# Pacific Gas & Electric — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 22-0109 - **title:** Pacific Gas & Electric — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2023-04-03 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 22-0109 response to Pacific Gas & Electric concerning 172.704, 172.800. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0109.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0109.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0109 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77261/220109.pdf **body:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration April 3, 2023 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Mr. Timothy Hewitt Senior Radiation Protection Engineer Pacific Gas & Electric 9 Miles NW Avila Beach, CA 93424 Reference No. 22-0109 Dear Mr. Hewitt: This letter is in response to your September 12, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to security plans. In your email, you state that your company is required to have a security plan as specified in § 172.800(b) of the HMR. You also state that § 172.704(c)(2) requires that a hazardous materials (hazmat) employee shall receive recurrent training at least once every three years. Lastly, you state that a hazmat employee must receive the in-depth security training required under § 172.704(a)(5) at least once every three years or—if the security plan for which training is required is revised during the three-year recurrent training cycle—within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan. Based on these statements, we have paraphrased your questions and answered them in the order you provided: Q1. You ask whether revisions to a security plan—such as correcting misspellings—would require the retraining of a hazmat employee within 90 days of such a revision in order for a hazmat employer to comply with § 172.704(a)(5) and (c)(2). A1. The answer is no. Editorial revisions to a security plan—including correcting misspellings—would not necessitate a hazmat employer to retrain a hazmat employee in order to comply with the recurrent training requirements specified in § 172.704(c)(2). Q2. You ask whether clarifications that do not change the intent or actions within a security plan would necessitate a hazmat employer to retrain a hazmat employee in order to comply with the recurrent training requirements specified in § 172.704(c)(2). A2. The answer is no. See answer A1. <<>> 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 Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> Andrews 22-0109 From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) To: Date: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); Hazmat Interps Subject: FW: 172.704(c)(2) Interpretation Request Friday, October 21, 2022 4:21:42 PM Attachments: image002.png Hello Alice, I’m forwarding this message on behalf of Timothy Hewitt, let me know if any additional info is required. Thanks, Michela, HMIC From: Hewitt, Timothy Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:59 AM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Subject: RE: 172.704(c)(2) Interpretation Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Timothy Hewitt 9 Miles NW Avila Beach Avila Beach, CA 93424 (805) 545-3235 From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 9:25 AM To: training (PHMSA) ; Hewitt, Timothy Subject: RE: 172.704(c)(2) Interpretation Request CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER! This email was sent from an EXTERNAL source. Do you know this person? Are you expecting this email? Are you expecting any links or attachments? If suspicious, do not click links, open attachments, or provide credentials. Don't delete it. Report it by using the "Report Phish" button. Dear Tim, We have received your request for a written letter of interpretation regarding the hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180). The hazardous materials regulations are available at the following URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? <<>> SID=1d49a3b137cb1b6fc45251074e634b44&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49tab_02.tpl However, before we can submit your request for processing, please respond to this email with: Full Name Physical Mailing Address Telephone Number Sincerely, Michela, Hazardous Materials Specialist An e-mail response from this office is considered informal guidance. Formal guidance may be requested in accordance with 49 CFR 105.20. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards- rulemaking/hazmat/hazardous-materials-information-center From: training (PHMSA) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 3:54 PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Subject: FW: 172.704(c)(2) Interpretation Request Hi Info Center, Can you assist Tim and copy me? I’d like to know the answer. Thanks, Peter Heitzmann Office of Outreach and Engagement US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington DC 20590 Office: 202.366.4425 PHMSA Home | LinkedIn | Twitter | HAZMAT | OPS From: Hewitt, Timothy Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:15 PM To: training (PHMSA) Subject: 172.704(c)(2) Interpretation Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do <<>> not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. September 12, 2022 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Dear PHMSA: My employer is required to have a security plan per § 172.800. We also perform the require training contained in § 172.704. The question I have is regarding § 172.704(c)(2), which states the following: Recurrent training. A hazmat employee must receive the training required by this subpart at least once every three years. For in-depth security training required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a hazmat employee must be trained at least once every three years or, if the security plan for which training is required is revised during the three-year recurrent training cycle, within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan. What is the definition of “revised” in the context of this statement? Are any changes allowed to the security plan without performing retaining within 90 days? For example: May we change misspellings in our security plan? May we change wording for clarification or otherwise which do not change intent or actions? Normally without additional context, we would just conservatively default to retaining for any revision. In this case, we seek clarification because our security plan also falls under 10CFR37 which in § 37.43(c)(3) states: Refresher training must be provided at a frequency not to exceed 12 months and when significant changes have been made to the security program. The wording in this regulation allows changes without impact to occur without retraining. If similar intent exists in § 172.704(c)(2), we would like it to be known. I reviewed applicable FAQs, MOUs, interpretation responses, and the Federal Register. The documentation found which touches on this subject does not provide a definite answer, but includes the following: Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45, dated March 9, 2010 provides an example of retraining only when there is an impact, yet it also provide a statement to retrain on a revision without including a statement of impact. Interpretation Response 11-0063 to Con-Way Freight states, “if major regulatory changes occur within this 3-year recurrent training period, hazmat employees must receive training on the new regulatory requirements within 90 days of their effective date.” It was noted that the statement, which is specific to regulations and not to security plans, includes the description of “major” regarding a change. Regards, Timothy Hewitt Senior Radiation Protection Engineer Pacific Gas & Electric <<>> (805) 556-5034 Iimothy.hewitt@pge.com - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 7747