# Duplainville Transport, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation **Citation:** 06-0177 **Type / status:** guidance / guidance **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 2006-09-13 06-0177 response to Duplainville Transport, Inc. concerning 172.802. ## Document text <<>> S. Departme Transportatic 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Wastington, D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration SEP 13 2006 Mr. Scott Geshrick Ref. No.: 06-017? Duplainville Transport, Inc. Safety Specialist N63 W23075 Main Street Sussex, WI 53089 Dear Mr. Geshrick: This responds to your letter dated July 21, 2006, regarding the components of a Hazardous Materials Security Plan as prescribed under Subpart I of Part 172 of the for clarification on how "detailed" a security plan should be from the perspective of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask shipper. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q1. Section 172.802(a) requires a security plan to include an assessment of possible transportation security risks for covered shipments of hazardous materials. Should this assessment identify risk and vulnerability by material or based on threats associated with the specific material or both? May security measures be individual material? based on the hazard class of a material or must they be considered for each Al. The HMR set forth general requirements for a security plan's components rather performance standard providing offerors and carriers with the flexibility than a prescriptive list of specific items that must be included. The HMR set a necessary to develop security plans addressing their individual circumstances and operational environments. Accordingly, each security plan will differ because it will be based on an offeror's or a carrier's individualized assessment of the transports and its unique circumstances and operational environment. security risks associated with the specific hazardous materials it ships cr The risk assessment on which your security plan is based should list the materials or classes of materials you offer for transportation or transport and an evaluation of the possible security risks associated with each material or class of materials. The risk assessment need not address threats associated with a specific material or class of materials; rather, the risk assessment should identify more generalized security risks for each material or class of materials. However, you may consider risks and vulnerabilities based on threats associated with specific mater als or 172-802 060177 <<>> types of materials you handle. classes of materials if you believe such an assessment is more appropriate to the Q2. Is an offeror (shipper) responsible for en route security only to the extent that a material is in a state of pre-transportation; or does the regulatory intent extend to the material en route under a motor carrier's control until the material or product reaches its destination? A2. We expect shippers to work with carriers to address en route security risks for the materials covered by the security plan. In some cases, a shipper and carrier may have a joint plan; in others, a shipper and carrier may have two separa e security carriers to determine the best methods for addressing en route security issues. A plans. The regulation provides the flexibility necessary to enable shippers and shipper should satisfy itself that the carrier that will be transporting its material has a security plan in place that addresses the transportation of the material or materials to be shipped. 03. At what point may a shipper of a hazardous material be satisfied that it has met the regulatory requirements for a security plan? A variety of information and guidance to assist you to comply with the security 24. Do we consider low risk material that would be considered consumer commodities, or only consider those materials in placardable quantities? A4. ubpart G of Part 107 are subject to security plan requirements. As specified hose shipments that are listed as triggering the registration requirements i quantity of hazardous material that requires placarding as prescribed in Subpart F §172.800, the covered shipments and appropriate security measures include a of Part 172. Consumer commodities do not require placarding and are not subject security plan requirements. Note that for covered hazardous materials, your risk <<>> assessment could well conclude that, for some materials or classes of materials, are not warranted the transportation security risk is not significant and extensive security measures I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, <<>> Engrus $172.802 DUPLAN MILE TRANSPORT Security Plans A Quad/Graphics Company 06-0177 Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 400 7* Street S.W. U.S.DOT / PHMSA (PHH-10) July 21, 2006 Washington, DC 20590-0001 Re: Clarification of 49 CFR 172.800 and 172.802 Dear Mr. Mazzullo: I am writing to your office for clarification of the components of a Hazardous Materials Security Plan as defined in the applicable sections of the HMR. We fall under the purpose and applicability definitions defined in 172.800 for a shipper and carrier of "a quantity of hazardous material that requires placarding", And as such we understand that we are required to have a security plan. Our confusion comes from a debate as to how "detailed" our plan needs to be from a shipping or otteror perspective. In 172.802 the regulations state what components a security plan must incorporate, however, the regulation can be vague in its statement in paragraph (a): "The security plan must include an assessment of possible transportation security risks for shipments of the hazardous materials listed in 172.800 and place by the plan may vary commensurate with the level of threat at a particular appropriate measures to address the assessed risks. Specific measures put into time. At a minimum, a security plan must include the following elem-nts: Personnel security,... Unauthorized Access,... En Route security..." upon the reader's viewpoint. We have read RSPA's Self Evaluation Framework We feel that this paragraph may be interpreted to mean several things dependant and have applied it to our initial security plan of 2003, however, we are currently debating whether the regulatory intent of the above paragraph is to identify risk and vulnerability by material or by threat associated with the material or both? In addition is it the regulatory intent of the paragraph to mean that each individual material is required to have specific measures in place based upon the threat or based upon the specific likelihood of occurrence associated with the specific risks assessed to each material? <<>> Our next question is in reference to unauthorized access. Is a shipper or offeror responsible for en route security only to the extent that material is in a state of re-transportation? Or does the regulatory intent extend to the material en route under a motor carriers control and until the material or product reaches its destination? Finally, a what point may a shipper or offeror of a hazardous material be satisfied that it has met the regulatory requirements satistactorily for a hazardous material security plan? Do we have to consider relatively low risk materials that would be in placardable quantities? Can security measures be based upon hazard class of considered consumer commodities or do we need only consider those materials a material or must they be considered for each material individually? Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have in order to expedite our request for clarification. Respectfully, Get tehrit -Scott Geshrick N63 W23075 Main Street Safety Specialist, Duplainville Transport, Inc. 414-566-2307 Sussex, WI 53089 Email: scott.geshrick@qg.com ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa` - SHA-256: `7d404da6765598305b171a8ebf5152e517900d1a272a6e6f24da39da9c934663` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z - Exported: 2026-08-24T03:27:20.709Z - Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-06-0177` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "interpretation", "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials", "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf", "companies": [ "Duplainville Transport, Inc." ], "individuals": [ "Safety Specialist" ], "refIds": [ "06-0177" ], "catalogDates": [ "2006-09-13" ], "catalogParts": [ 172 ], "catalogRowCount": 1, "sourceRecordUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/44451" ], "linkedAttachmentUrls": [], "unavailableResponseUrls": [], "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [], "citedSections": [ "172.802", "172.802(a)", "172.800" ], "catalogPageUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/172802" ], "pdfUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060177.pdf" ], "representations": [ { "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060177.pdf", "detailUrl": null, "detailHtmlPath": null, "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060177.pdf", "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/06-0177-6afab2c6e9.pdf", "pdfArtifactSha256": "91b2db077faf353d2ee006c4866a6641c4c0637492d6740769422f0b907106c3", "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/06-0177-6afab2c6e9.v2.txt", "extractedTextSha256": "33c638059ede2c1ea194d3d453ef22097dea01a86774f544585ffc07164f3e4e", "pageCount": 5, "extractionVersion": 2 } ], "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```