Interpretation Response #99-0142 ([DGI Training Center] [Mr. Sean Kelly])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 07/15/1999

Company Name: DGI Training Center

Individual Name: Mr. Sean Kelly

Location State: FL Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Jul 15, 1999

Mr. Sean Kelly                             Ref, No. 99-0142
Manager, Tech Control
DGI Training Center
P.O. Box 1283
Arnelia lsland, FL 3203

Dear W. Kelly:

This is in response to your letter dated May 26, 1999, requesting clarification on the training requirements under 172.702(b) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171­180).  Specifically, you are requesting clarification on required remedial training in new or revised regulatory requirements regardless of the minimum three year required training frequency.  Your questions are answered as follows:

Q1. Do final rules carry enforcement authority?  Do published training requirements in a final rule mandate a "shipper" of hazardous materials to comply with those rules?

Al. The answer is yes.

Q2.    Was this requirement (remedial training when job function or regulations change) intentionally omitted from changes to 49 CFR 172.702(b)?

A2. The answer is no. RSPA provided clarification in the preamble of the final rule which served as official interpretation by RSPA of the intent of the regulatory language. RSPA clarified the intent of the regulatory language by stating that if RSPA adopts a new regulation, or changes an existing regulation, that relates to a function performed by a hazmat employee, that hazmat employee must be instructed in those new or revised function-specific requirements without regard to the three year training cycle.  RSPA further stated that it is not necessary to completely retrain the employee sooner than the required three year cycle.  The only instruction required is that necessary to assure knowledge of the new or revised regulatory requirement.  It not necessary to test the employee or retain records of the remedial instruction provided in the new or revised requirements until the next scheduled retraining at or within the three year cycle. RSPA revised the training rules to make it clear that RSPA does not intend that millions of detailed records be created and retained and associated testing be conducted each time a hazmat employee is instructed in regard to a change in the regulations within the three year cycle.

Q3. If the requirement was intentionally omitted, is there another regulation which mandates training pursuant to changes in the regulations or job functions?

A3. See A2 above.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Delmer F. Billings
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

172.704

Regulation Sections