{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0064","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-04-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0064 response to URS Corporation concerning 172.800, 172.804.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0064.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0064.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0064","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100064.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nAPR -7 2010\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMs. Erin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Dr., Suite 400\nMorrisvillle, NC 27560\nRef. No. 10-0064\nDear Ms. Jarman:\nThis responds to your March 22, 2010 request for clarification ofthe Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for clarification of\n§ 172.800(b) and our interpretation (Ref. No. 05-0066), regarding security plan applicability.\nIn the letter you reference, we state \"under the HMR, facilities that receive hazardous materials\nare not required to have security plans.\" You note that since applicability in\n§ 172.800(b) has not changed, the clarification still applies. You are requesting confirmation\nthat, despite new language adopted in a final rule published March 9, 2010, that revises the list\nofmaterials for which a security plan is required, facilities that receive hazardous materials are\nnot required to have transportation security plans.\nSection 172.800(b) requires each person who offers for transportation or transports in commerce\none or more ofthe hazardous materials listed in § I 72.800(b )(1) through (b )(7) to develop and\nimplement a security plan. However, if your company only receives and uses the hazardous\nmaterials at its facility, you are not required to develop and implement a security plan under\n§ 172.800(b). Note, however, that the facility may be subject to the Department of Homeland\nSecurity's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (6 CFR Part 27).\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need further assistance, please contact this Office.\nSincerely,\nM~0j)AS\nCharles E. Betts\n. f, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMarch 22, 2010\nMr. Edward T. Mazullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-IO)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazullo:\nI am writing to request confirmation that, despite language adopted in HM-232F\n(\"Hazardous Materials: Risk-Based Adjustment of Transportation Security Plan\nRequirements,\" 75 FR 10974, published March 9, 2010) concerning the transportation\nrisk assessment, that under the HMR, facilities that receive hazardous materials are not\nrequired to have security plans.\nThe following revision to the regulatory text for a transportation risk assessment (a\ncomponent of the security plan) was incorporated into 49 CFR 172.802(a) in the final\nrule to HM-232F. (Note that this regulatory text was revised from the text that appeared\nin the proposed rule, 73 FR 52572, published September 9, 2008.)\nThe security plan must include an assessment of transportation security risks for\nshipments ofthe hazardous materials listed in 172.800, including site-specific or\nlocation-specific risks associated with facilities at which hazardous materials\nlisted in 172.800 are prepared for transportation, stored, or unloaded incidental\nto movement and appropriate measures to address associates risks. [Bolded text\nadded.]\nIn discussing the intent ofthis new regulatory text with Mr. Ben Supko ofyour staff, he\nstated that the phrase \"unloaded incidental to movement\" would apply to unloading\nactivities that may occur to a hazardous material shipment while under an active shipping\npaper, such as a transfer from one transport vehicle to another at a transporter's\ncentralized location, or a transshipment (cross dock) at a facility en route to its final\ndestination.\nWhen reviewing the changes that were adopted in HM-232F, only very minor editorial\nchanges were made to the applicability section in 49 CFR 172.800(b) [75 FR 10988]:\n(b) Applicability. By SeptembeF l~, 199~, e Each person who offers for\ntransportation in commerce or transports in commerce one or more of the\nfollowing hazardous materials must develop and adhere to a transportation\nsecurity plan for hazardous materials that conforms to the requirements of this\nsubpart. [Additions noted by bold. Deletions noted by bold strikeouts.]\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDRS\nMarch 22, 2010\nPage 2 of2\nA DOT interpretation letter (05-0066, April 3, 2005) states:\n\"Section 172.800(b) requires each person who offers for transportation or\ntransports in commerce one of the hazardous materials listed in §§ 172.800(b)(1)\nthrough (b )(7) to develop and implement a security plan. Under the HMR,\nfacilities that receive hazardous materials are not required to have security plans.\"\nBecause applicability in section 172.800(b) has not changed, it would appear that the\n05-0066 interpretation would still apply [although the hazardous material list has\nincreased to (b )(16)].\nI am writing to request confirmation that, despite this new language adopted in HM-232F\nconcerning the transportation risk assessment in 172.802(a), that under the HMR,\nfacilities that receive hazardous materials are not required to have transportation security\nplans.\nThanks you for consideration ofthis request.\nSincerely,\nErin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Dr.\nSuite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560","truncated":false,"body_characters":5184}