{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0019","title":"Florida Power and Light Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0019 response to Florida Power and Light Company concerning 172.704.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050019.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nFEB 28 2005\nMr. Frank Nesbihal, CHMM\nRef. No.: 05-0019\n700 Universe Boulevard\nFlorida Power and Light Company\nJuno Beach, FL 33408\nDear Mr. Nesbihal:\nThis is in response to your letter dated January 18, 2005, regarding the training requirements\nprescribed in § 172.704(c)(1) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). Specifically, you request clarification on the training requirements for hazmat\nemployees intermittently performing functions subject to the HMR (i.e., less than ninety\nconsecutive days). In your request, you reference a discussion of \"casual\" employees in HM-\n222B (61 FR 27166; May 30, 1996), and request clarification whether persons performing\nhazmat functions for less than ninety days consecutively are considered \"casual\" employees and\ntherefore not subject to the training requirements of Part 172 of Subpart H.\nThe answer is no. Except as provided in § 172.704(c)(1), each hazmat employee who performs\nany function subject to the HMR may not perform that function unless properly trained\n(§ 172.702(b)). As discussed in HM-222B, the provision in § 172.704(c)(1) that allows for direct\nsupervision of a hazmat employee for up to ninety days after employment or change in job\nfunction is intended to address short-term employment. Since your employees retain\nemployment for greater than ninety days (even though they may not be performing the hazmat\nfunctions for greater than ninety consecutive days) and may perform these functions again, they\nmust be properly trained.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n172:704\n050019\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nGorsky, Susan\nSent:\nFrom:\nFrank_J_Nesbihal@fpl.com\nTo:\nTuesday, January 18, 2005 10:28 AM\nSubject:\nCc:\nAl_ Gould@fpl.com; Roger_Messer@fpl.com\nsusan.gorsky@rspa.dot.gov\n$172.704\nHazmat: Training Question\nTRAINING\n15-001\nDear Ms. Gorsky:\nto perform hazmat functions. The employees\nwe have a question that pertains to in-house employees who only occasionally are assigned\nMaintenance Department) and may perform hazmat functions such as lifting a package and\nin a facility support function (i.e.\nemployee would perform these hazmat functions for less than 90 consecutive days. At the\nplacing it on a vehicle, loading a package, preparing or closing a package etc. The\na number of months without performing any hazmat functions. However, sometime later the\nend of his specific assignment, the employee's job assignments change and he may work for\nsame employee's job\nshort-term assignment that includes performing some hazmat functions. Again, the employee\nassignment may be changed back again where he could work another\nfunction\nwould\nperform\nthese hazmat functions for less than 90 consecutive days.\nrespect to performing hazmat functions is changed based\nThe\nemployee's job\nfunctions only intermittently and occasionally.\nassignments. In other\nwords, the employee is\nassigned a job function to perform hazmat\nCFR 172.704 (c), it permits\nIt is our understanding that in accordance with the training requirements outlined in 49\nfunctions prior to completion of training provided that 1) the employee performs those\na hazmat employee who changes job functions to perform hazmat\nemployee; and 2) training\nunder the direct supervision of\nis completed within 90 days after a change in the job function.\na properly trained and knowledgeable hazmat\nIn addition, the preamble to a 1996 proposed rule (HM-222B\n1995) RSPA discusses that working under the 90-day provision applies to\n- February 20,\nemployed for less than 90 consecutive days.\n\"casual\" employees\nintermittently performs hazmat functions\nThe question that we have is in the above case, where an employee occasionally and\n-similar to a \"casual\"), can he perform those\n(assignments\nfunctions under direct supervision of a\nless than\nrequirements specified by 172.704 (a) or (b)?\nproperly trained\nand knowledgeable hazmat employee\nin lieu of meeting all of the training\nRespectfully,\nFrank Nesbihal, CHMM\n700 Universe Blvd.\nFlorida Power and Light Company\nJuno Beach,\nFL 33408\nJES/ JB\n561-691-7013\n561-691-7070\n(office)\n(fax)","truncated":false,"body_characters":4270}