DOT tank transportation laws

[Otter]

So as long as I stay off Federal highways, Federal land, and Federal waterways I don't need to do a hydro test anymore!!

 

[Otter]

No, it is not the law. If it violates the Constitution, it is not the law in the US.

Like Administrative Law? How else does the IRS get to seize property BEFORE due process?

 

[Rick Murchison]

No, it is not the law. If it violates the Constitution, it is not the law in the US.

Well... not to shave a point too thin, but it - "it" being any unconstitutional federal law or regulation - is the law until it is challenged and struck down in the courts. In the meantime, it will be enforced. At the point of a gun, if necessary. There are plenty on the books now... hopefully a whole slew of 'em, some that have been around for many years, are about to bite the dust, and I can quit being robbed of $30/yr to exercise what "shall not be infringed."
Rick

 

[Walter]

Oh there are a whole bunch of "laws" that are unconstitutional and are enforced, but I disagree with your basic point. They are not legal and are therefore not laws. Enforcement of those laws is illegal, but that doesn't stop it from happening. Lots of what the IRS does is illegal as Otter pointed out. The Constitution was tossed out in 1861 and only parts of it have been enforced since.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Oh there are a whole bunch of "laws" that are unconstitutional and are enforced, but I disagree with your basic point. They are not legal and are therefore not laws. Enforcement of those laws is illegal, but that doesn't stop it from happening. Lots of what the IRS does is illegal as Otter pointed out. The Constitution was tossed out in 1861 and only parts of it have been enforced since.

We agree on the concept; we disagree on the terms.

Rick

 

[Thalassamania]

But "commerce" requires interstate movement, it says so in DOT's definitions.

 

[JEScholz]

HM 200 on MOT's. I will bet that is what the instructor got the ticket on.
Tell the instructor to pay the fine
This is from the MN motorcarrier website.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/motorcarrier/factsheets/hm200mot.pdf

So if I am reading this correctly, the "instructor" is conducting commerce so he falls under the regulations. A private citizen transporting his own tanks can carry up to 1000 LBS.

 

[northen diver]

But "commerce" requires interstate movement, it says so in DOT's definitions.

Yawn................



From the CFR 49 5103 (b):


(b) Regulations for Safe Transportation.—
(1) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The regulations— (A) apply to a person— (i) transporting hazardous material in commerce;
(ii) causing hazardous material to be transported in commerce; or
(iii) manufacturing, fabricating, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or testing a packaging or a container that is represented, marked, certified, or sold by that person as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce; and

 

[northen diver]

So if I am reading this correctly, the "instructor" is conducting commerce so he falls under the regulations. A private citizen transporting his own tanks can carry up to 1000 LBS.

An instructor is involved in transporting commerce. So he has two options. Not to transport over 1001 pounds (about 28 Luxfer AL 80 tanks) OR if he elects to go over the 1001 pounds, he'll need to have placards, insurance, CDL, training, mainifest etc etc.

If a private citizen is carrying tanks for his/her own private use, they do not fall under the DOT HMR rules, unless a state, like MN did and enacted a more stringent state regulation.

A state can not substact a DOT regulation, but it can enact more stringent above the DOT regulations.

 

[oxyhacker]

I don't think there is any question that the DOT now has jurisdiction over intrastate as well as interstate. Certainly the DOT will tell you they do. The current definition of commerce in 49 CFR 171 (which seems to be the one that applies to the HMR) reads:
"Commerce means trade or transportation in the jurisdiction of the United States within a single state; between a place in a state and a place outside of the state; or that affects trade or transportation between a place in a state and place outside of the state."

So the words "within a single state" seem to have crept in since the definition you cited earlier in this thread. The Federal Register for Sept '97 announced the change as follows:

"49 CFR Parts 171 and 173
SUMMARY: On January 8, 1997, RSPA published a final rule which amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to expand the scope of the regulations to intrastate transportation of hazardous materials. The intended effect of the January 8, 1997 rule is to raise the level of
safety in the transportation of hazardous materials by applying a uniform system of safety regulations to all hazardous materials transported in commerce throughout the United States."

The change is also reflected in many recent letters of interpretation, etc, as in :
"As specified in § 171.1, the HMR govern the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate and foreign commerce."

I think the confusion arises from the fact that the CFR may define the same word differently in different places, mostly because the whole CFR isn't always uniformly updated and outdate definitions can lurk in places where they don't really matter. Also many of the definitions apply only to the part or subpart they are referenced to, and it can be difficult to know just what that they cover.

But "commerce" requires interstate movement, it says so in DOT's definitions.