{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0142","title":"DGI Training Center — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1999-07-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0142 response to DGI Training Center concerning 172.704.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0142.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0142.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0142","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990142.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\nJUL 15 1999\nMr. Sean Kelly\nRef. No. 99-0142\nManager, Tech Control\nDGI Training Center\nP.O. Box 1283\nAmelia Island, FL 32035\nDear Mr. Kelly:\nThis is in response to your letter dated May 26, 1999, requesting clarification on the training\nrequirements under § 172.702(b) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). Specifically, you are requesting clarification on required remedial training in new or revised\nregulatory requirements regardless of the minimum three year required training frequency. Your\nquestions are answered as follows:\nQ1. Do final rules carry enforcement authority? Do published training requirements in a final rule\nmandate a \"shipper\" of hazardous materials to comply with those rules?\nA1. The answer is yes.\nQ2. Was this requirement (remedial training when job function or regulations change) intentionally\nomitted from changes to 49 CFR 172.702(b)?\nA2. The answer is no. RSPA provided clarification in the preamble of the final rule which served as\nofficial interpretation by RSPA of the intent of the regulatory language. RSPA clarified the intent of the\nregulatory language by stating that if RSPA adopts a new regulation, or changes an existing regulation,\nthat relates to a function performed by a hazmat employee, that hazmat employee must be instructed in\nthose new or revised function-specific requirements without regard to the three year training cycle.\nRSPA further stated that it is not necessary to completely retrain the employee sooner than the required\nthree year cycle. The only instruction required is that necessary to assure knowledge of the new or\nrevised regulatory requirement. It not necessary to test the employee or retain records of the remedial\ninstruction provided in the new or revised requirements until the next scheduled retraining at or within\nthe three year cycle. RSPA revised the training rules to make it clear that RSPA does not intend that\nmillions of detailed records be created and retained and associated testing be conducted each time a\nhazmat employee is instructed in regard to a change in the regulations within the three year cycle.\n990142\n172.204\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. If the requirement was intentionally omitted, is there another regulation which mandates training\npursuant to changes in the regulations or job functions?\nA3. See A2 above.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nLich 76illg\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDGi\nTraining\nBoothe\nLenter\nDongerous Goods Intarnational\n17270€\n99-0142\nDI Training Center\nSean Kelly, Manager, Tech Control\nP.O. Box 1283\nAimelia Island, FL 32035\nMay 26,1999\nDepartment of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nAttention: Mr Edward Mazzullo:\nCopy: Delmer Billings\n400 Seventh Street, S.W., DHM-51\nWashington DC 20590-0001\nReference: Remedial Training Requirements in Relation to Regulatory Updates or Changes. -\n(NPRM HM 222-B, Final Rule HM 222-B, Final Rule; Responses to Petitions for\nReconsideration and Advisory Guidance Notice 96-10)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nUnder the NPRM, Docket HM 222B, February 20, 1996, Section II Proposed Changes, Pages\n6479 and.6480, your office recommended and suggested that remedial training be provided to a\nhazinat employee whenever their functions change or the requirements are revised.\nUnder the Final Rüle, Docket HM-222B, May 30, 1996, Section II Summary of Amendments,\nPage 27169 your office quoted the aforementioned NPRM ('Except as provided in Sec.\n+172.704(c), hazmat employees must be trained whenever their hazmat functions change or the\nrequirements are revised, iegardless of the minimally required traming frequency.\")\nThe Final Rule continued with a reference to 172.702 (Subpart H) saying, \"If a new regulation is\nadopted, or an existing regulation is changed, that relates to a function performed by a hazmat\nemployee, that hazmat employee must be instructed in those new or revised function specific\nrequirements without regard to the timing of the three year training cycle.\"\nAlsa, in this same Final. Rule, (same section) your affice went an to say, In order to clarily the\ntraining requirements of the HMR, RSPA is revising Sec. 172.702(b) to state that an employee\nmust be instructed it the requirements of the HMR that apply to each function performed by the\nemployee without a reference to the requirements of subpart H (e.g., the training, testing and\ntecordkeeping requirements of Sec 172.704).\"\nCorporate Office\n1060 El Çamino Real, Ste B. • Redwood City, CA 94063 • tel. (650) 306-8450 • fox (650) 306-8459\ndgitc@ix.netcom.com • www.dgitraining.com\nIATA Dangerous Goods Accredited School\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDG tang\nDangerous Goods latariationale\nContrary to the NPRM and Section II of the Final Rule, Section III Regulatory Analysis &\nNotices, List of Subjects; Page 27173, Amendments made no mention of the proposed or revised\ntraining requirement.\nIn addition, your office published the same statement (\"IRSPA adopts a new regulation, Or\nchanges an existing regulation, that relates to a function performed by a hazmat employee, that\nhazmat employee must be instructed in those new or revised fimction-specific requirements\nwithout regard to the three year training cycle.\") in two other documents;\na) Docket HM-222B; Amendment Number 172-149 / RIN 2137-AC76 / Responses to Petitions\nfor Reconsidetation (October 1, 1996) and;\nb) Advisory Guidance 96-10; Offering, Accepting and Transporting Hazardous Materials; Final'\nRulé (June 14, 1996): -\nWith regard to the above mentioned documents, would you please provide me a Letter of\nInterpretation answering the following questions;\na) Do, Enal Rules carry enforcement authority? Do published training requirements in a Final;\nRule mandate a \"Shipper\" of Hazardous Materials to comply with those rules?\nib) Was this requirement (remedial training when job function or régulations change) intentionally\nomitted from changes to 49 CFR, 172.702 (b)?\n(c) If the requirement was intentionally omitted, is there another regulation which mandates\ntraining pursuant to changes in the regulations or job functions?\nYour time, effort and consideration are greatly appreciated.\nSincerely,\nSec Kelly\nSean Kelly\nManager, Tech Control\n1060 El Camin Real, Ste • Redwood Gily, C. 94063. te. (650) 306-8450 • fox 650) 306-8459\nCorporate Office\ndgitc@ix.netcom.com • www.dgitroining.com\nIATA Dangerous Goods Actredited School","truncated":false,"body_characters":6587}