{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0205","title":"U. S. Department of Energy — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-12-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0205 response to U. S. Department of Energy concerning 172.800.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0205.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0205.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0205","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100205.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nDEC I 9 2010\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMs. Anjali Shaykher Zutshi\nGeneral Attorney\nNational Nuclear Security Administration\nU. S. Department ofEnergy\n1000 Independence Ave. S.W. (NA-3.l)\nWashington, D.C. 20585\nRef. No.: 10-0205\nDear Ms. Zutshi:\nThis responds to your e-mail requesting guidance on Part 172, Subpart I, ofthe Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically you ask questions regarding overlapping\nsecurity plan requirements that are applicable to both shippers and carriers. Your questions are restated\nand answered as follows:\nQl. Does PHMSA expect a carrier to do a threat assessment on the shipper's facility and a shipper to\ndo a threat assessment on the carrier's route?\nA1. No. In the situation you describe, the carrier is responsible for assessing risk for transportation\nactivities which it controls, as is the offeror.\nQ2. What methodology should be used when conducting risk assessments?\nA2. The security plan must include an assessment oftransportation security risks. For an example of\nthe methodology that should be used when conducting risk assessments, we direct you to the \"Risk\nManagement Self-Eva,luation Framework (RMSEF)\" on our website. The framework illustrates\nhow risk management methodology can be used to identify points in the transportation process\nwhere security procedures should be enhanced within the context ofan overall risk management\nstrategy. The RMSEF is posted on our website at the following URL:\nhttp://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmatlrisklnnsef.\nOther risk assessment tools are equally valid. We do not require persons subject to the security\nplan requirement to use a specific risk assessment tool to meet the risk assessment requirement.\nQ3. Do they rely on national threat levels?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA3. The security plan provisions in Subpart I ofPart 172 ofthe HMR require each person who offers\nfor transportation or transport certain hazardous materials in commerce to implement a security\nplan. The security plan must include an assessment ofpossible transportation security risks and\nappropriate measures to address the assessed risks. The security plan requirements are not\ndirectly tied to the national threat level. However, specific measures put into place by the plan\nmay vary commensurate with the level ofthreat at a particular time. The security plan must, at a\nminimum, address personnel security, unauthorized access, and en route security.\nI hope this information is helpful. Ifwe can be offurther assistance, please contact us.\nBenSupko\nActing Chief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Ru1emaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDrakeford. Carolyn (PHMSA)\nEnqrum\n§ Ii.e! 8,.qo\nSecun~ Plqns\nFrom: Supko, Ben (PHMSA)\nSent: Wednesday. September 22.20101 :13 PM to -02..05\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nCc: Betts, Charles (PHMSA); Solomey, Joe (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Inquiry Re: 49 CFR Part 172\nFrom: Shaykher, Anjali [mailto:Anjali.Shaykher@nnsa.doe.gov]\nSent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:41 PM\nTo: Samaras, Amelia (PHMSA)\nCc: Tynan, Douglas; Urie, Matthew; Tensmeyer, Peter\nSubject: Inquiry Re: 49 CFR Part 172\nAmelia,\nThank you for agreeing to provide written guidance. As I mentioned to you, I am interested in receiving DOT's interpretation of\nupdated regulation 49 CFR 172.800. Specifically, I am concerned about how to implement a security plan's threat assessment\nrequirements. Accepting that when a shipper and carrier are not the same entity, there can be an overlap in the security plan, there\nremains some very basic questions:\na. b. c. d. How does DOT expect a carrier to do a threat assessment on the shipper's facility and\nA shipper to do a threat assessment on the carrier's route\nWhat does DOT expect the shipper and carrier to assess, in the way of threat, for the \"enroute threat assessment,\" e.g.,\nmust it be done for every shipment, or can a carrier rely on LLEA on authorized hazmat routes?\nDo they rely on the national threat levels (see the last paragraph of page 7 in the attached)\nI have attached guidance (that was released before the revision) which should shed more light on my concerns. The threat\nassessment process described there is very basic, but at least is a process a layman can use; to what effect is another question. Any\ninsight you can share regarding all the aforementioned would be greatly appreciated.\nThanks,\nAnjali\nAnjali Shaykher Zutshi\nGeneral Attorney\nNational Nuclear Security Administration\nU.s. Department of Energy\n1000 Independence Ave SW I(NA-3.1) I\nWashington DC! 20585\nPhone: 202.586.3975\nFax: 202.586.0419\nan jaIi .shaykher@hq.doe.gov\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":4710}