{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0049","title":"Honeywell — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-02-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0049 response to Honeywell concerning 177.834.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0049.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0049.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0049","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000049.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nFEB 2 9 2000\nMr Jeffrey A. Leese\nHoneywell\nRef. No. 00-0049\n101 Columbia Road\nMorristown, New Jersey 07962\nDear Mr. Leese:\nThis responds to your letter of February 2, 2000, concerning requirements for attending the unloading\nof cargo tank motor vehicles under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). Specifically, you ask whether attendance requirements apply when a cargo tank has been placed\non private property at the consignee's location and the motive power has been removed.\nThe answer is no. Under § 177.834(i)(2), a cargo tank unloading operation need not be attended\nwhen the cargo tank has been placed on the consignee's premises and the motive power has been\nremoved from the cargo tank and removed from the premises.\nAs defined by federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127), \"transportation\"\nmeans the iovement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.\n:\nNeither the statute nor the HMR define the terms \"loading incidental to movement,\" \"unloading\nincidental to movement,\" or \"storage incidental to movement.\" You are correct that there is confusion\nconcerning the meaning of \"transportation in commerce\" and whether particular activities are covered\nby that term and, therefore, subject to regulation under the MR. Current exceptions for cargo tank\nunloading operations that are conducted on private property at a consignee's location when the motive\npower is removed are as stated in the February 13, 1998 and March 11, 1999 letters you cite, i.e.,\n\"not subject to the attendance requirements.\" In Docket No. RSPA-98-4952, we are reconsidering\nthe general rule that transportation in commerce is complete when a hazardous material is delivered to a\nconsignee's location and the delivering carrier has physically tendered the material to the consignee by:\n000049\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•\nunloading or disconnecting a trailer or cargo tank for unloading by the consignee. Copies of the two\nadvance notices of proposed rulemaking issued under HM-223 are enclosed for your information.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate:to contact this\noffice.\nSincerely,\nEdward T. Mazzull\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosures\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHoneywell\nP.O. Box 1057\nHoneywell\nMorristown, NJ 07962-1057\nGorske\n$177.834\nFebruary 2, 2000\n00-0049\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDHM-10\nResearch and Special Projects Administration\n400 Seventh Street SW\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: 49 CFR 177.834(i) Cargo Tank Loading/Unloading Attendance\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nIn researching the need for physical or remote monitoring of a cargo tank during loading\nor unloading of a hazardous material, I have found two (2) letters of clarification which\ngive diametrically opposite guidance.\nAssuming the cargo tank has been spotted on private property at a consignee's location\nand assuming the motive power has been removed from the trailer and removed from the\n:\npremises:\n2/13/98 - Delmar F. Billings to Dana Murphy - the trailer in no longer \"in transportation\"\nand not subject to the attendance requirements\n3/11/99 - Thomas G. Allan to Robert Monteith - the trailer is still considered to be \"in\ntransportation\" (and is subject to the attendance requirements of the HMR).\nOn Feb 2id, I spoke to Ms. Eileen Mack at the DOT Hazardous Materials Information\nCenter in an attempt to resolve this conflict. She stated the DOT position was that while\nthe definition of a trailer \"in transportation\" was currently being developed (in Docket\nRSPA 98-4952); there is currently no language in the HMR specifically addressing this\nissue. As a result, no violation of the HMR could occur if a cargo tank was loaded or\nunloaded without DOT defined attendance, assuming the trailer was placed on the\nconsignee's premises and the motive power was removed from the cargo tank and\nremoved from the premises.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n:\nWe are seeking written confirmation of this position.\nPlease address all correspondence or feel free to contact me at:\nJeffrey A. Leese\nHoneywell\n:\n101 Columbia Road\nMorristown, NJ 07962\nPhone: 973-455-6794\nFAX: 973-455-5391\nRegards,\nfiles i leese\nJeffrey A. Leese\nManager Regulatory Affairs.","truncated":false,"body_characters":4417}