Interpretation Response #99-0058 ([Great Lakes Chemical Corporation] [Mr. Robert Monteith])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 03/23/1999

Company Name: Great Lakes Chemical Corporation

Individual Name: Mr. Robert Monteith

Location State: AR Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

MAR 23, 1999

Mr. Robert Monteith                               Ref. No: 99-0058
Compliance Manager
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
P.O. Box 7020
El Dorado, AR 71730

Dear Mr. Monteith:

This responds to your letter of March 4, 1999, concerning requirements for attending the unloading of cargo tank motor vehicles under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).  Specifically, you ask whether the attendance requirements apply when a private motor carrier delivers a cargo tank to its destination and the motive power is removed.

"Transportation," as defined in § 5102 of the federal hazardous materials transportation law .(49 U.S.C. 5101-5127) means the movement of property and any loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.  Attendance requirements in § 177.834(i)(2) of the HMR clearly do not apply to a person acting as a private motor carrier when: (1) the cargo tank has been placed on the consignee's premises; and (2) the motive power has been removed from the trailer and removed from the premises.

At this time, however, RSPA does not concur in your determination that such a cargo tank loaded with a hazardous material is no longer, "in transportation." Currently, under Docket Number RSPA-98-4952, we are reconsidering the general rule that transportation in commerce is complete when a hazardous material is delivered to a consignee's location and the delivering carrier has physically tendered the material to the consignee by unloading a trailer or disconnecting a trailer for unloading by the consignee.  A notable exception to this general rule is that consignee unloading of rail tank cars is subject to regulation under the HMR even though there is usually no carrier involvement in the process other than positioning the tank car at the unloading site.

Thus, while the HMR currently do not apply to a cargo tank that has been disconnected from its motive power at a consignees location, we do not now agree that the shipment is no longer "in transportation." We hope to resolve this issue in Docket RSPA-98-4952.  We invite your participation in a supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking that should be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

177.834

Regulation Sections