safe havens. I hope this is not offensive, but we \-- this is
gold-plated, you know, up there. You move some very sensitive things and
we\'re glad that the standard works for you, but we think you don\'t
quite need that for the commercial types of products that we move.

Everything that Gwen said has been what I have been told, which is, you
know, if you want to use these privately owned facilities, well, go hire
that carrier. I mean, that\'s one of the benefits that they can provide
to you.

I had mentioned earlier about you don\'t \-- maybe the question is
coming, but, you know, where would people want them? And I got my little
list.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: Seattle, Washington; Savannah, Georgia; Louisville,
Kentucky; anywhere in West Virginia.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: Morgan City, Louisiana. I mean, anywhere in those areas
where you \-- and a lot of them \-- I mean, so what does that tell you
immediately? Those should immediately signal to you that that\'s either
port locations, where things are coming in, or it is where bazillion
pounds of explosives are used and that you would have a more, you know,
permanent need or, you know, continuing need for a facility like that.

MS. G. MARSHALL: And if I may say again, location is important. You have
to consider your distances to unassociated people. That\'s the main
thing you have to consider. For 30,000 pounds of explosives DOD requires
1,250 feet at a minimum. So those are the types of things, when you go
out and put these places wherever, you have to consider your quantity
distances, which is what our terminology is.

MS. HILTON: She\'s got permanent storage over here.

I forgot to mention two things. Going back to Paul\'s comment, I had
made the statement about security. One of the things that we think \--
that we would ask PHMSA and governments generally is, you know, if there
is a threat we think that government needs to step up. We would like to
think that DOD \-- you know, that places with police presence would open
their facilities. I mean, if you need to do \-- you know, if the bad
guys are coming after a truck of explosives, you know, get them
somewhere. That the weigh stations, that DOD, someone would say, \"You
can come in here and we will help guard.\"

So that\'s one thing that we hope, you know, states and/or localities
would be willing in a threat situation to accept on a very short time
frame, because it would have to be like a known threat, you know. To
step up and do that.

And then the other thing I just \-- never mind. It\'ll come up later.

MR. SUPKO: I think for locating safe havens, Lon, it would be a good
time to talk about your \"IM SAFR.\"

MR. SANTIS: Well, yeah. I think, you know, one of the things that I
think we all agree on are standards and that there are effective
standards out there to say this many of that and so many of those and
attendance here and no tractor inside the fence and things.

But the issue that still remains, as Cynthia said, anywhere in West
Virginia. Now, we know that\'s a joke because we\'re not going to put a
safe haven in the middle of a populated \-- population center. Well, you
might, okay. But the key is to look at a risk assessment, a risk
analysis approach of where to put the safe haven and how much can you
put in.

Gwen mentions quantity distance limits, and that\'s one way. Jerry is
here from DDESB, and they also recognize risk assessment methodology and
so forth.

So I think that the solution to the problem is a standard for operation
and then a risk assessment in conjunction with that. The standard of
operation says that we\'re going to maintain an adequate level of safety
precautions and procedures, and then the risk assessment says, okay,
given that, where and how much can we put this.

IM SAFR, the software that we\'ve developed, is one method that you
could use to do a risk assessment. It\'s not the only method. Jerry has
his program, SAFR. There are other methods that you can use, tabletop,
pen and paper, spreadsheet, a lot of different ways you could go.

But we all get back, I think, to risk assessment. I think we can all
kind of agree that, you know, that\'s a major \-- so that\'s the fault,
see. When Paul was talking about the fire marshals approving, you get
two kind of \-- you know, three kind of fire marshals: the fire marshal
who doesn\'t care about risk and who\'s going to approve anything for
his brother-in-law, and you\'ve got the other \-- on the other side, the
fire marshal who\'s not going to allow any risk. He doesn\'t want
anything, you know.

Then you\'ve got the guy in the middle of the road. We want to shoot for
the guy in the middle of the road and give him, you know, an operating
standard and a risk management standard to make \-- you know, manage his
situation.

MS. HILTON: If I can just pick up on that again, the thing that \-- you
know, the fear on our side, because we want Congress to \-- you know, we
want to think we\'re responsible, even if we have the guy with his \--
whoever your cousin is. But anyway.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: You know, we would \-- our members would be responsible. So
we would still, as Lon mentioned, do the minimal things to be a safe
location. But our fear is the NMBB kind of people. You know, we have
been through this in spades with the Department a couple of years ago on
the port situation, where people were myopically looking at this and
saying, \"My port is safe, you know. You take that stuff somewhere
else.\" What did we discover?

Like, I\'d love to know why we are moving our stuff from Germany through
Mexico. I mean, last time I looked at the world it might be, you know, a
little faster to go a different way. But, you know, when we add in all
that extra truck miles, has that really made us safer.

Right now we are in the midst of an explosives movement crisis. I
mentioned this at our meeting last week, and there\'s supposed to be a
decision today about moving some explosives up to Alaska, again, before
the ice freezes over. It\'s \-- for this \-- you know, campaign, it\'s a
year\'s worth of stuff. I\'m telling you, we are talking millions of
pounds of stuff and it is being staged.

Unfortunately, from what I\'ve been able to understand, our \-- it\'s
not, with maybe one exception, the local or the state, it is the U.S.
Coast Guard who has decided that \"We don\'t know if we want this
commercial thing.\" Then they\'re trying to push it to a military port
up there, which is going to require, you know, extra handling. Instead
of two miles it\'s going to be 110 miles, you know, through the Seattle
area. Frankly, we\'ve got the local people on our side saying, \"We
don\'t want to see that transportation. We\'d rather have just\" \--
anyway. Decision being made today.

But the point is that this either has to be a system-wide look at \--
when you do what Lon says. When you do the risk assessment you cannot
risk-assess for your little block here. In the docket there were things
like, you know, the quantity and the time. If we find ourselves \--
first of all, these sites should be \-- there should be continually like
refreshing who is on the site. I mean, if not, I don\'t think they\'re
in transportation. So there should be movement on and off the site, and
that should be able to be shown.

But how much sense does it make if a vehicle shows up and you\'re out
there saying, you know, \"I\'ve reached my quantity,\" but 15 minutes
from now, you know, a trailer is leaving. But you\'re not going to let
that trailer \-- I mean, that trailer is going to go somewhere, just
like her shipment is going to Mexico and it\'s going to go somewhere.
So, is that somewhere circling the block, is that somewhere taking the
placards off? If we make it too difficult, you\'re going to drive this
commerce underground, and that is not what you want to do.

So we need to do a risk assessment, but in that we need to be sensitive
to what are we comparing it to and what is the \-- where are we pushing
it off to if we don\'t allow it there.

MS. GORSKY: You touched on a question that I have, which is the whole
state approval issue, or whoever approves issue, appears to be a
problem. The impression that I\'m getting is that even if we had a
standard that we could tell a fire marshal, \"If you have a facility
that meets this standard, the explosives can be stored here temporarily
and safely,\" I\'m not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling that the fire
marshal is going to say, \"Okay. Fine. Put it here.\"

I mean, it seems to me as if the biggest hurdle \-- one of the biggest
hurdles is that approval process. They are, not withstanding Cynthia\'s
excellent point, that if you\'re citing these things you want to have
kind of a system-wide look at where the best sites are and minimize
transportation and all those good risk factors. I\'m not getting this
warm, fuzzy feeling that the states are going to, you know, be jumping
on board and saying, \"Oh yeah, this is great. You\'ve figured it out
and we\'re going to have a safe haven here and one in West Virginia and
one in Texas,\" like that.

The approval issue is a real sticking point, and I don\'t know how to
get around that. Go ahead.

MR. BOMGARDNER: You\'re right. Getting around that is going to be your
biggest problem to get any more safe havens out there. To have a state
adopt the standard, I don\'t think that you\'re going to have too much
of a problem with that, especially if you connect it with the HAZMAT
regs that have preemptive authority, okay. So that\'s \-- I mean,
that\'s a no-brainer.

The thing is, it\'s the liability issue. States are not going to take on
that liability and put that facility out there. They\'re just not going
to do that. And the public perception, the public with the NMBB. Like I
said, they don\'t even want truck stops or places for drivers to rest,
but they want safe trucks, okay. To convince them that we\'re going to
put a place to safely store explosives, but don\'t worry about it, it\'s
1,250 feet away from your house. It\'ll only blow a few windows out if
it goes up. You know, good luck.

And that\'s \-- you know, it\'s not about the standard. The standard is
the easy part. The hard part is to convince people to build them.

MS. HILTON: I agree with everything that he has said, but I \-- to
elaborate on that, to me, the standard is like the carrot. I mean, it\'s
something that you can begin a negotiation on. The stick is \-- the
unsaid word here is the P word. But, you know, if you go to negotiate
and \-- because I\'ve had some of my members say this. They pick up the
phone and they say just what Paul said. Explosives, bang. I mean, they
won\'t even talk to you.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: You know, at some point that sounds like a ban to me, you
know.

So I think that the expectation should be that, you know, as they say,
our response is local. So, to me, there\'s got to be notification of the
local. You want the local involved. If something goes bad, you need
people to show up to control the site, to be there for the \-- you know,
I\'ve learned my lesson. Not to fight the fire but, you know, to keep
people away and, you know, whatever damage afterward.

But \-- so they need to be notified. They need to be engaged. But at
some point, if \-- you know, it\'s a subjective thing, in my view. Is
Mike Hilder still here? You know, it reaches a point where I think it\'s
a ban. If I think it\'s \-- they\'re, you know, not, you know, I come, I
file a petition. You go look at the facts and you decide there.

The second thing I think I would say in deference to the local and this
community that we\'re trying to reach to. We are advocating the NFPA
standard. Now, my understanding is fire marshals \-- someone help me out
here. They are very much involved in the NFPA consensus-building thing;
is that not correct? Yeah. So, you know, we\'re advocating a standard
that has a lot of \-- I\'m guessing a lot of buy-in from a community
that we need to reach out to.

The last thing I would say about liability; I would turn to you. I think
the idea is that these materials are in packaging. How \-- you know,
your regulations are built around packaging. You are saying that you put
it in these authorized, recognized things and it can withstand \--
because we\'re talking safety here, not security \-- the rigors of
bouncing up and down the roads and doing whatever. In safe havens,
we\'re not bouncing, we\'re sitting, you know.

So it presumes a lot. It presumes that I\'m following your regulations.
Maybe that\'s something we need to add to the standards. The standards
say go look at the vehicle. Maybe we should be making sure we\'re in the
right kind of packaging.

But if we are in conformance with your standards and if you\'re
uncomfortable with your packaging standards, we should be doing
something to enhance your packaging standards. But, you know, so far I
think they work, right, you know. We\'re not killing people right and
left, knock on wood.

So that would be my answer to the liability thing. I mean, we look to
you to say what is safe. And this is even, arguably, a safer thing
because we\'re not bouncing around, we\'re not waiting for the other \--
the guy to smack us coming out of the alleyway, you know, so.

MS. GORSKY: You have so much confidence in our persuasive ability. I\'m
really flattered, Cynthia. Those are all arguments that we make, as you
know, in any number of contexts. Yes, it is true that our view is if you
transport your explosives in accordance with our requirements that\'s
going to be a pretty safe transportation mode. We\'re certainly prepared
to go out and make that case in the state and locals if we do adopt a
standard that we have confidence in, and especially one, as you say,
that has some buy-in from fire marshals and local officials.

We\'re certainly prepared to make the case that we think that things can
be temporarily stored here safely. Whether that convinces people is a
whole other question. There is, as you know, a lot of shall we say less
than rational thought when people are talking about things like
explosives. You can be as persuasive as anyone \-- as me. I\'m probably
the most persuasive person in DOT. I\'m not sure I could talk Texas into
putting a safe haven where Lauri needs it.

I just \-- to me, this is the biggest problem, and I don\'t know the way
around it. But we certainly have thought about the strategy that you
suggest, and we\'re prepared to pursue that if that\'s the way we decide
to go on this.

MR. BOMGARDNER: I hear what Cynthia was saying, you know, but it\'s
about options. Safe haven is an option to attendance. If states and
localities have the option of taking on the liability or pushing the
liability back onto the person that\'s taken on that transportation,
they\'re going to opt to say, \"Hey, look. There\'s regulations in
place, okay. It\'s got to be attended. It\'s got to be parked this way.
It\'s got to be packaged this way. It\'s got to be \-- you know, the
carrier has to be permitted, safety permitted. It has to be registered
with PHMSA. It\'s got to be all these kinds of things. So there are
safeguards over here and they\'ve taken that liability on. I\'m not
taking that on.\"

The only way that I think that you\'re ever going to convince a state to
do that is that you would have to mandate the building \-- good luck \--
of safe havens, okay. States would love that, okay.

MR. SANTIS: Couldn\'t you just mandate that if the safe haven meets a
certain specification or standard then it must be allowed? I mean,
that\'s \--

MS. HILTON: Because the pushback from that, Paul, is \--

MR. SANTIS: \-- private funding.

MS. HILTON: \-- situation in Washington. The local people want the
staging and they want the movement out of the commercial port. Really,
we have the local people on our side there. They\'ve looked at the
situation. They don\'t want this stuff on vehicles back and forth
because at some point we might get to a discussion about time. I don\'t
know what you all think, but this is a huge \-- this is millions of
pounds of stuff. They\'ve started to stage. The vessel is not showing up
until September 15th.

MR. SANTIS: That\'s a special situation that they \--

MS. HILTON: Okay.

MR. SANTIS: \-- the state should handle that.

MR. SHATZER: \-- situation.

MR. BOMGARDNER: Yeah. I mean, but to say just because something meets
the definition of a safe haven that a state has to designate it as that?
Wow.

MS. HILTON: Let me \-- can I just say one other thing? The \-- in terms
of \-- we\'ve been talking about, you know, the standards and 498. But
this particular place, this locality is \-- you know, because they\'re
on our side of the table, trying to tell the Coast Guard to allow the
movement through the port. It\'s fenced. You\'re not going to see the
word \"fence\" in there. It\'s got \-- they\'ve got several \-- you
know, it\'s guarded. I mean, it talks about constant guarding. You could
read \"fence\" if you read the word \"gate,\" but, you know, I guess you
don\'t have gates without a fence. But, anyway, you know.

Many, you know, guards around this thing. You know, they\'ve done \--
they\'ve gone above this thing. So the local people really don\'t want
this stuff remaining in transportation.

I don\'t know if that added to anything or not, but it sounded good.

MR. SANTIS: To clarify, I\'m not suggesting that anyone can make the
states do anything. But, can you take away their authority to prohibit
or take away their \-- that they have to grant permission and just say
that \--

MS. GORSKY: Well, that\'s where I was going with \--

MR. SANTIS: Yeah. If it meets the risk criteria, if it meets the
performance standard, if it meets the federal requirement, then about
the only way locals and states can get around it is end-zone it, is to,
you know, do other things to keep it from happening: you know,
industrial, you can\'t do that in a residential area, whatever. I mean,
we\'ll never overcome those issues.

MS. GORSKY: That\'s kind of where I was going. Is this \-- is there a
way to come up with a standard and a process that says this is the
standard for safe haven. If you are a private facility and you meet this
standard and you\'re willing to take this on, then you are a place where
people can park. Just kind of get rid of the definition that I think is
in the FMCSA regs that says a safe haven has to be approved.

I mean, not that we would want to, you know, necessarily not have some
input from the states but that in \-- as Cynthia suggested, as a
possible way to get around the state issue and to get us able to say
things like if you prohibit this facility from accepting explosives for
storage, if that somehow becomes a preemption issue.

I\'m just \-- as I say, I don\'t know a way to persuade these people
that they should approve them. And so what I\'m trying to get to is, is
there an alternative that we could use that kind of gets around the
state approval issue, includes \-- you\'re talking about including
consultation and input but that the ultimate way that the safe haven
gets established is by meeting a standard and that it \-- and that the
state wouldn\'t have to build it, the state wouldn\'t necessarily have
to take on the liability if there is a facility that\'s willing and able
to do this. That\'s kind of where I was going with my question.

MS. HILTON: Can we all go home now?

(Laughter.)

MS. GORSKY: I don\'t know. I can see a lot of noise from \-- we only
have one state guy here. Paul has got to speak for all 50 of them. But I
can see where that might be \-- where there needs to be a mechanism to
get some, for lack of a better word, consultation and some participation
without them necessarily being allowed to veto. I\'m not sure how you
get there, but it\'s kind of what I was teasing out with my question
about state approval problems, so.

MS. McNABB: Well, we do that with pipe code and pumps, for example, in
the building arena. So that, you know, a home that meets the HUD code
except for its anchoring and its foundation, the placement of it, it
cannot be inspected locally. That was the federal government\'s way
around that same issue.

MS. GORSKY: Right. Okay.

MS. McNABB: And FEMA uses those frequently, you know, the HUD code
homes, so that they can establish emergency housing. But they are \-- it
is the federal government\'s preemption of the local laws, except for
zoning, where, you know, they can get around it.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. WARD: I have a question. There are really three common carriers able
to get their safe havens. I mean, did they have to have a good state
relationship? I mean, it would seem like to me \--

MR. SANTIS: They\'re probably the biggest businesses in those areas.

MS. G. MARSHALL: It\'s all about the dollars, basically. I mean, these
guys, they\'re one of our top 17 ammunition carriers for DOD. They have
the bucks to do that. One is located, as I said, in Joplin, R & R
Trucking. The other is Tri-State Motor. They\'re just reputable and
they\'ve been in business and they have the background to do it all. And
of course, they have the backing of the community as well.

MR. WARD: It sounded like you had the backing of the community for that
port issue, so.

MS. HILTON: Yeah. For the \-- yeah, for the \-- yeah. Yeah. In that
particular movement, the Coast Guard is giving us trouble.

MR. SUPKO: Can we try a new slide?

MS. GORSKY: Yeah. We\'re going to \--

(Laughter.)

MS. GORSKY: We\'re going to see what the next slide is. And this goes to
the consensus standard issue and how, if you were going to do a standard
\-- leaving aside the whole state approval problem, if you were going to
come up with a standard, what the best approach would be.

We talked a lot about the NFPA standard in our ANPRM because it\'s a
specific standard that\'s designed for storage during transportation.
Some of the other things that we looked at, the Coast Guard port
requirements and the ATF requirements, are not designed so much for
in-transit storage. They are much more geared toward a permanent storage
type presence. We thought NFPA was appropriate because it was
transportation-oriented.

But there are some others. The IME standard is also a transportation
standard, and it references the NFPA standard. So there are different
ways to do this.

There is Cynthia\'s suggestion, which is a federal performance standard
in the way that we talk about the performance for our security plan
regs, which basically says the security plan has to be based on a risk
assessment. It has to cover these areas, but it leaves it very flexible
for how the individual company implements a plan that addresses its
specific risk. Maybe a more general kind of federal standard under which
you could fit NFPA or IME or any number of other standards that somebody
might come up with, might be the way to go.

So we thought it was worth talking about that just a little bit.

MS. HILTON: We vote for the last one.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

(Laughter.)

MS. GORSKY: Okay. We should just do a show of hands and move on?

MS. HILTON: No, no, no, no, no. The performance standard that she
described that we could use.

(Laughter.)

MR. SUPKO: Go ahead, Lon.

MR. SANTIS: Since 27 is up there, I would just mention that. Really, 498
is the, you know, really specific, the safe havens, and 27 talks about
transportation in general.

One thing that we do say about safe havens, we have just a \-- we just
have two little things on safe havens in this document. One is, follow
498. The second is that the carrier\'s safety department should review
and approve the commercial safe haven location authorization and
operation procedures prior to using it. It\'s sort of an internal thing.

But that\'s about as far as we go. We talk a little bit about parking
and things, but, you know, the document is more general. There might be
a couple little things in here that could be \-- might be appropriate.

MS. HILTON: But that was written for security. This is a security
standard, so.

MS. GORSKY: Okay. So most of you \-- I\'m assuming that most of you are
at least familiar with the NFPA 498 standard. From what I\'ve heard so
far, it appears like most of you would agree that that \-- if we were
going to adopt a standard that might be one that would do what we want
to do, which is basically make sure these things are stored safely.

Ben is my expert on this, so go ahead.

MS. HILTON: NFPA 498, Chapter 4.

MS. GORSKY: Chapter 4. That\'s right. I remember you said that before.

MS. HILTON: And the American Pyrotechnic Association, who could not be
here today, also embraces that thought.

MS. GORSKY: Okay, okay. Well, why don\'t you \-- oh, go right ahead.

MR. WARD: That NFPA 498, I went and looked for it and we don\'t have a
copy of it in our office. But, does it \-- are they the same standards
in ATF? I mean, you can\'t change the physics if you have an accident in
a storage situation. That\'s where we come from from the DOD for our
safe havens. We don\'t call them that anymore because, you know, of that
little GAO issue. We call them secure holding areas.

But we use the same standards for storage whether it\'s a safe haven or
it\'s in a magazine area. I mean, you just can\'t change the physics if
you have an accident. And the risk assessment approach hand in glove
with the QD approach, if you, you know, use all the tools you have with
you to make those kind of comparisons and judgments. But I don\'t know
\-- you know, if you just have reduced QD in Chapter 4 versus what\'s in
ATF, I personally would not be advising that in the DOD arena.

MS. HILTON: Okay. Jerry, we do not \-- then we\'re going to disappoint
you because in transportation, to get things from A to B, you accept a
little bit of risk. If you want to be really risk-free, you know, you
don\'t move it off the site.

So your permanent storage requirements are not going to work in
transportation. Think about it. You\'re saying \-- once again you\'re
saying, \"Oh, you can\'t let this thing sit here unless, you know, it
meets that permanent storage thing, but golly gee, go put it on a truck,
drive it up and down, you know, the middle of wherever, and all of a
sudden we don\'t have a concern.\"

I mean, we as a society, you know, accept some level of risk because we
understand transportation has to go forward. So the kind of permanent
storage setbacks that, you know \-- when Gwen was describing her thing
and I said, yeah, your setbacks are like permanent storage, it will not
work in a transportation setting. There has to be other things that you
can do that are going to reduce the risk.

I mean, the thing I like to say is, so, I \-- around my site, you know,
I\'m going to have my fence, I\'m going to have my 24/7 guards that are
within, you know, eyeballs. They can stare at each other. They\'re going
to stand there with misting machines so \-- continually, you know,
dampen the site.

I mean, things like that are going to drive risk down, and I\'m not
arguing for that. I\'m just saying that there are a number of things
that you could do that are going to minimize, and that\'s what we\'re
all going towards. That\'s what your SAFR standard does, is to minimize
the possibility that there might be a bad thing that happens. Setting
things back so that not one person could, you know, be affected if
something goes off is one way to do it, having setoff distances. But
another way is to have other standards like that.

MR. WARD: But, you know, when you think about, the safe haven is a
dynamic situation. Yes, that particular truck may be in there for eight
hours, four hours, but another truck is going to be in there. If you
were to take a picture and just keep taking snapshots of that safe
haven, you\'re going to have truckloads of ammunition. It\'s not going
to be the same ammunition, but it\'s going to be truckloads of
ammunition. You know, someone that doesn\'t look at the colors of the
trucks would say, \"Well, you\'re storing 30,000 pounds of explosives
there,\" but every day there may be different trucks that add up to
30,000.

In fact, in our SAFR solution for looking at these kinds of situation,
we have different probabilities of events for temporary versus transit
versus deep storage. Really, the safe haven is the temporary, which has
the higher probability of events because you\'re doing something. Deep
storage, it goes in there and it stays there and you don\'t have \--

MS. HILTON: Okay. Well, I cannot say more strongly on the record, if we
go towards a, you know, DOD kind of standard that it is \-- you will
never see one. No one will ever use it. And it goes back to, you know,
what Lon has been saying. I mean, this is an attendance requirement, and
no one is going to meet a permanent storage kind of situation. I mean,
you\'ll have dual drivers, maybe triple drivers. You know, I have no
idea.

MS. G. MARSHALL: When you say \"attendance,\" what are you speaking of?

MS. HILTON: You have to constantly attend the vehicle.

MS. G. MARSHALL: Okay, okay.

MS. GORSKY: The basic requirement is that you have to attend your
explosives for the entire time it\'s in transportation, and that means
when it\'s parked.

MS. HILTON: And you understand that, Jerry. You understand that drivers
\-- where\'s Paul here? You know, you need food, fuel. You\'ve got to
relieve yourself every once in a while. So you are going to go. You\'re
going to stop that vehicle in a very public area because you\'re going
to take care of these things. That is going to happen because that truck
is going to move.

Now, here we\'re talking about a situation where, again, it\'s going to
come to rest, and you\'re right, there might be more explosives vehicles
there. But, you know, I don\'t know what your risk thing would say
about, you know, a truck stop where, you know, any number of vehicles
are in and out. Talk about constant movement. I mean, this \-- the kind
of safe haven that we\'re talking about here is going to be much more
controlled.

I mean, the NFPA \-- help me out, Lon. Before you can come onto the site
someone has to be out there assessing the condition of your vehicle.
That doesn\'t happen before you go into a truck stop. But that activity
happens, and it has to happen if you want the stuff to move.

MR. SANTIS: Can I ask Jerry a question? You approved safe havens at
DDESB as a site?

MR. WARD: We have secure holding areas holding DOD installation \--

MS. HILTON: Then they probably meet the standard.

MR. SANTIS: Do you use SAFR?

MR. WARD: No.

MR. SANTIS: Would you use SAFR?

MR. WARD: We haven\'t used \-- that has not been a SAFR approved \--

MR. SANTIS: But if someone submitted one using SAFR \--

MR. WARD: And if it was an operation that would need a requirement \--

MR. SANTIS: You would consider it.

MR. WARD: \-- we would consider \-- oh, yeah, sure.

MR. SANTIS: Okay. So that\'s where I think maybe \--

MR. WARD: That\'s what \--

MR. SANTIS: \-- missing each other here. Jerry\'s methodology for
approval or his regulatory scheme is that people submit an approval to
him to have a safe haven, and they can justify that either based on
tables, like Gwen said, or they could justify it based on a quantitative
risk assessment using SAFR.

MR. WARD: If there was an operational need.

MR. SANTIS: You can do it both ways, see. So he\'s not saying that
quantity distance tables, you know, should always be applied to safe
havens. That\'s why they developed SAFR, because they realized that
quantity distance tables have limitations and are not always
appropriate.

So, you know, I think their methodology \-- the way they administer the
approvals is a good thing. How that would ever be accomplished over on
the DOD side \-- you know, what you envision, I think, is a similar
situation to how magazines are cited, okay. We don\'t have the approval
process like we do with ATF and the permits, but essentially that\'s
what you want.

The ATF regs say if you have a magazine this is what it\'s got to be
built like, these are your parameters, your distances. You go out and
you can put in a magazine. Well, not all the time because you have
zoning things and the community. Often you have to overcome their NMBB
reluctance to have that magazine there. No one has ever found a
solution, you know, and given \-- preemptive authority to ATF to say do
that, you have to allow it. But that\'s probably best case scenario.

We will always have the community activists to deal with, you know, the
people who just don\'t want you there and will use everything they can
to keep you out. You just need to have your standard and your risk
assessment to back you up.

I often look at it like we want to provide the fire marshal, who wants
to do the right thing, the cover that he needs to go to his boss and
say, look, this is all right. There\'s a good standard here for
operation. We\'ve looked at the risk. My ducks are all in a row now.
He\'s much more likely to get it approved that way.

MS. HILTON: Again, I hope, you know, you\'re hearing this. The risk is
higher in transportation. This is a very frightening kind of statement
for people who need to transport things. And I would \-- and why?
Because of the extra handling that would go on at that site. The extra
handling, the extra movement, the wasted fuel, the whatever, because it
will go somewhere.

So we\'re talking about a standard which, as we all know, can be \-- you
can go beyond the standard. I\'m sure that the munitions that Jerry
cares about and Gwen cares about, NFPA 498 is not going to do it for
them. We already know that. So their products are \-- they\'re going to
be comfortable with whatever they do there.

MS. G. MARSHALL: We used NFPA during our assessment of the locations
that are currently used. I mean, it\'s inherent that you have to look at
all your sources in order to make a decision. But the main thing \-- I
go back to the GAO. Make sure when you decide where you want to have
these locations that you have all the experts, if you will, to buy off
on this because it was very, very embarrassing when we were shut down,
all of the safe havens that the carriers had.

And what precipitated the whole problem was we had a senator that got
wind that we had a lot of safe havens out here that were not up to
standard. And this particular individual \-- I\'m not going to call any
names, but this particular individual put up a little intimidation type
of scheme and went to a couple of our locations and had a couple of
bully-like guys. They pushed their way in and they said, \"I want to see
this truck and I want to see these papers.\" They showed a \-- flashed a
badge, but the badge wasn\'t really, you know, confirmed because of the
\--

MS. HILTON: Size of them.

MS. G. MARSHALL: Exactly. And as a result, CAO was put on primetime. I
don\'t know if you saw that. And said \-- and the question was, you
know, we can find more about our Christmas packages. If I asked you
where your Christmas package was, you can tell me where my Christmas
package is better than you can the ammunition for the defense of the
United States.

So, as a result, we were shut down. Everything. Anything that was stored
had to go to a DOD location. We\'re talking military installation. And
as a result, these two carriers came up to standard. They came to us and
said, \"Look, we have a business and we want to still stay in commerce
and be, you know, able to carry your freight. What do we have to do?\"
We had several agencies that we all married up together and went to the
locations and told them what we needed in order for them to come up to
standard.

So what I\'m saying is that make sure when you make these decisions of
where your locations are going to be that you have all the major players
at the table that can support that location because it can be very
embarrassing otherwise, especially if there were an incident to occur.

MS. GORSKY: This is a question just for my information. Gwen, maybe you
or Jerry can answer it. At these DOD locations did you mention already,
is there an opportunity for a commercial transporter to utilize a DOD
location as a commercial safe haven?

MS. G. MARSHALL: Ordinarily they don\'t.

MS. GORSKY: They don\'t. Okay.

MS. G. MARSHALL: But if there\'s an emergency, most \-- these guys
understand what, you know, what it takes to move ammunition and
explosives. And if there\'s an emergency and, you know, undue
circumstances, they will allow it.

MS. GORSKY: But just as a matter of routine, the DOD facility could not
be an option for a commercial carrier.

MR. WARD: Yeah. We\'re not in the business.

MS. GORSKY: Right. Okay. That was just for my information.

MR. SANTIS: Sometimes they might say, \"Yeah, we\'re open to commercial
entities,\" but in reality what happens is that the conditions that are
placed on that are \-- just rule it out.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. SANTIS: You know, they\'re just, you know, unworkable conditions.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. SANTIS: They\'re usually related to the military\'s need to conduct
operations, and it\'s the uncertainty that people can\'t live with. You
know, they\'re told, \"Oh yeah, you can come in here, but, you know, if
a military truck shows up you\'re going to have to leave.\" You know,
it\'s not going to work here.

MS. GORSKY: Okay, okay.

MR. BANGS: Just for clarification purposes for some of the people in the
room who are unaware of ATF\'s role in explosives versus DOT
transportation issues, and also on the record, I just wanted to state
and bring up some of the issues that I know Cynthia has kind of alluded
to here.

The fact that, the federal explosive laws which ATF implements in our
regulations specifically exempt the explosive laws from articles or
explosive articles that are in transportation. And if they\'re in
transportation and regulated by either Department of Transportation or
the Department of Homeland Security, then ATF regulations do not apply.

Having said that, I really appreciate the fact that Susan and Ben
invited us to the meeting. We do have an excellent working relationship
with not only PHMSA but the other agencies within the Department of
Transportation because we do have a lot of issues that kind of overlap
and cause a lot of confusion for the industry. You know, it\'s a good
opportunity for everybody to sit around the table, and it\'s better to
have everybody here so we can air any differences that we may have out
in front and we can kind of resolve those right up front.

I don\'t think that ATF would say that our way is the only way. I think
ATF would say, and I think IME agrees, that in the commerce of
explosives and the permanent storage of explosives the American Table of
Distances which was developed by IME and adopted into our regulations
has served pretty well in the permanent storage of explosives. If there
had been accidents, which there have been a limited number of accidents,
the general public has been protected.

Having said that, we understand that transportation is an entirely
different ballpark, and Department of Transportation is best suited to
address articles that are in transportation. We don\'t know the
different needs, we don\'t know the safety issues of transportation, we
don\'t want to try to get into that ballgame. But at the same time, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the hearing here and,
you know, and comment.\
We do have members who are on the NFPA committees. Dave Shatzer, to my
left here, is on the NFPA committees and works on the NFPA document.

I think \-- I, anyway, think that a performance standard-based solution
may be a direction to go for you. At the same time, I wonder \-- in the
beginning we talked about there is very few, and we\'re not sure that
there\'s a need for a lot of, safe havens. But yet, if we opened it up,
it seems like to me that if we open it up to where here\'s the standard
and anybody can set it up to the standard and states or others can\'t
say anything about it, the possibility is it may open it up further than
it necessarily needs to go. That\'s just my comment for now.

MR. SUPKO: Anybody else on this one?

MS. McNABB: I just want to say, this is a standard. In general, we
prefer that the standard \-- the appropriate and relevant portions of
the standard are referenced by the agency. So that, you know, whatever
you find in here that is applicable to the situation you would
reference. Obviously, if you need the safe haven portion, that\'s the
portion.

But in general, NFPA is not opposed to performance standards. A lot of
our standards incorporate, you know, performance provisions in order to
establish what the level of protection needs to be. So, you know, it
sounds like the best approach would be some sort of risk analysis
together with a reference to 498.

But 498 won\'t tell you where to locate things, and it won\'t make the
leap to the enforcement problem. We do have a document, NFPA 1, the Fire
Code, which a lot of fire marshals use. That NFPA 1 has a lot of
performance language in it that tells the fire marshal look for this,
this, this.

But again, individuals are not always comfortable with, you know, making
that determination themselves with limited background. So if they had a
document that was a risk assessment and something more formal than the
language we have in NFPA 1, you might get more buy-in from the
enforcement community.

MR. SANTIS: To follow on that, you know, there\'s another group. The
International Code Council is another body that firefighters and code
officials look to. Just as you could get something in NFPA 1, I think
IME might seek to get the same sort of thing into the international
codes.

Fire marshals, as she points out, are just given some guidance in those
\-- again, going back to what I said about cover, you know, if in that
overarching code it tells the code official if someone comes to you and
asks to put in a safe haven, this is what it should be like. That is
much more likely to get them, you know, installed.

MR. SHATZER: If I could add one thing before we leave safety measures,
taking what Jerry said into consideration and what Cynthia said into
consideration, transportation is one of the higher hazard activities
involved in explosives. I would just pay close attention to how you word
the performance standard for the safety aspect of it so you don\'t
reduce the safety, you keep it status quo or make it more safe.

MS. HILTON: The only comment I\'d make is anything you would say is
better than what we have now, which is nothing.

(Laughter.)

MS. GORSKY: Okey-doke.

MR. SUPKO: A lot of this was covered already, it appears.

MS. GORSKY: And the more general question is going back to what Gary
suggested, which is, you know, what kind of a network are we talking
about. I mean, I\'m getting the impression that we may not need \--
there may be some very specific locations, from what Cynthia said, where
you need these, but you don\'t need like this whole \-- you know, my
impression of the discussion on this, this whole massive network of 10
miles down the road you\'re going to find your next safe haven, like a
rest stop. It\'s not quite as necessary as a normal rest stop.

So we may \-- so what I\'m going to, I guess, is the scope of the
problem. If you establish a relatively few number of these things in
strategic locations, does that solve the problems that you all are
encountering or is there a broader issue here? Is there a need for like,
you know, hundreds of these things in every place you could possibly
think of.

Go ahead, Cynthia.

MS. HILTON: My guys clearly \-- because I had no idea what they would
say, but all of them who responded said the latter. They said there are
\-- I started calling them chokepoints, bottlenecks, whatever. They said
that\'s where they need them because they have, for whatever reason, and
Lon might know the history, have embraced this dual driver concept.
Again, we\'re talking about attendance. And even though they\'re paying,
you know, salary and retirement and whatever else, it\'s a better use of
their equipment. It\'s whatever.

Again, in deference to what Jerry said, there is exposure. If you are
out there, you cannot control who else is out there with you. The idea
that you would drive out of the way to get over to a safe haven to go
back is \-- you know, you\'re wasting fuel, yada, yada, yada. So I
clearly heard that it\'s not a nationwide network.

MS. GORSKY: Okay. So, is it \-- so, am I hearing correctly that industry
generally is moving towards the use of dual drivers and other
alternatives to interim storage as a way to solve their problem of
getting from here to there?

MS. HILTON: Attendance.

MS. GORSKY: The constant attendance issue. Okay.

MS. HILTON: And the other thing that I think comes out of this that I
was told is episodic. These are episodic needs for these things.

Then the only other \-- and I wish Julie was here from the Pyrotechnic
people because, one, she absolutely will tell you it\'s episodic.

MS. GORSKY: Right.

MS. HILTON: But when she has her need, it is like nationwide, I mean,
you know. So I don\'t know what that suggests to you.

MS. GORSKY: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. SANTIS: Just to kind of further emphasize Cynthia\'s points, I think
our industry has gone to the point where if a delivery is a fairly
regularly occurring thing, the team driver and those sorts of approaches
are how they deal with it. When a safe haven is needed, it is often a
one-time thing. I think Lauri\'s case there where she\'s got this
special thing, Cynthia\'s example where a large amount is going to
Alaska, that is practically an annual thing there.

A case where you have prepared a shipment for a customer, it has been
picked up by the carrier, and just as the carrier leaves the gate the
customer says, \"Oh, I\'m not going to be able to take delivery for
another day. So-and-so\'s wife just had a baby and he\'s not going to be
in. Now I need a safe haven.\"

So it is those come-and-go, temporary things. Networks, you know, are
probably not what our industry is looking for.

MS. GORSKY: So I\'m Joe Safe Haven. I\'m going to set myself up and
there\'s a standard I\'m going to follow and I\'m going to establish
myself as a place to be. Would this be something where the industry
would be willing to pay for my services?

MS. HILTON: We think it would be ridiculous.

MS. GORSKY: I\'m looking for an alternative career here.

MS. HILTON: We\'re not going to invite it, but clearly, it would be a
business activity.

MS. GORSKY: Right, right.

MS. HILTON: And that kind of thing would drive your decision about
whether or not you do this or not.

MS. GORSKY: And so one of the driving forces then would be is it cheaper
for me to just use two drivers and move straight through or does this
make sense from a cost standpoint, for me to stop for \-- if I need to
for whatever reason.

MS. HILTON: Yeah. None of my members said no fees. They basically came
back with \-- I mean, it would just be one of \-- just like you said,
one of the things that would factor into your decision about what you
need.

MS. GORSKY: About how you would route them generally and things like
that.

MS. HILTON: And some things you\'re not going to have a choice. You
know, like the Seattle situation. Well, I don\'t know. I guess you do
have a choice because you could keep it running back and forth and, you
know, whatever. But, okay.

MS. G. MARSHALL: I think the team concept comes in with the play of the
FMCSA, where they have the hours of service and the 11-hour rule. So
that\'s the reason why you have \-- it\'s better to have two drivers,
because you can cover more distance and one guy can get rest while the
other can move along, so.

MR. SANTIS: And that\'s our standard. Our industry standard is that when
you are embarking on a shipment that will exceed one driver\'s hours of
service there should be two drivers.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. MAZZULLO: Ed Mazzullo with PHMSA. Paul, from the enforcement
standpoint, is there a need to have a place to put these vehicles when
they\'re put out of service? What do you do at the present time?

MS. GORSKY: Good question.

MR. BOMGARDNER: At an inspection location, if and when an explosives
carrier is put out of service for a mechanical defect or a driver
violation or whatever, I mean, the vehicle is placed out of service on
that inspection site. They try to find a spot far enough away from
everybody else in that facility, if there\'s room. Put them in the far
corner. But they also require that vehicle to be attended by, you know,
the driver or the co-driver.

A lot of times \-- I mean, vehicles like that generally get high
priority by the company. So they\'re out there very quickly to remedy
whatever is wrong. A driver violation, they will quickly get a
replacement driver out there. They\'re not going to let that vehicle
sit.

So, obviously, it\'s a case-by-case basis, but once that vehicle is put
out of service at an inspection facility, you know, the attendance
requirements are enforced. Believe me, they get on those \-- the company
gets on them very quickly.

MR. SANTIS: Ed, could I add there, one of the places where we see
problems is our border crossings. In those cases, customs has impounded
the shipment and you\'re not allowed to go and get it as Paul has
indicated we\'re so ready to do. Those I\'ve heard concerns because
those are very populated places.

It can be where tourists are lined up to go across, and it\'s usually
some sort of paperwork, usually not valid. It\'s usually a customs
official that expects certain paperwork that\'s not needed and it takes
a while to convince them that it\'s not needed and it should continue to
go. There are problems there.

MS. HILTON: We need DHS and TSA at the table to talk about some of these
things.

MS. GORSKY: It\'s unfortunate that they were not able to be here today.

Have we pretty much covered this one? Do we have another one? Oh. We\'ve
touched on some of this. This has been a good discussion. So our last
kind of major issue point was alternatives. We\'ve listed a couple.
We\'ve talked about a couple. We\'d be interested if there are any ideas
that you have for looking at the problem, if there\'s anybody out here
who\'s feeling particularly creative or innovative, things that we
haven\'t talked about that you might want to talk about in terms of an
alternative to having to deal with the safe haven.

Dual drivers is the most obvious one, but if there\'s another approach
that we haven\'t talked about, we\'d be interested in hearing that.

MS. HILTON: You know, I don\'t know if this is an answer to your
question, but I\'ll just start off with one of the things we said. We
regard safe havens as an option for attendance.

MS. GORSKY: Right.

MS. HILTON: And so if we continue to look at this issue as an attendance
issue and how can we accomplish that, if you go back and look at that
FMCSA thing, it\'s \-- you know, the driver can attend, the motor
carrier can attend, the consignee/consignor, the safe haven can attend.
So I look at that and I say that\'s a third party kind of entity.

But, you know, all of those entities should be expected. We recommend
that, you know, if you\'re \--someone other than the driver is
attending, you know, that there should be some kind of safety
requirements. We\'ve been pointing to NFPA 498, Chapter 4.

So I don\'t know if that\'s where you\'re going, but there are other
options and we don\'t want to take any options off the table.

MR. SUPKO: Things that the commenters had said. What if \-- what about a
temporary parking? Say, let\'s use the rest stop or something like that.
Would there be a certain standard or performance type standard that you
would use to temporarily park? Should there be time limits on the amount
of \-- you know. Away from the attendance requirement, more towards
storage. Should there be time limits on storage, things like that.

MS. HILTON: Okay. Are you putting two questions on the table? Because
\--

MR. SUPKO: Yes.

MS. GORSKY: Yes.

MS. HILTON: Okay, okay. Because \-- well, I think our comments have
tried to address the time limit thing for a safe haven to say that you
need to \-- there needs to be some flexibility there. I mean, if you
want to put out \-- if you put out a time limit there, they need to be
able to rebut the presumption that you\'re not still in transportation
because \-- in that situation because if you push that vehicle out
before it\'s, you know, not ready or able to go somewhere, where have
you shifted that risk off to. So I hope that answers that.

The other thing is, and I\'d really like to know what Paul has to say
about this, is you do need to temporarily park every once in a while,
you know. I mean, the food, the fuel, the relief. Again, from our
members\' point of view, for these materials, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, in
those temporary parking situations, I mean, you know, our recommendation
\-- we \-- I\'m sorry. Perhaps you might have those needs \-- maybe Lon
can address this \-- if it\'s within one driver\'s hours of service. Did
I say that correctly? In fact, I did ask him this question.

And they said with regards to those activities, even relief, that as
long as they could visually see their vehicle, you know, they were
meeting the standard. So the bushes or the whatever.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: But then we have our awesome carriers who have equipped
their cabs with ways to handle those things.

(Laughter.)

MS. HILTON: Anyway, the point is that, you know, they\'re being
attended. They should be attended, and we shouldn\'t expect that they
not be attended even if it\'s for a very brief period of time.

MS. GORSKY: Do you have a feel, anybody, when somebody is using a safe
haven, for about how long the vehicle is parked in a safe haven? We\'re
not talking about days and days, are we?

MS. HILTON: No.

MS. GORSKY: No? Dave, go ahead.

MR. MADSEN: When we use safe havens, it\'s usually an overnight thing.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. MADSEN: Generally.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. WARD: I mean, it should be long enough for a driver that needs to
get back into his hours of service.

MS. GORSKY: Right. Get back into his hours of service. Right. Okay,
okay.

MS. HILTON: And kind of what I\'ve been told is that, for instance, you
know, this very unique movement that is happening now. So that\'s going
to be like a month, you know, as that stuff is staged. But I\'ll just
say that, you know, again, there is \-- there could be unique situations
that might \--

MS. GORSKY: Where you might need to be a little longer than, say,
overnight. Okay.

MS. HILTON: Right.

MS. GORSKY: Okay, okay.

MS. G. MARSHALL: DOD traditionally allows the 100-hour rule, which is
what the NFPA has.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MS. G. MARSHALL: And what we\'ve had in some circumstances around the
holiday weekends, we allow special waivers when carriers come in and
say, look, we know we\'re going to be able to come in on Friday and a
lot of the depots are on the compressed schedule. So we make special
considerations in those terms and allow them to stay maybe 120 hours or
what have you, whatever the case may be.

MS. HILTON: I just remembered what my members \-- the comments that I
got back on this. They were very leery of, like I say, if you set a
time. Right now the 498 doesn\'t have a time for safe havens. It\'s the
interchange logs. But if you decide to put something like that, you need
to give some kind of rebuttable presumption opportunity there.

They would like to say to you, however, that there are huge incentives
not to allow things to sit because if it is legitimately in
transportation this is equipment that is making them no money, you know.
This is \-- somebody wants that thing or it wouldn\'t be there in the
first place. So there are a lot of built-in incentives to move things.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MR. SUPKO: Back to the temporary storage, what about locks or sensors?
The doors open in the back. You\'ve got a special lock. He\'s got a
sensor on his keychain. Something like that, anything.

MS. HILTON: If anybody has read the recent TSA recommendations for
safety \-- remember the voluntary things that just came out?

MS. GORSKY: Their security action items.

MS. HILTON: You\'re going to be locking them.

MS. GORSKY: One of the things that we do in the regulations on the rail
side, and we have interpreted this also on the carrier side, is in lieu
of personal attendance, a person standing, staring at the vehicle or the
rail car, electronic attendance: sensors, video cameras, things like
that.

I\'m just tossing that out here, not necessarily that there\'s a way for
you to handle that at the rest stop where you\'re, you know, running
into the bushes, but as perhaps something that you might want to think
about if you\'re looking at equipping a safe haven, more probably for
security than safety. But, would these be things that you would want to
see at a safe haven or a temporary parking facility or whatever
alternative? Some sort of an electronic monitoring system that might
give some people a better or warmer and fuzzier feeling than access is
restricted and that not anybody can, you know, climb the fence and
wander around and get into trouble.

MS. HILTON: Our members really want you to know that \-- when some of
these things were written, I guess that kind of technology wasn\'t
there.

MS. GORSKY: Right.

MS. HILTON: But they certainly \-- if you come out with something, this
attendance requirement, they want to be able to achieve that either
manually or by electronic means.

MS. GORSKY: Okay.

MS. HILTON: I mean, there are \-- you know, and most likely, they have
told me, it would be a combination of things that they do. But frankly,
if you have several trailers on a site and there\'s only one of you,
you\'re not going to be able to visually be seeing everything and
actually monitoring. An electronic system would assist in that.

And then someone told me that if you totally rely on electronic \-- I
don\'t know. Maybe, Paul, you\'ve heard this. Something like you can\'t
stare at those cameras longer than 20 minutes, and then I don\'t care
who you are, you just zone out. So you need to have some kind of \-- you
need to walk, you need to look, you need to \--

MR. SHATZER: There\'s new technology that makes it better, that you only
see things moving in the camera, you don\'t see the trailer. It blanks
out the trailer and then you only see movement around the trailer. So it
makes it easier for people to monitor for a longer period of time.

MR. SUPKO: That\'s it, unless you had any other questions.

MS. HILTON: We have six recommendations.

MS. GORSKY: Oh. Well, maybe we should hear those.

MS. HILTON: Okay. You should retain your constant attendance
requirements on 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 materials. In the times of heightened
security threats, safe haven should be given to all Class 1 placarded
vehicles and that in those cases we would like the government to step up
where you have law enforcement presence. You should be willing to
assist, and we think PHMSA should lead the drive to corral all your law
enforcement friends and allow for that.

Incorporate a performance standard into the HMAR for safe havens that
includes theft loss reporting. You should not mandate the use of safe
havens. There are other options for constant attendance that are viable
and should remain available.

You should not mandate time limits or quantity limits if this is going
to drive, you know, out \-- it\'s kind of the system-wide look at the
risk that you might be creating.

And that we oppose \-- there was one suggestion in the docket that did
not come up, but we would like to kill it stone dead if we could, which
was a suggestion that we limit the amount of explosives that could be on
a vehicle. Do you remember that comment? So we\'re not in favor of that.
If we can \-- you know, because, again, it may make the vehicle safer
but in making that vehicle safer you\'ve put eight vehicles, if you do
what that comment said. The tradeoff would be, you know, one versus
eight, and you\'re likely to have more bad things happen.

MS. GORSKY: Thank you, Cynthia. Does anybody else want to make some
recommendations or some closing remarks before we break up?

I found this to be very useful. I hope the rest of you did as well. We
would love to hear from you in written comments to the docket based on
what we\'ve talked about today or anything else that you think of.

There were a number of questions in the ANPRM that we did not entirely
cover today. We thought that would be boring, frankly. But if you want
to, you know, go through the ANPRM and look at some of those questions
and offer some input in writing, the docket is open until September \--
October 1st. All right.

We still don\'t have the answer, but we did, I think, get a lot of good
information today. I think it was very useful for us. I hope it was for
you as well. I would encourage anybody who wants to say something before
we leave to please say something.

MR. KAPOOR: I\'d like to ask, have you excluded the high hazard, other
high hazard issues?

MS. GORSKY: For this docket we are \-- explosives, yes.

MR. KAPOOR: Okay.

MS. GORSKY: It was going to get to be a very difficult set of issues to
manage to talk about other materials, and frankly, there is already some
security work going on that is looking at other types of high hazard
materials and how those get stored. We would at this point probably
defer to TSA and DHS on that, unless we see a safety need to address
that. But for this purpose we\'re looking at 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3
explosives.

MR. MAZZULLO: Susan?

MS. GORSKY: Yes.

MR. MAZZULLO: While we have IME in the room I would like to ask about
the 1.5s. Do you see a need for safe havens for these materials, since
they\'re the types of materials that are being shipped in mass
quantities to Alaska?

MS. HILTON: You are correct there, and that question I did ask. The
answer I am supposed to give is that we are comfortable or we support or
we are not advocating \-- we are not advocating a change in the
398.5-whatever, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3.

MR. SANTIS: I\'ll tag onto that. If we do have \-- we recommend more
stringent requirements for 1.5 than the regulations do require in other
areas. So it\'s not \-- you know, given some attention, for sure.

MS. GORSKY: All right.

MS. HILTON: And in a security situation, we did say placarded quantities
that we could accept certain things to happen. If there was a security
threat out there.

MS. GORSKY: Well, unless nobody has anything else to say, I think we\'re
done for the day. Thank you so much for coming. We appreciate your time.

(Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)