{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0271","title":"Dangerous Goods Advisory Council — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-12-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0271 response to Dangerous Goods Advisory Council concerning 173.6.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0271.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0271.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0271","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050271.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nDEC 30 2005\nMr. Alan I. Roberts\nRef. No. 05-0271\nPresident\nDangerous Goods Advisory Council\n1100 H Street, NW, Suite 740\nWashington, DC 20005\nDear Mr. Roberts,\nThis responds to your October 5, 2005 letter requesting additional clarification on the\napplicability of the Materials of Trade (MOTs) exception in § 173.6 of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request that we\ncorrect errors and reissue two letters of interpretation regarding the applicability of the\nMOTs exception.\nIn the case of the July 9, 2004 letter, addressed to Mr. Steven King of Mobility Products\nUnlimited (Ref. No.04-0145), Ms. Mitchell's statement that \"A private carrier is a carrier\nwho transports the business's own products and does not provide such transportation\nservice to other businesses\" is correct. That statement does not contradict the definition\nin 49 CFR. 390.5, stating that a private carrier \"means a person who provides\ntransportation of property or passengers, by commercial motor vehicle, and is not a for-\nhire motor carrier.\" A company transporting a purchased swimming pool system for\ndelivery and installation is a private motor carrier for purposes of the HMR.\nIn the case: of the May 18, 2005 letter, addressed to Mr. Randy Hill of Chemtran Services\nUSA, Inc. (Ref. No. 05-0096), the response by Mr. Gale that, based on the information in\nMr. Hill's letter, his company is not a private motor carrier is correct. The company is\nintended for use by highway mode by a private motor vehicle in direct support a principal\nproviding transportation services to a third party. In addition, the MOTs exception is\nbusiness that is other than transportation by motor vehicle, not for transportation by\naircraft.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nActing Director\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n173.6\n050271\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDangerous Goods Advisory Council\nDGAC,\nSuite 7401100 Street AW • Washington DC 20005 • 202/289-4550 • Fax 202/289-4074 • www.dgac.org\nOctober 5, 2005\nBoothe\nDr. Robert A. McGuire\n$173.6\nAssociate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nMOT\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\n05-0271\nDear Dr. McGuire:\nI request that two letters of interpretation addressing the applicability of 49 CFR 173.6\nconsistent with the definition of \"Material of trade\" in 49 CFR 171.8.\nbe reissued to correctly state the applicability of the materials of trade (MOT) exceptions\nIn a letter dated July 9, 2004, addressed to Mr. Steven King of Mobility Products Unlimited, Ms.\nMitchell stated \"A private motor carrier is a carrier who transports the business's own products\nand does not provide such transportation service to other businesses.\" While this statement has\nof \"private motor carrier\" in 49 CFR 390.5 stating \"...means a person who provides\nno effect on the outcome of the issue addressed by the letter, it is inconsistent with the definition\ntransportation of property or passengers, by commercial motor vehicle, and is not a for-hire motor\ncarrier.\" The distinction is important since many private carriers carry the property of others in\nsubsequently transported by the seller for installation. I assume the drafters of the MOT\nthe conduct of their businesses, such as a swimming pool system bought and paid for and\n\"By a private motor carrier gorin direct support of a principal business that is other than\ndefinition in Section 171.8, took this definition into account in writing subparagraph (3) stating\ntransportation by motor vehicle:\".....r\n\"Your company is not a private motor carrier.\" (after he quoted subparagraph (3) mentioned\nIn a letter dated May 18, 2005, Mr. Gale stated to an officer of Chemtran Services USA, Inc.,\nabove). A review of Chemtran's web site at www.chemtranusa.com discloses it to be a company\nnot transportation for hire. It should be noted that private carrier delivery charges for recovery of\nthat provides a wide array of business support services that are its principal business activities,\ncarriage.\nout-of-pocket costs are common. Such charges do not change the character of private motor\nA number of our members are concerned that the two letters mentioned above may, be binding,\nthereby placing some of their business operations in jeopardy. Therefore, we request a correction\nof the errors in the two letters cited above, and request that we be provided a copy thereof. We\nappreciate in advance your action on this matter.\nSincerely,\n120%\nPresident\nAlan I. Roberts,\n• DGAC is a leading international membership organization representing all aspects of the hazardous materials/dangerous goods transportation industry. +","truncated":false,"body_characters":4857}