# U. S. Department of Energy — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration DEC I 9 2010 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Ms. Anjali Shaykher Zutshi General Attorney National Nuclear Security Administration U. S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Ave. S.W. (NA-3.l) Washington, D.C. 20585 Ref. No.: 10-0205 Dear Ms. Zutshi: This responds to your e-mail requesting guidance on Part 172, Subpart I, ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically you ask questions regarding overlapping security plan requirements that are applicable to both shippers and carriers. Your questions are restated and answered as follows: Ql. Does PHMSA expect a carrier to do a threat assessment on the shipper's facility and a shipper to do a threat assessment on the carrier's route? A1. No. In the situation you describe, the carrier is responsible for assessing risk for transportation activities which it controls, as is the offeror. Q2. What methodology should be used when conducting risk assessments? A2. The security plan must include an assessment oftransportation security risks. For an example of the methodology that should be used when conducting risk assessments, we direct you to the "Risk Management Self-Eva,luation Framework (RMSEF)" on our website. The framework illustrates how risk management methodology can be used to identify points in the transportation process where security procedures should be enhanced within the context ofan overall risk management strategy. The RMSEF is posted on our website at the following URL: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmatlrisklnnsef. Other risk assessment tools are equally valid. We do not require persons subject to the security plan requirement to use a specific risk assessment tool to meet the risk assessment requirement. Q3. Do they rely on national threat levels? <<>> A3. The security plan provisions in Subpart I ofPart 172 ofthe HMR require each person who offers for transportation or transport certain hazardous materials in commerce to implement a security plan. The security plan must include an assessment ofpossible transportation security risks and appropriate measures to address the assessed risks. The security plan requirements are not directly tied to the national threat level. However, specific measures put into place by the plan may vary commensurate with the level ofthreat at a particular time. The security plan must, at a minimum, address personnel security, unauthorized access, and en route security. I hope this information is helpful. Ifwe can be offurther assistance, please contact us. BenSupko Acting Chief, Standards Development Branch Standards and Ru1emaking Division <<>> Drakeford. Carolyn (PHMSA) Enqrum § Ii.e! 8,.qo Secun~ Plqns From: Supko, Ben (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday. September 22.20101 :13 PM to -02..05 To: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) Cc: Betts, Charles (PHMSA); Solomey, Joe (PHMSA) Subject: FW: Inquiry Re: 49 CFR Part 172 From: Shaykher, Anjali [mailto:Anjali.Shaykher@nnsa.doe.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:41 PM To: Samaras, Amelia (PHMSA) Cc: Tynan, Douglas; Urie, Matthew; Tensmeyer, Peter Subject: Inquiry Re: 49 CFR Part 172 Amelia, Thank you for agreeing to provide written guidance. As I mentioned to you, I am interested in receiving DOT's interpretation of updated regulation 49 CFR 172.800. Specifically, I am concerned about how to implement a security plan's threat assessment requirements. Accepting that when a shipper and carrier are not the same entity, there can be an overlap in the security plan, there remains some very basic questions: a. b. c. d. How does DOT expect a carrier to do a threat assessment on the shipper's facility and A shipper to do a threat assessment on the carrier's route What does DOT expect the shipper and carrier to assess, in the way of threat, for the "enroute threat assessment," e.g., must it be done for every shipment, or can a carrier rely on LLEA on authorized hazmat routes? Do they rely on the national threat levels (see the last paragraph of page 7 in the attached) I have attached guidance (that was released before the revision) which should shed more light on my concerns. The threat assessment process described there is very basic, but at least is a process a layman can use; to what effect is another question. Any insight you can share regarding all the aforementioned would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Anjali Anjali Shaykher Zutshi General Attorney National Nuclear Security Administration U.s. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW I(NA-3.1) I Washington DC! 20585 Phone: 202.586.3975 Fax: 202.586.0419 an jaIi .shaykher@hq.doe.gov 1 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 4710