# HMT Associates — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 99-0074 - **title:** HMT Associates — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 1999-04-08 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 99-0074 response to HMT Associates concerning 173.6. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0074.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0074.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0074 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990074.pdf **body:** <<>> of Transportation U.S. Department Washington, D.C. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 20590 Special Programs Research and Administration APR - 8 1999 Mr. E.A. Altemos Ref. No. 99-0074 HMT Associates Suite 200 1850 K Street Washington, D.C. 20006-3500 Dear Mr. Altemos: This is in response to your letter dated March 18, 1999, requesting clarification of § 173.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you LoR pass ask whether a prior interpretation concerning the materials of trade exceptions would remain valid under the following alterations of the scenario outlined by that prior interpretation. 1) Rather than transport being conducted between two' buildings separated by a road with public access, the transport was conducted on public highways between facilities that may be separated by many miles; 2) Rather than being carried in a company-owned vehicle, the hazardous materials concerned are carried in the privately-owned vehicle of a company employee; and/or 3) Rather than the operation described being "not a normal business practice", the operation is a routine • business practice. Provided that all the requirements of § 173.6 are met, transport can be conducted on public highways of any distance, 1136 990074 <<>> can be carried in privately-owned or company vehicles, and such shipments can routinely take place. I hope this satisfies your request. Sincerely, Delmer F. Billings Chief, Standards Development Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> 173.6 HMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.O. 1850 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3500 SUITE 200 EA. ALTEMOS PATRICIA A. QUINN (202) 463-3511 GORDON ROUSSEAU FACSIMILE (202) 463-3512 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (202) 463-3511, Ext. 11 March 18, 1999 Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM-10) Research and Special Programs Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Dear Mr. Mazzullo: The enclosed interpretation letter, dated July 9, 1998, confirms that the transport of certain hazardous materials under the scenario described therein qualifies for, and may be conducted under, the Material of Trade (MOT) exceptions provided in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (the HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), provided all applicable requirements of § 173.6 are met. Based on my understanding of the intent of the MOT exceptions in the HMR, I believe a transport operation of a type described in the enclosed interpretation letter would remain eligible for the MOT exceptions if the fact pattern of the scenario were altered in one, or all, of the following ways: 1) Rather than transport being conducted between two buildings separated by a road with public access, the transport was conducted on public highways between facilities that may be separated by many miles; 2) Rather than being carried in a company-owned vehicle, the hazardous materials concerned are carried in the privately-owned vehicle of a company employee; and/or Rather than the operation described being "not a normal business practice" ", the operation is a routine business practice. <<>> HMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo March 18, 1999 Page 2 Please confirm that my understanding is correct that the MOT exceptions would continue to apply to the scenario described in the enclosed letter, even if the fact pattern of that scenario were altered in one or more of the ways described above. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, E. A. Altemos - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 3547