{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0500","title":"H.B. Fuller Automotive Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-03-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0500 response to H.B. Fuller Automotive Company concerning 172.704.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0500.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0500.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0500","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980500.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\n•\n•\nof Transportation\nUS. Department\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Streel, SW\n20590\nResearch and\n!\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMAR - 4 1993\n•\nMr. Gene Secor\nH.B. Fuller Automotive Company\n31601 Research Park Drive\nMadison Heights, Michigan 48071\nDear Mr. Secor:\nThis is in response to your letter of November 12, 1997, requesting clarification of the\ntraining requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nYou question the following scenario:\nA company is an end-user of hazardous materials and does not perform any\nactivity affecting the transportation safety of the hazardous materials. As the\ncompany is solely an end-user, training is not required. However, if the end-\n:\nuser unloads hazardous materials (e.g., removes their own consignment) and\nreloads hazardous materials onto the vehicle, the training regulations would be\napplicable.\nYour opinions in the scenario are correct. As provided in § 172.702, a hazmat employer shall\nensure that each of its hazmat employees is trained in accordance with the requirements in\nSubpart H. Furthermore, the definition of a hazmat employee in § 171.8 means a person who\nis employed by a hazmat employer and who in the course of employment directly affects\nhazardous materiais transportation satety. This term includes an individual, including a\nselt-employed individual, employed by a hazmat employer who, during the course of\nemployment loads, unloads, or handles hazardous materials. By loading or unloading\nhazardous materials in transportation, the company's employees meet the definition for hazmat\nemployee and are required to receive appropriate training.\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, do not hesitate to contact\nuS.\nSincerely,\nSelmy Hilling\nмест.\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n:::\nH.B. Fuller Automotive Company\ncantactors\n31601 Research Park Drive\nFile: 172.704\n(810) 585-2200 • (800) 633-7789\nMadison Heights, Michigan 48071\nSc: 528,442\nFAX (810) 585-3699\nNovember 12, 1997\nUS Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nRegulations Development, DHM - 11\n400 Seventh St, S.W.\nWashington D.C. 20590 - 0001\nATTN:\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nGentlemen:\nI have been closely reading the \"Letters of Interpretation\" on the HMR and one of the\nanswers in the training area bothers me (see the attachment). I have no quibble with the\nanswer, per se, but I believe it may lead to the wrong conclusion. Basically, the\ninterpretation in the letter is that no training is required if employees RECEIVE\nhazardous materials only.\nThe reality of every day shipping / receiving is that often a consignee must remove\nanother's material, set it aside somewhere on his dock, remove his own consignment, and\nthen return (RELOAD) the other consignee's material back into the vehicle. If their\n\"returned materials\" are hazardous materials, then the shipment is being affected at least\nperipherally and my interpretation has been that these are hazmat employees even\nthough they may never ship \"hazmats\" themselves.\nThe interpretative letter answer, per se, would lead one to conclude they are not. The\nthird answer in the letter ameliorates to some extent the first answer but when it says\n\"loading the transport vehicle\" are we including my \"reloading\" scenario?\nIs my interpretation too narrow and conservative and, specifically, how does DOT look at\nthe \"reloading\" situation.\nRegards,\nHere Seco\nGene Secor\nEnvironmental Health & Safety Department\nEncl\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n• US DOT\nInterpretations\n1\nthe transportation of hazardous materials\nees who perform job functions regulated\n• receive training applicable to those func-\nunder the HMR. If a company is a receiv-\nHMR, training is not required.\ntions. In your letter you stated that these\ning end-user of hazardous materials, and\nworkers fill the containers with the\ntheir employees do not perform a function\n9. If a company transports HM aboard a\nvehicle that is not part of the vehicle's\nasbestos and radioactive materials, but do\ncovered by the HMR, eg. unloading a\nequipment, but is also not offered\"\nnot select nor determine what specification\ncargo tank when the carrier is present, the\nto any one, does that company have\npackaging is needed. It is our opinion that\ntraining requirements under the HMR do\nany responsibility to comply with the\nworkers who fill packages with asbestos\nnot apply.\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nor radioactive materials for transportation\nmust receive general awareness/familiar-\nI hope this answers your inguiry. If you\nA. If a carrier transports its own haz-\nization training to enable recognition and\nneed additional assistance, do not hesitate\nardous materials on a vehicle, they\nidentification of hazardous materials con-\nto contact us.\nperform both shipper and carrier\nsistent with hazard communication stan-\nfunctions. As provided in $ 177.809,\ndards, function-specific training for any\nSincerely,\ncarrier equipment and supplies that\nregulated function performed by these\nworkers, (e.g., including proper filling and\nDelmer F. Billings\nare being transported by a motor car-\nclosure of packagings), and safety train-\nrier are fully subject to the HMR and\noffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nChief, Regulations Development\ncarrier hazmat employees must be\ning. Safety training includes measures to\ntrained as required.\nprotect the employees from the hazards\nassociated with hazardous materials they\nEditor's Note: See Following Memorandum\ne.\nIn a variation of question 1, if a com-\nincluding specific measures you may have\nmay be exposed to in the work place,\nto the offeror, does it have any\npany rejects a shipment and returns it\nimplemented to protect the employees\nDate: May 16, 1995\nfrom exposure, and methods and proce-\nSubject\nresponsibility to comply with the\ndures for avoiding accident, such as the\nAction: Applicability of Training Rules\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nproper procedures for handling packages\nFrom: Delmer E. Billings\nA. The answer to this question is the\ncontaining hazardous materials.\nDHM-11\nChief, Regulations Development,\nsame as the first question. If the con-\nsignee's employee does not perform\nI hope this information is helpful. If you\nneed further assistance, do not hesitate to\nTo:\nJohn J. O'Connell, Jr..\nany hazmat function, the training\nDirector,\nrequirements do not apply to them. If\ncontact us.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nthey perform hazmat functions, eg.\n!\nSincerely,\nEnforcement, DHM-40\npreparing shipping papers, labeling\npackaging, loading the transport\n•\nThis is in response to your memorandum\nvehicle, etc., they are considered a\nDelmer F. Billings\nsome questions relating to training issues\nof May 2, 1995, requesting a response to\nhazmat employee and must be\n:\nChief, Regulations Development\ntrained.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nand requirements. Your questions and our\n!\ne. In addition, there appears to be some\nconfusion regarding the term \"causes\n:\n§ 172.702\nl. If a company is an end-user of HM\nto be transported.\" We in OHME\nand only receives it, does it have any\nbelieve this refers to offerors and not\nJuly 5, 1996\nresponsibility to comply with the\nconsignees. I would appreciate your\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nconfirmation of this belief.\nThis is in response to your letter dated\nthe training requirements under the\nApril 23, 1996, requesting carification on\nA. No. The purpose of the training\nA. The term \"causes to be transported\"\nrequirements is to ensure that each\nis not specifically defined in the HMR.\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\nemployer trains each of its hazmat\nIf a person performs a hazmat func-\n49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nemployees. These requirements spec-\nHMR apply. By simply receiving haz-\ntion, appropriate requirements of the\nA hazmat employer is a person who uses\nify that persons who perform func-\ntions involving the transportation of\nardous materials, consignees do not\nmore of its employees in connection with\nhazardous materials receive training\ngenerally \"cause\" hazardous materi-\ntransporting hazardous materials or caus-\nthose functions. Therefore, if an\nconcerning requirements applicable to\nals to be transported. If the consignee\nor shipped in commerce. Hazardous mate-\ning hazardous materials to be transported\npares shipping papers, unloads a\ndirects that a shipment be made, pre-\nrials training is required for those employ-\nemployee does not perform any haz-\nmat function, as regulated by the\ncargo tank when the carrier is pre-\n86 HAZAT Packager & Shiger\nCopyright 1997 Packaging Research Inte mational, In.\nPart 172\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nH.B. Fuller Automotive Company\ncantataw\n31601 Research Park Drive\n102:12024\n(810) 585-2200 • (800) 633-7789\nMadison Heights, Michigan 48071\nSE: =28,442\nFAX (810) 585-3699\nNovember 12, 1997\nUS Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nRegulations Development, DHM - 11\n400 Seventh St, S. W.\nATTN:\nWashington D.C. 20590 - 0001\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nGentlemen:\nI have been closely reading the \"Letters of Interpretation\" on the HMR and one of the\nanswers in the training area bothers me (see the attachment). I have no quibble with the\nanswer, per se, but I believe it may lead to the wrong conclusion. Basically, the\ninterpretation in the letter is that no training is required if employees RECEIVE\nhazardous materials only.\n•\nThe reality of every day shipping / receiving is that often a consignee must remove\nanother's material, set it aside somewhere on his dock, remove his own consignment, and\nthen return (RELOAD) the other consignee's material back into the vehicle. If their\n\"returned materials\" are hazardous materials, then the shipment is being affected at least\nperpherally and my interpretation has been that these are hazmat employees even\nthough they may never ship \"hazmats\" themselves.\nThe interpretative letter answer, per se, would lead one to conclude they are not. The\nthird answer in the letter ameliorates to some extent the first answer but when it says\n\"loading the transport vehicle\" are we including my \"reloading\" scenario?\nIs my interpretation too narrow and conservative and, specifically, how does DOT look at\nthe \"reloading\" situation.\nRegards,\nAere Decor\nGene Secor\nEnvironmental Health & Safety Department\nEncl\ni\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n• US DOT\nInterpretations\nthe transportation of hazardous materials\nees who perform job functions regulated\nHMR, training is not required.\nreceive training applicable to those func-\ning end-user of hazardous materials, and\nunder the HMR. If a company is a receiv-\ntions. In your letter you stated that these\nworkers fill the containers with the\ntheir employees do not perform a function\nl. If a company transports HM aboard a\nvehicle that is not part of the vehicle's\nasbestos and radioactive materials, but do\ncovered by the HMR, e.g. unloading a\nequipment, but is also not \"offered\"\nnot select nor determine what specification\ncargo tank when the carrier is present, the\nto any one, does that company have\npackaging is needed. It is our opinion that\ntraining reguirements under the HMR do\nany responsibility to comply with the\nworkers who fill packages with asbestos\nnot apply,\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nor radioactive materials for transportation\nmust receive general awareness/familiar-\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you\nA. If a carrier transports its own haz-\nidentification of hazardous materials con-\nization training to enable recognition and\nneed additional assistance, do not hesitate\nardous materials on a vehicle, they\nto contact us.\nperform both shipper and carrier\nsistent with hazard communication stan-\nfunctions. As provided in $ 177.809,\ndards, function-specific training for any\nSincerely,\ncarrier equipment and supplies that\nregulated function performed by these\nare being transported by a motor car-\nworkers, (e.g., including proper filling and\nDelmer E. Billings\nclosure of packagings), and safety train-\nrier are fully subject to the HMR and\ning. Safety training includes measures to\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nChief, Regulations Development\ncarrier hazmat employees must be\ntrained as required.\nassociated with hazardous materials they\nprotect the employees from the hazards\n:\nmay be exposed to in the work place,\nEditor's Note: See Following Memorandum\ne.\nIn a variation of question 1, if a com-\nimplemented to protect the employees\nincluding specific measures you may have\nDate: May 16, 1995\npany rejects a shipment and returns it\nto the offeror, does it have any\nfrom exposure, and methods and proce-\nSubject\nresponsibility to comply with the\ndures for avoiding accident, such as the\nAction: Applicability of Training Rules\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nproper procedures for handling packages\nFrom: Delmer F. Billings\ncontaining hazardous materials.\nChief, Regulations Development,\nA. The answer to this question is the\nsame as the first question. If the con-\nDHM-11\nsignee's employee does not perform\nI hope this information is helpful. If you\nneed further assistance, do not hesitate to\nTo:\nJohn J. O'Connell, Jr.\nrequirements do not apply to them. If\nany hazmat function, the training\ncontact us.\nDirector,\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nthey perform hazmat functions, eg.\n•\nSincerely,\nEnforcement, DHM-40\npreparing shipping papers, labeling\npackaging, loading the transport\nThis is in response to your memorandum\nvehicle, etc., they are considered a\nDelmer F. Billings\nof May 2, 1995, requesting a response to\nhazmat employee and must be\nChief, Regulations Development\nsome questions relating to training issues\ntrained.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nresponses are as follows:\nand requirements. Your questions and our\nQ. In addition, there appears to be some\nconfusion regarding the term \"causes\n§ 172.702\nQ. If a company is an end-user of HM\nto be transported.\" We in OHME\nand only receives it, does it have any\nbelieve this refers to offerors and not\n:\nJuly 5, 1996\nresponsibility to comply with the\nconsignees. I would appreciate your\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nconfirmation of this belief.\nThis is in response to your letter dated\nthe training requirements under the\nApril 23, 1996, requesting clarification on\nA. No. The purpose of the training\nA. The term \"causes to be transported\"\nrequirements is to ensure that each\nis not specifically defined in the HMR.\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\nemployer trains each of its hazmat\nIf a person performs a hazmat func-\n49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nemployees. These requirements spec-\nHMR apply. By simply receiving haz-\ntion, appropriate requirements of the\nA hazmat employer is a person who uses\nify that persons who perform func-\ntions involving the transportation of\nardous materials, consignees do not\nmore of its employees in connection with\nhazardous materials receive training\ngenerally \"cause\" hazardous materi-\n:\ntransporting hazardous materials or caus-\nconcerning requirements applicable to\nals to be transported. If the consignee\n:\ning hazardous materials to be transported\nthose functions. Therefore, if ar\ndirects that a shipment be made, pre-\nor shipped in commerce. Hazardous mate-\nemployee does not perform any haz-\npares shipping papers, unloads a\nrials training is required for those employ-\nmat function, as regulated by the\ncargo tank when the carrier is pre-\nO6 HAZMAT Packer & Shipper\nCopyright 1997 Packaging Research Intermational, Inc.\nPart 172\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nим. \"\".\nH.B. Fuller Automotive Company\n31601 Research Park Drive\nM02: 12300\n(810) 585-2200 • (800) 633-7789\nMadison Heights, Michigan 48071\nSE: 528,442\nFAX 810) 585-3699\nNovember 12, 1997\nЛідів.\nUS Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nRegulations Development, DHM - 11\n400 Seventh St, S.W.\nWashington D.C. 20590 - 0001\n...d\nATTN:\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\n1\nGentlemen:\nI have been closely reading the \"Letters of Interpretation\" on the HMR and one of the\nanswers in the training area bothers me (see the attachment). I have no quibble with the\nanswer, per se, but i belleve it may lead to the wrong conclusion. Basically, the\ninterpretation in the letter is that no training is required if employees RECEIVE\nhazardous materials only.\n•\nI he reality of every day shipping / receiving is that often a consignee must remove\nanother's material, set it aside somewhere on his dock, remove his own consignment, and\nthen return (RELOAD) the other consignee's material back into the vehicle. If their\n\"returned materials\" are hazardous materials, then the shipment is being affected at least\n:\nperipherally and my interpretation has been that these are hazmat employees even\nthough they may never ship \"hazmats\" themselves.\nThe interpretative letter answer, per se, would lead one to conclude they are not. The\n:\nthird answer in the letter ameliorates to some extent the first answer but when it says\n\"loading the transport vehicle\" are we including my \"reloading\" scenario?\nIs my interpretation too narrow and conservative and, specifically, how does DOT look at\nthe \"reloading\" situation.\nRegards,\n1\nAere Secon\nGene Secor\nEnvironmental Health & Safety Department\n:\nEncl\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n-\n-\n• US DOT\nInterpretations\nthe transportation of hazardous materials\nees who perform job functions regulated\nreceive training applicable to those func-\nunder the HMR. If a company is a receiv-\nHMR, training is not required.\ntions. In your letter you stated that these\ning end-user of hazardous materials, and\nworkers fill the containers with the\ntheir employees do not perform a function\n9. If a company transports HM aboard a\nvehicle that is not part of the vehicle's\nasbestos and radioactive materials, but do\ncovered by the HMR, eg. unloading a\nequipment, but is also not \"offered\"\nnot select nor determine what specification\ncargo tank when the carrier is present, the\nto any one, does that company have\npackaging is needed. It is our opinion that\ntraining requirements under the HMR do\nany responsibility to comply with the\nworkers who fill packages with asbestos\nnot apply.\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nor radioactive materials for transportation\nmust receive general awareness/familiar-\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you\nA. If a carrier transports its own haz-\nization training to enable recognition and\nneed additional assistance, do not hesitate\nardous materials on a vehicle, they\nidentification of hazardous materials con-\nto contact us.\nperform both shipper and carrier\nsistent with hazard communication stan-\nfunctions. As provided in $ 177.809,\ndards, function-specific training for any\nSincerely,\nare being transported by a motor car-\ncarrier equipment and supplies that\nregulated function performed by these\nworkers, (e.g., including proper filling and\nclosure of packagings), and safety train-\n* DelmerE Billings\nrier are fully. subject.to the HMR and\nChief, Regulations Development\ncarrier hazmat employees must be\ning. Safety training includes measures to\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\ntrained as required.\nprotect the employees from the hazards\nassociated with hazardous materials they\nEditor's Note: See Following Memorandum\ne. In a variation of question 1, if a com-\nmay be exposed to in the work place,\nto the offeror, does it have any\npany rejects a shipment and returns it\nincluding specific measures you may have\nDate: May 16, 1995\nimplemented to protect the employees\nfrom exposure, and methods and proce-\nSubject\nresponsibility to comply with the\ndures for avoiding accident, such as the\nAction: Applicability of Training Rules\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nproper procedures for handling packages\nFrom: Delmer F. Billings\nA. The answer to this question is the\ncontaining hazardous materials.\nChief, Regulations Development,\nsamé as the first question. If the con-\nDHM-11\nsignee's employee does not perform\nI hope this information is helpful. If you\nneed further assistance, do not hesitate to\nTo:\nJohn J, O'Connell, Ir.\nany hazmat function, the training\ncontact us.\nDirector,\nrequirements do not apply to them. If\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nthey perform hazmat functions, eg.\nSincerely,\nEnforcement, DHM-40\npreparing shipping papers, labeling\npackaging, loading the transport\nDelmer E. Billings\nThis is in response to your memorandum\nvehicle, etc., they are considered a\nChief, Regulations Development\nsome questions relating to training issues\nof May 2, 1995, requesting a response to\nhazmat employee and must be\ntrained.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nand requirements. Your questions and our\nresponses are as follows:\ne. In addition, there appears to be some\nconfusion regarding the term \"causes\n§ 172.702\nQ. If a company is an end-user of HM\nto be transported.\" We in OHME\nJuly 5, 1996\nand only receives it, does it have any\nbelieve this refers to offerors and not\nresponsibility to comply with the\nconsignees. I would appreciate your\ntraining requirements of the HMR?\nconfirmation of this belief.\nThis is in response to your letter dated\nApril 23, 1996, requesting clarification on\nthe training requirements under the\nA. No. The purpose of the training\nA. The term \"causes to be transported\"\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\nrequirements is to ensure that each\nis not specifically defined in the HMR.\n49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nemployer trains each of its hazmat\nIf a person performs a hazmat func-\nemployees. These requirements spec-\ntion, appropriate requirements of the\nA hazmat employer is a person who uses\nify that persons who perform func-\nHMR apply. By simply receiving haz-\nmore of its employees in connection with\ntions involving the transportation of\nardous materials, consignees do not\ntransporting hazardous materials or caus-\nhazardous materials receive training\ngenerally \"cause\" hazardous materi-\ning hazardous materials to be transported\nconcerning requirements applicable to\nals to be transported. If the consignee\nor shipped in commerce. Hazardous mate-\nthose functions. Therefore, if an\ndirects that a shipment be made, pre-\nrials training is required for those employ-\nemployee does not perform any haz-\npares shipping papers, unloads a\nmat function, as regulated by the\ncargo tank when the carrier is pre-\n86 HAZMAT Packager & Shipper\nCopyright 1997 Packaging Rossarch Intemational, Inc.\nPat 172","truncated":false,"body_characters":22380}