{"operation":"document","citation":"18-0045","title":"Wells Fargo Rail — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-02-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"18-0045 response to Wells Fargo Rail concerning 171.8, 179.7, 180.509, 180.513.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0045.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0045.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0045","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/70611/180045.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n0\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFEB 2 5 2019\nRobert Sech\nWells Fargo Rail\n9377 West Higgins Road\nSuite 600\nRosemont, IL 60018\nReference No. 18-0045\nDear Mr. Sech:\nThis letter is in response to your March 21, 2018, email and April 10, 2018, subsequent phone\nconversation with a member of my staff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to tank cars. You explain that Wells\nFargo Rail owns a fleet of approximately 6,000 tank cars but does not own a tank car\nmanufacturing or repair facility. You ask if Wells Fargo Rail would meet the definition of a\nhazmat employer and have hazmat employee(s) based on performance of specific business\noperations referenced below.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ 1. You ask if a tank .car owner would be defined as a hazmat employer if the tank car owner\ndoes not own or manage a tank car repair or manufacturing facility.\nAl. Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this Office that Wells Fargo Rail\nis considered a hazmat employer because the company employs a person to oversee the\nqualification and maintenance program for DOT specification tank cars (i.e., maintains\nDOT specification tank cars). Per the definition in § 171.8, a hazmat employer is a\nperson who employs or uses at least one hazmat employee to perform a function related\nto the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce; causes hazardous materials to\nbe transported in commerce; or designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks,\nmaintains, reconditions, repairs or tests a package, container, or packaging component\nthat is represented, marked, certified, or sold by that person as qualified for use in\ntransporting hazardous materials in commerce.\nQ2. Provided a tank car owner is not considered a hazmat employer, you ask if an employee\nwho approves the financial aspects for tank car repair estimates and invoices would be\ndefined as a hazmat employee in accordance with § 171.8.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. Q3. A3. Q4. It is the opinion of this Office that an employee who manages tank car estimates and\ninvoices for repairs is not considered a hazmat employee solely on the basis of\nperforming that specific business function.\nYou ask if all repairs done by a certified tank car repair facility, in accordance with\n§ 179.7(d), require the repair facility to establish written repair procedures to employees\nof the facility that work performed on the tank car meets specifications, the Association\nof American Railroads (AAR) approval, and the owner's acceptance criteria. Moreover,\nyou ask if an owner's acceptance criteria can simply comply with the specification and\nAAR approval.\nRegarding the requirements for written procedures, the answer is yes. According to\n§ 179.7(d), each tank car facility shall provide written procedures to its employees to\nensure that work on the tank car conforms to the specification of the tank car, AAR\napproval, and the owner's acceptance criteria.\nRegarding whether the acceptance criteria can be limited to the specification and AAR\napproval, the answer is no. However, if a tank car owner does not have acceptance\ncriteria, the owner of the tank car may provide written confirmation to allow the tank car\nfacility to use the acceptance criteria from another tank car owner. Please note, each tank\ncar facility must incorporate the tank car owner's Qualification and Maintenance program\ninto their own Quality Assurance Program for the tank car facility to use another tank car\nowner's acceptance criteria.\nYou ask if the tank car owner is in compliance with§ 180.513(b) and the Continuing\nAnalysis and Surveillance System in accordance with§ 180.509 if the certified tank car\nfacility (both new tank car manufacturing or repair) has provided drawings and\nspecifications that show the tank car meets the requirements. In addition, you ask\nwhether the tank car owner has a responsibility to ensure the tank car builder and/or\nrepair facility has ordered and applied the AAR approved materials as required on the\ndrawings/specifications.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nA4. A tank car facility is responsible for reporting all work performed and observed damage,\ndeterioration, failed components, or non-compliant parts to the tank car owner. As a tank\ncar owner, Wells Fargo Rail is responsible for furnishing written instructions (owner's\nacceptance criteria) that provides tank car facilities with information to work on a tank\ncar. In addition, the tank car owner is responsible for ensuring each specification tank car\nconforms to the requirements of Part 179 and Part 180 (Subpart F) in accordance with the\nHMR and the requirements of the AAR approval.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nirk D r Ki eren\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nCc:\nSubject:\nFoster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nThursday, March 22, 2018 6:35 AM\nDodd, Alice (OST); January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA)\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA)\nRequest for a formal letter of interpretation\nAttachments: 140134.pdf; 150139.pdf\nlkeya,\nPlease have the attached checked in and assigned as an lnterp.\nThanks,\nGlenn\nFrom: rob.sech@wellsfargo.com [mailto:rob.sech@wellsfargo.com]\nSent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:06 PM\nTo: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) <Glenn.Foster@dot.gov>\nSubject: Request for a formal letter of interpretation\nGlenn,\nI am the AVP of Engineering at Wells Fargo Rail who owns a fleet of approximately 6000 tank cars. Wells Fargo Rail does\nnot own any railcar manufacturing or repair facilities. Larry Strouse, Railroad Safety Specialist of the Federal Railroad\nAdministration has requested information pertaining a Hazmat Employer and Hazmat Employee. I am requesting an\ninterpretation if a tank car owner is considered a Hazmat Employer if they do not own or manage any repair\nfacilities. Furthermore, is the normal business process regarding the person that approves the of cleaning and repairs\nmade to tank cars considered a Hazmat Employee? I have included your 2015 interpretation response letter to Ms.\nBridgett Lobstein in my request as a prior historical interpretation; however, GE Rail at that time owned and operated\ntank car repair facilities.\nAt times, the tank car owner does not have the ability to review and approve tank car repairs. An example is the double\nshelf coupler that is a requirement on tank cars in accordance with 49 CFR Part 179.14 and the AAR M-1002 Tank Car\nManual. That device is defined as a safety system on tank cars and is part of the periodic qualification of tank cars as\nprescribed in 49 CFR Part 180.503. I have also include your 2016 letter of interpretation regarding running gear\ninspections as it pertains to 49 CFR Part 173.31. If the oversight inspection, repair and proper replacement regarding\nthis safety system on tank cars can be done by any repair facility and railroad handling line as allowed by 49 CFR Part\n179.14 and the AAR Field Manual Rules 16-18 without prior car owner's permission based on the tank car owner\nsubscribing to the AAR Interchange Rules (see AAR Field Manual Rule A, Band #1). A second example is ability of a\nrailroad to apply a bottom outlet cap assembly under AAR Field Manual Rule 81 without prior approval from the car\nowner and the repair invoiced as prescribed the AAR as the first notification to the tank car owner that repairs were\nmade.\nMy request for a formal letter of interpretation pertains to the following questions:\n1. 2. Is a tank car owner defined as a hazmat employer if that tank car owner does not own or manage any tank\ncar repair or manufacturing facility?\nIf it is deemed that a tank car owner is not a hazmat employer, is an employee of that tank car owner who\napproves the financial aspects of tank car repair estimates/invoices defined as a hazmat employee as\ndefined in 49 CFR Part 171.8?\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n3. , Based on the allowance for railroad to apply/tighten tank car service equipment (bottom outlet cap\nexample) and for the allowance for a railroad to inspect and replace double shelf coupler in accordance\nwith 49 CFR Part 179.14 and the AAR Field Manual Rules without obtaining oral or written permission from\nthe tank car owner, can one interpret that all repairs done by a certified tank car repair facility under 49\nCFR Part 179.7{12)d requires the repair facility to establish written repair procedures for their employees\nthat the work on the tank car conforms to the specification, AAR approval, and owner's acceptance\ncriteria. If the tank car owner's acceptance criteria is that specification and the AAR Approval, the owner is\nnot required to provide any other written or oral acceptance criteria requirements.\n4. If the certified tank car facility (both new car manufacturing or repair) provides drawings and specifications\nstating that the tank car meets those requirements, is the tank car owner in compliance with the 49 CFR\nPart 180.513{b) and Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System as stated in 49 CFR Part 18.509? Does the\ntank owner have the responsibility to ensure the tank car builder and/or repair facility has ordered and\napplied the AAR approved material as stipulated on the drawings/specifications? Both the new tank car\nacquisition and the repair process does not provide an adequate method of ensuring the tank car owner\ncan audit that facility. Please call me, I would like to discuss this issue in more detail.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\ninsertere with coupler failure on otherwise inhibi failure que to force appicalion, and react-ons and\n(3) The test shall be conducted as folions.\nma nutes to the test coupler head simulaneously mit the application of a nom nal 2.000 pounds (907.2 kg) butt load:\n11) Am niTium o! 200.000 pounós (80 718.5 kg) vertical downware load shali be applied continuousty for at least 5\nload of 200.000 pounós (90 718.5 kg) and\n(ly The procedures prescribed in paragraph (cX3Xi) of this section shall be reptated with a m nimum vert ca' upsard\n(Hi) A minimum of three consecutive successful tests shall be performed for each toad comb nation prescribed in\nparagrapas (cX3) (1) and (1) Of this section A lest is successful when a vert ca: disengagement or malenal fariure doti nos\noscur dur ng the application of any of the loads preseribed in this paragraph.\ncouplers are authoried:\nld) Authoried coupters As an alternate 10 the (est vertcations in paragraph (c) of this section the following\nSEGOCHTE. SEGOCE. SEGODC. SEBODE SEG7CC. SEG7CE. SE678HT. SE678C SE67BHTE SE678E. SE688MT, SE58BC\n(1) E double sheif couplers designated by ine Association of Amerran Ra lloads Caldog NOs.. SEGOCHI SEGOCC\nSE68BHTE SE68BE SEGGAHTE. and SEGgAE.\nSATOCHTE SETOCE SE73AC SETBRE SFIBAHT, SETBAHTE SETOCHI SF79CC SETOCHTE, and SETOCE\n(2)F Boutre shelf coupiers designated ty the Assor aion of Amercan Ranitoads Caldlog Nos. SF70CHT. SFIOCC.\n(Amor 179-42, 341 FR 38797, Sept 20 1989)\nQualification of\nTests and inspectiom\n$180.50W*1\nTank\nvsua.inspextion\nTh caness Test Note!\nStructura' Integrity inspection\nSafety System inspection\nSernice Equipment\nSerice Egupment\nCoatingh mint\ninterna Coatnts and langs\nconk\nNOTE 1: Subparagraph (IX2) mary require stackness tests ei am ineerval offerent from the other rems for qualfietion of the\ncomponents covered by this subchaple conform to the HMR and are otherwise surable for continued service ano\nReborthy. Rattorthiness for a lank car means that the lani, sence equipment safety systems, and ail other\ncapabie of performing their intended function until meir next qualification\nReactive to the cant or service equipment means a materia: thut in contact with the inner shel of the tank or mith\neffectreness of the packaging or the safety of as use.\n(the service equipment may react to produce heat gases andior pressure which could substantully reduce the\nReinforced lank shell but waid means the portion of a buit weid covered by a reinforcing pao\npurpose of preventing damage to the cani through lat gue. overstressing denting puncturing or tearing\nReinforcing pad means an allachmen; welded directy to the lani supporting mayor structural components for the\ndes in l.fe or unt its next qualification.\nReliably means the quanted abrity of an term or structure to operate vuthout la lure for the specified perrod of its\nRepresentaton means attesting through documenting, in wring or by mark ng on the tank for jackeld that a tank car\nis qualfied and ra-mortiry. See also 55180.511 and 180 517(0).\npuncture res stance systems coupier vput cal restraint systems, and systems used to protect d scone nu les leg. sh o\nSafety system means one o more of the folioning; Thermal protect on systems, insulation systems tank nead\nprotection and protective houtings) di regu red under this subchapter\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nRobertSech\nAVP - Engineering\nWells Fargo Rail I 9377 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600 I Rosemont, IL 60018\nOffice: (847) 384-5366 I Cell (219) 617-7930 I Fax (847) 318-7588\nrob.sech@wellsfargo.com\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n0\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nDEC O 9 2016\nMr. Donald Brittingham\nA.I.D., Inc.\n208 143rd Street\nOcean City, MD 21842\nReference No. 15-0139\nDear Mr. Brittingham:\nThis letter is in response to your July 6, 2015, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you asked if 49 CFR\n§ 173.31 requires shippers of tank cars containing hazardous materials or the residue of a\nhazardous mate. rial to inspect the tank car's \"running gear components (wheels, axles, brake\nsystem components, bolsters, side frames, etc.)\" and all other tank car fittings like \"sill steps\n[and] grab irons couplers\"3 for defects prior to offering the tank car for transportation.\nGenerally, the HMR do not require an offeror of a tank car to inspect the tank car's running gear\ncomponents or safety appliances (as identified by 49 CFR Part 231) for defects prior to offering\nthe tank car into transportation. However, § 173 .31 prohibits the offering of a tank car unless it\nmeets the applicable specification and packaging requirements of the HMR, and paragraph (d) of\n§ 173 .31 sets forth the minimum requirements for an offeror' s external visual inspection of a\ntank car being offered into transportation. Regarding the coupling gear, paragraph (d)(l)(viii) of\n§ 173.31 specifically requires an offeror to examine, among other things, a tank car's coupler\nvertical restraint system for conditions that make the tank car unsafe for transportation.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n• We understand your reference to \"grab iron couplers\" to refer to grab irons and coupling gear.\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nGeller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\nTuesday, July 07, 2015 12:23 PM\nHazmat Interps\nFW: Request formal letter of interpretation\nHi Shante and Alice,\nBelow is a requ est for a form al letter of interpretation. Mr. Brittingham spoke with myself.\nMr. llrittingham 's address is:\nA.I.D., Inc.\n208 143\"1 Street\nOcean City, MD 21842\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: Donald brittingham [rrtcJ ill0:aicJtr~Hn(c,1cor1H;_ c;, l~ ,t .11(:l]\nSent: Monday, July 06, 2015 4:22 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nCc: hht;nry_\n@n1c:h_s i,1grn\nSubject: Request formal letter of interpretation\nDoes part 173.31 \"Use of Tank Cars\" specifically (d) \"Examination Before Shipping\" require the shipper of tank cars\ncontaining hazardous materials or when empty the residue of hazardous materials to inspect the tank cars running gear\ncomponents (wheels, axles, brake system components, bolsters, side frames, etc.) and all other tank car fittings like sill\nsteps, grab irons couplers for defects that might make the tank car unsafe for transportation?\nThank You\nDonald Brittingham\nA.I.D., Inc.\n302-743-2935\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nBridgette A. Lobstein\nExecutive Vice President\nOperations Leader - Rail Services\nGeneral Electric\n161 N. Clark St.\nChicago, IL 60601\nMAR 2 3 2015\nRef. No.: 14-0134\nDear Ms. Lobstein:\nThis is in response to your July 3, 2014 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CPR Parts 171 - 180) applicable to the definition of a\n\"hazmat employee\" and the training requirements of Subpart Hof Part 172 of the HMR.\nIn your incoming letter, you state your business is divided into functions: Sales, Contract\nAdministration, Business Development, Government Relations, Operations, Finance, Asset\nManagement/Marketing, Compliance, Legal, Information Technology (IT) Systems, and\nHwnan Resources. The principle mission 0f serving your customers is through your Sales,\nContract Administration, and Operations divisions. The Sales Team maintains customer\nrelationships with the various industries served by the business. The Contract\nAdministration Team provides customer relations support for the Sales Team on leases and\nbilling. Operations includes oversight of shop management, car flow, fleet management,\nprocurement, regulatory quality and compliance, Environmental Health and Safety, and\nEngineering. You state that you consider only Operations employees to be hazmat\nemployees, and ask for clarification of a \"hazmat employee\" as defined by § 171.8 of the\nHMR. You also ask whether employees at the General Electric (GE) Railcar Services\nChicago headquarters should be considered hazmat employees and subject to the quality\nassurance program (QAP) training requirements of 49 CPR Part 179.7.\nIn the scenario you describe, GE Railcar Services repairs, qualifies, and maintains a fleet of\ntank cars through its affiliated companies at locations (shops and mobile units) owned by\nGE Rail Services or third party providers. Some of the activities supporting the repair,\nmaintenance, qualification, and marking of the GERS tank car fleet are performed at the\nChicago headquarters (HQ) by personnel employed in different business units such as\nSales, Contract Administration, and Operations.\nExamples of these activities are:\n1. Sales and/or Contract Administration personnel who confirm the ownership of tank\ncar service equipment and interior coatings and linings required by 49 CFR Part\n180.513.\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\n2. 3. 4. Sales and/or Contract Administration personnel who approve the use of\nqualification and maintenance procedures developed by GE or third parties required\nby 49 CFR Part 180.513.\nSales and/or Contract Administration personnel who apply for Federal Railroad\nAdministration (FRA) One Time Movement Approvals for nonconforming tank\ncars required by 49 CFR Part 174.50.\nEngineering and Purchasing personnel who develop and approve written procedures\nfor the repair, alteration, conversion, qualification and maintenance of tank cars,\npurchase replacement service equipment and gaskets required by 49 CFR 179.9 and\n49 CFR Parts 180.501 through 180.517.\nPer § 171.8, a \"hazmat employee\" is defined as a person employed by a hazmat employer\nand who, in the course of their employment, loads, unloads, or handles hazardous\nmaterials; designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, maintains, reconditions,\nrepairs, or tests a package, container or packaging component that is represented, marked,\ncertified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce or\ndirectly affects hazardous materials transportation safety.\nThis Office agrees that your Operations workers would be considered hazmat employees.\nIn other words, a person who performs duties that are regulated under the HMR is\nconsidered to be a hazmat employee. Persons who, in the normal course of their\nemployment, perform or manage the work of those performing, one or more of the\nactivities listed above would be considered hazmat employees and require general\nawareness, function-specific, safety/, security awareness and quality assurance program\nrequired by 49 CFR 172 . 704 and 49 CFR 179. 7 within 90 days of employment and every\nthree years thereafter.\nBy contrast, we also note that sales/contracts employees would generally not be hazmat\nemployees. For example, those persons who would not be considered hazmat employees\nwould be Customer Service personnel whose only involvement in the tank car repair,\nqualification, and maintenance process is to send previously approved qualification,\nmaintenance, and/or repair procedures to third party shops for use on GE tank cars unless\nthey were also instrumental in securing FRA One Time Movement Approvals.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n~~~-·--\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\n~~D\n171.8 1'79,1\n~~·\n1q-o,3<_/i\nGE Capital\n•\nJuly 3, 2014\nBrigitte A. Lobstein\nExecutive Vice President\nOperations Leader\nRoil Services\n161 N Clork Street\nChicoga, IL 60601\nUSA\nT +1312 853 5295\nF +1312 853 5019\nbrigitte.lobstein@ge.com\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nTo whom it may concern:\nBy way of introduction, I am the Operations Leader for General Electric Railcar Services\nCorporation and its affiliates, including General Electric Railcar Repair Services Corporation\n(collectively \"GE Rail Services\"). Larry Strouse, Railroad Safety Specialist of the Federal\nRailroad Administration has suggested that I ask for clarification of the definition of \"hazmat\nemployee\" as set forth in 49 CFR § 171.8.\nSpecifically, GE Rail Services is seeking to understand PHMSA's interpretation of the QAP\ntraining requirements set forth in Section 179.7 (applicable to \"tank car facilities\") and how, if\nat all, they would apply to the corporate headquarters of GE Rail Services as a tank car\nowner.\nBy way of background, GE Rail Services is wholly owned by General Electric Capital\nCorporation, the financial services arm of General Electric. GE Rail Services consists primarily\nof two entities: General Electric Railcar Services Corporation which owns our railcar fleet,\nand General Electric Railcar Repair Services Corporation, which owns our railcar repair\nshops.\nGE Rail Services provides financial products to the rail industry. These include operating\nleases, finance leases, and loan products. Operating lease products offer several financial\nbenefits to our customers, including those related to short term (relative to the asset life)\nusage of the equipment. In order to offer, operating lease products, GE Rail Services owns\nthe equipment which it offers for lease (approximately 110,000 railcars and 1,100\nlocomotives). In conjunction with this product GE Rail Services offers maintenance and\nrepair services for its equipment. This offering is made through its network of owned and\nthird party contract shops. GE Rail Services oversees its shop networks through engineering\nsupport, process oversight, training, and quality audits. It should be noted that GE Rail\nServices does not offer maintenance and repair services to third party cars owners except\non an incidental basis.\nGe~111rol E lectnc R0>lcar Servi,:es Cor)'.)orction\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nThe corporate headquarters of GE Rail Services is located in downtown Chicago, IL. There\nare approximately 180 employees located there. Organizationally, the business is divided\ninto functions: Sales, Contract Administration, Business Development, Government Relations,\nOperations, Finance, Asset Management/Marketing, Compliance, Legal, IT (Systems). and\nHuman Resources. These functions seNe two principal stakeholder groups: the business'\nshareholder GE Capital. and the customer base. Much of the work done at headquarters\ninvolves addressing the needs and concerns of those two groups. Charged with the\nprincipal missions of seNing the customer are: Sales, Contract (Lease) Administration, and\nOperations. The Sales team is traditionally an organization that maintains customer\nrelationships with the various industries served by the business (agriculture, grain. coal,\nchemicals. crude oil, pulp and paper). The Contract Administration provides customer\nrelations support for the Sales team, handling customer concerns and questions regarding\ntheir leases, bills etc. during the term of the customer leases. It should be noted that both\nSales and Contract Administration do not address equipment-related issues: these are\nhandled by Operations. Operations includes oversight of the following activities: shop\nmanagement. car flow. fleet management. procurement, regulatory quality and compliance.\nEH&S, and engineering. All of the employees in Operations in our corporate headquarters\nare salaried employees (as opposed to hourly) and do either supervisory or technical support\nfor the field shop operations.\nI give the above general description to give context to our question of whether employees at\nthe corporate headquarters should be considered hazmat employees for purposes of the\nregulations. We consider only Operations employees to be hazmat employees. We have\nalso conducted general awareness training for all headquarters employees. We do this\nbecause GE Rail SeNices strives to be an industry leader in the areas of safety, quality and\nregulatory compliance.\nWe believe that this is matter of importance to the leasing industry. We would be happy to\nmeet with you to discuss our business and this issue in greater depth.\nI would like to thank you in advance for your guidance to ensure our compliance with the\nregulations.\nSincerely,\n,,..----._\n/ ) I! : ___ ,, '\n-------------- (_ I :\n;~--- -- t =h--. .;lfz: .\n_\n: / ' :,\n\"----·\nBrigitte A. Lobstein","truncated":false,"body_characters":26189}