{"operation":"document","citation":"01-0317","title":"Mr. Joseph Cleveland — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2002-01-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"01-0317 concerning 172.704.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0317.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0317.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0317","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010317.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n.S. Departmen\nf Transportatio\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\npecial Progran\nesearch an\nAdministration\nJAN 1 0 2002\nMr. Joseph Cleveland\nRef. No. 01-0317\nHazardous Materials Advisory Council\n203 Towne Centre Drive\nHillsborough, NJ 08844\nDear Mr. Cleveland:\nThis is in response to your November 13, 2001 letter concerning the training requirements in the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HRM;49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask that we clarify\nthe responsibility of the hazmat employer with regards to function-specific training required in\n§ 172.704 (a)(2) if part, but not all, of this requirement is met through a third party training program.\nIt is the responsibility of the hazmat employer to ensure and certify that each hazmat employee receives\nfunction-specific training concerning requirements of this subchapter, which are specifically applicable to\nthe functions the employee performs, in accordance with § 172.704 (a)(2). This may be accomplished\nby any number of training methods, including the use of third-party training facilities.\nPlease note that this office neither reviews nor certifies training programs. Each hazmat employer has its\nown unique operational requirements. A hazmat employer must determine training needs of its hazmat\nemployees based on the employer's requirements and cach employee's specific job functions.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nDelon FilS\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n172.704\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nCOUNTY\nHMAC\nAZARDOUS M\nATERIALS ADVISORY GOUNOIL\nТО КІЛОВА\nUnion/Middlesex\nJohnsen\n$172.704\nTo:\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch & Special Programs Administration (RSPA)\nTRAINING\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards DHM-10\nMr. Edward Mazzullo, Director\n01-0317\nWashington, DC\ncc:\nShere & Blackwell\nMr. Jeffrey Lawrence\nAttorney at Law\ncc:\nHMAC (Union-Middlesex Counties) Advisory Committee\nc/o Drinker, Biddle & Reath\nMr. Joseph Schmidt\ncc:\nDock Resins Corporation\nMr. Joseph Barbanel, President, HMAC\nMs. Joy Romeo, Co-chair, Transportation Committee\nFrom:\nJoseph Cleveland, Co-Chair Transportation Committee; President, Cleveland\nPackaging Services\nDate:\nNovember 13, 2001\nSubject:\nFunction-Specific Training\nMr. Mazzulo:\nThe Union/Middlesex County Hazardous Materials Advisory Council is a non-profit corporation\nand Middlesex Counties. HMAC works through 7 volunteer advisory committees that execute\ndedicated to serving the emergency management, industrial and government communities in Union\nprojects, seminars and training programs in support of HMAC objectives. HMAC is entirely\nsupported through membership fees.\nAn analysis of DOT HAZMAT violations for 1999 and 2000 identifies many examples of training\ncitations:\n•\nFailure to provide employee training\nFailure to provide employees training or create and retain records of training testing\nFailure to provide employees function - specific training\n• Failure to provide recurrent function - specific and awareness training\n203 Tone Contre Drive a Hilaborouga, a deg -Mal it ntophmac-90.0r59-1184 = Fax (908) 359-7619\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFailure to provide recurrent employee training or create and retain records of training\ntesting\n• Maintained incomplete records of employee training testing - no certification that\ntraining and testing was performed, no trainee name and address; and no description,\ncopy, or location of the training materials\nThe front page of the Home News Tribune, dated Sept. 26, 2001, contains an article wherein the\nFBI warns of more terrorist attacks and truck firms are alerted to the dangers of transporting\nhazardous materials.\nEnclosed is a brochure about an HMAC(Union/Middlesex) HAZMAT training program scheduled\nfor Oct. 25, 2001. Your attention is directed to the agenda; especially, the NJ State Police\nprogram as it relates to safety.\nOur instructors bring over 100 years of experience to this program, but we believe the program\nwould be more effective if we could include a function-specific training effort presented in a\nseminar format i.e. bracing/blocking, bulk loading/unloading, documentation, regulation\ninterpretation.\nand as a consequence our HMAC efforts are restricted to general awareness safety training.\nOur instructors have expressed their liability concerns as they relate to function-specific training\nWe request that the DOT supply us with a written statement that a HAZMAT employer may\nccept a Certificate of Attendance at a HAZMAT Function Specific Training program which i\npecifically applicable to the functions the employee performs, also if the said training effort doe\nnot cover all of the functions the employee performs-it shall be the responsibility of the HAZMAT\nemployee to provide additional function specific training.\nHMAC liability exposure as it relates to a \"Certificate of Attendance\" and the liability of\nBy copy of this letter to Jett Lawrence, Attorney at Law, we request his comments regarding\npresenters who would be encouraged to demonstrate current commercial technology, but may not\nbe HAZMAT experts.","truncated":false,"body_characters":5104}