# Idaho Power Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 18-0137 - **title:** Idaho Power Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2019-03-11 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 18-0137 response to Idaho Power Company concerning 172.802. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0137.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0137.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0137 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/70866/180137.pdf **body:** <<>> .0 U.S. Department · of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materlala Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 MAR 1 1 2019 Mr. William Norris Idaho Power Company 1221 West Idaho Street Boise, ID 83702 Reference No. 18-0137 Dear Mr. Norris: This letter is in response to your October 30, 2018, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to security requirements in Part 172. You cite.a final rule entitled "Risk-Based Adjustment of. Transportation Security Requirements" published on March 9, 2010 [75 FR 10973] under Docket No. PHMSA-06-35885 (HM-232F) that states risk management systems are intended to reduce potentially catastrophic consequences. You note that this language presents challenges when determining the appropriate measures to implement based on the assessed risk. Specifically, you ask whether it is the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials _ Safety Administration's intent to "prevent" or "protect against" theft of high security sensitive materials while in transportation as both terms are used in the final rule. The HMR require that a security plan include an assessment of possible transportation security risks for shipments of the covered hazardous materials and appropriate measures to address the assessed risks. At a minimum, the security plan must address personnel security, unauthorized access, and en route security issues (see § 172.802). However, the HMR do not distinguish between "preventing" incidents and "protecting against" incidents involving hazardous materials transportation. Therefore, a security plan is expected to address both preventative and protective measures. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review, and Reinvention Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> January, lkeya CTR (PHMSA) From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Sent: To: Subject: Thursday, November 01, 2018 10:22 AM Hazmat Interps FW: Form submission from: Contact Form Hello Alice and lkeya, Below is a Request for Letter of Interpretation. Thanks, Jonathon, HMIC -----Original Message----- From: DOT.gov CMS Notifications Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 AM To: PHMSA Webmaster Subject: Form submission from: Contact Form Submitted on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 - 10:35 Submitted by anonymous user: 63.233.61.196 Submitted values are: ==Contact Information== Name: William Norris Professional Organization: Idaho Power Company Business Email Address: bnorris@idahopower.com Business Telephone Number: 2083882622 Business Fax Number: ==Message== Type: Hazmat Safety Please Enter Your Question/Comment: I have a question regarding the intent of the regulations found in 49 CFR 172.800 and 802: Specifically, a question related to whether the "intent" of the HMR is to "prevent or protect against" theft of high security sensitive materials while in transportation. I specifically draw attention to the March 9, 2010 Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 45, Page 10988) whereby the text of the discussion speaks to the- HMR system being "a risk management system" (column 1 first sentence) and goes on to say in column 21st sentence " ... the HMR are intended to reduce the potentially catastrophic consequences ... " This language could present challenges when trying to determine what measures may be appropriate to implement based on the assessed risk. In the 1 <<>> security industry the term "protect against" is categorically used to define the measures used to prohibit unauthorized access. Even the best and most advances security measures cannot "prevent" someone from accessing the materials. Below are excerpts from the page in reference: "The security plan requirements in Subpart I of Part 172 of the HMR [Hazardous Materials Regulation] are intended to reduce the potentially catastrophic consequences, including adverse environmental consequences of a criminal or terrorist incident involving hazardous materials in transportation." The FR goes on to say, " ... include an assessment of possible transportation security risks and appropriate measures to address the assessed risks." The word "prevention" is used in the following context within the FR, "The hazardous material regulatory system is a risk management system that is [prevention-oriented] and focused on identifying a safety hazard and reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous material release." Two words/phrases from the previous paragraph do not correlate "prevention-oriented" and "reducing." My specific question is, are these requirements designed to "prevent" or "protect against?" Mailing Address: 1221·West Idaho St. Boise, Idaho 83702 The results-of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/16716/subm ission/7391 2 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 4892