{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0177","title":"Duplainville Transport, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-09-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0177 response to Duplainville Transport, Inc. concerning 172.802.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0177.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0177.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0177","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060177.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nS. Departme\nTransportatic\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWastington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nSEP\n13 2006\nMr. Scott Geshrick\nRef. No.: 06-017?\nDuplainville Transport, Inc.\nSafety Specialist\nN63 W23075 Main Street\nSussex, WI 53089\nDear Mr. Geshrick:\nThis responds to your letter dated July 21, 2006, regarding the components of a\nHazardous Materials Security Plan as prescribed under Subpart I of Part 172 of the\nfor clarification on how \"detailed\" a security plan should be from the perspective of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask\nshipper. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1.\nSection 172.802(a) requires a security plan to include an assessment of possible\ntransportation security risks for covered shipments of hazardous materials.\nShould this assessment identify risk and vulnerability by material or based on\nthreats associated with the specific material or both? May security measures be\nindividual material?\nbased on the hazard class of a material or must they be considered for each\nAl.\nThe HMR set forth general requirements for a security plan's components rather\nperformance standard providing offerors and carriers with the flexibility\nthan a prescriptive list of specific items that must be included. The HMR set a\nnecessary to develop security plans addressing their individual circumstances and\noperational environments. Accordingly, each security plan will differ because it\nwill be based on an offeror's or a carrier's individualized assessment of the\ntransports and its unique circumstances and operational environment.\nsecurity risks associated with the specific hazardous materials it ships cr\nThe risk assessment on which your security plan is based should list the materials\nor classes of materials you offer for transportation or transport and an evaluation\nof the possible security risks associated with each material or class of materials.\nThe risk assessment need not address threats associated with a specific material or\nclass of materials; rather, the risk assessment should identify more generalized\nsecurity risks for each material or class of materials. However, you may consider\nrisks and vulnerabilities based on threats associated with specific mater als or\n172-802\n060177\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ntypes of materials you handle.\nclasses of materials if you believe such an assessment is more appropriate to the\nQ2.\nIs an offeror (shipper) responsible for en route security only to the extent that a\nmaterial is in a state of pre-transportation; or does the regulatory intent extend to\nthe material en route under a motor carrier's control until the material or product\nreaches its destination?\nA2.\nWe expect shippers to work with carriers to address en route security risks for the\nmaterials covered by the security plan. In some cases, a shipper and carrier may\nhave a joint plan; in others, a shipper and carrier may have two separa e security\ncarriers to determine the best methods for addressing en route security issues. A\nplans. The regulation provides the flexibility necessary to enable shippers and\nshipper should satisfy itself that the carrier that will be transporting its material\nhas a security plan in place that addresses the transportation of the material or\nmaterials to be shipped.\n03.\nAt what point may a shipper of a hazardous material be satisfied that it has met\nthe regulatory requirements for a security plan?\nA variety of information and guidance to assist you to comply with the security\n24.\nDo we consider low risk material that would be considered consumer\ncommodities, or only consider those materials in placardable quantities?\nA4.\nubpart G of Part 107 are subject to security plan requirements. As specified\nhose shipments that are listed as triggering the registration requirements i\nquantity of hazardous material that requires placarding as prescribed in Subpart F\n§172.800, the covered shipments and appropriate security measures include a\nof Part 172. Consumer commodities do not require placarding and are not subject\nsecurity plan requirements. Note that for covered hazardous materials, your risk\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nassessment could well conclude that, for some materials or classes of materials,\nare not warranted\nthe transportation security risk is not significant and extensive security measures\nI hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nEngrus\n$172.802\nDUPLAN MILE TRANSPORT Security Plans\nA Quad/Graphics Company\n06-0177\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\n400 7* Street S.W.\nU.S.DOT / PHMSA (PHH-10)\nJuly 21, 2006\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRe: Clarification of 49 CFR 172.800 and 172.802\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI am writing to your office for clarification of the components of a Hazardous\nMaterials Security Plan as defined in the applicable sections of the HMR.\nWe fall under the purpose and applicability definitions defined in 172.800 for a\nshipper and carrier of \"a quantity of hazardous material that requires placarding\",\nAnd as such we understand that we are required to have a security plan.\nOur confusion comes from a debate as to how \"detailed\" our plan needs to be\nfrom a shipping or otteror perspective. In 172.802 the regulations state what\ncomponents a security plan must incorporate, however, the regulation can be\nvague in its statement in paragraph (a):\n\"The security plan must include an assessment of possible transportation\nsecurity risks for shipments of the hazardous materials listed in 172.800 and\nplace by the plan may vary commensurate with the level of threat at a particular\nappropriate measures to address the assessed risks. Specific measures put into\ntime. At a minimum, a security plan must include the following elem-nts:\nPersonnel security,... Unauthorized Access,... En Route security...\"\nupon the reader's viewpoint. We have read RSPA's Self Evaluation Framework\nWe feel that this paragraph may be interpreted to mean several things dependant\nand have applied it to our initial security plan of 2003, however, we are currently\ndebating whether the regulatory intent of the above paragraph is to identify risk\nand vulnerability by material or by threat associated with the material or both? In\naddition is it the regulatory intent of the paragraph to mean that each individual\nmaterial is required to have specific measures in place based upon the threat or\nbased upon the specific likelihood of occurrence associated with the specific\nrisks assessed to each material?\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nOur next question is in reference to unauthorized access. Is a shipper or offeror\nresponsible for en route security only to the extent that material is in a state of\nre-transportation? Or does the regulatory intent extend to the material en route\nunder a motor carriers control and until the material or product reaches its\ndestination?\nFinally, a what point may a shipper or offeror of a hazardous material be satisfied\nthat it has met the regulatory requirements satistactorily for a hazardous material\nsecurity plan? Do we have to consider relatively low risk materials that would be\nin placardable quantities? Can security measures be based upon hazard class of\nconsidered consumer commodities or do we need only consider those materials\na material or must they be considered for each material individually?\nPlease feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have in order to\nexpedite our request for clarification.\nRespectfully,\nGet tehrit\n-Scott Geshrick\nN63 W23075 Main Street\nSafety Specialist, Duplainville Transport, Inc.\n414-566-2307\nSussex, WI 53089\nEmail: scott.geshrick@qg.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":7722}