Skippy -vs- DOT

If Joe ships something to Jim, and DOT has a problem with it, wouldn't it be Joe that they could do something to? Otherwise one could put anyone in trouble with DOT simply by sending them something "improper"...

-dave w

Yea, but even PADS are hazmat. Still need that DOT shit. No way a pallet of motors is classified as ORM-D. I wonder where dem motors are??(;-)

Fred

The transaction is contingent on it, what more could you even hope for?

Begin the dance. The night is young.

Might as well add the provision that upon your approval of proper CA that you verify ability to pay in full.

As long as Joe did not know any better and reported the violation. Unfortionatly I can't claim the first, for several obvious reasons, and would rather not be put in a position and required to do the latter. BTW are you a Assistant Prof at Emory?

Fred

Why would he have an obligation to report?

Because that's the law, doofus.

Cite?

-dave w

From a troll?

Man, that's a lot of money to risk on a bunch of unverified, uncertified motors of unknown quality. It's one thing to take a chance on a couple motors just to check 'em out, but to have to buy $70k worth is pretty high stakes gambling.

Anyone who received an illegally shipped package from a person who is known to have been in deep doo-doo with the DOT already, would have to be a total idiot NOT to report it. After all, any shipper with a track record of violations is likely to be closely watched.

Here's where you're driving me nuts.

Are you obligated to report, for example, the 87 cars that speed by you in the next lane?

CAN you even report someone who is 'driving erratically' on your own say-so? (the answer is no -- I've had situations where some idiot is obviously driving impaired, but until it's viewed by a law enforcement officer, nothing is done)

If a violation occurs, of any type, why are you suddenly a law-enforcement officer in regards to reporting the suspected infringment? And what is your protection against civil liability if you're wrong?

The only cases I am aware of where one is REQUIRED to report things, are those situations where (for example) someone might confess to child abuse to a doctor/priest/teacher, and the state MANDATES that such items be reported (and even then, I've seen abuses of that system).

It would appear (in my mind) to be the obligation/requirement of the shipping entity (i.e., the freight company) to report any transgressions in this instance.

So please, tell me, why would you think this should be 'reported'?

David Erbas-White

P.S. Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting that anyone should knowingly violate shipping regulations, but as they red tape appears to be often contradictory, mistakes can happen. I'm trying to understand why if the shipper feels that they are compliant, but the receiver does not, that it becomes a 'reportable violation'.

Ah, now that you're paying attention, I have a question.

What was your intent, when you labeled that shipment of rocket motors, as "model aircraft parts"?

That's what I would like to know.

Federal explosive laws require notification of known violations.

I didn't think we were talking about fast cars.

I misspoke slightly: If Joe did not know any better, he is in no trouble regardless. A consumer can, more than likely, use that defense. However, in my case, I am a trained and certified hazmat handler. I can not claim ignorance of the shipping requirements and am required to report hazmat violations on received hazmat shipments. I'll try and provide you cite tomorrow, from my desk top procedure, at work.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were discussing PADs, which are exempt from explosives laws, and we were discussion DOT hazmat violations? Can you please point to the cite where SUSPECTED (not KNOWN, because it's obviously a very gray area) violations of DOT laws are REQUIRED to be reported?

Please note the use of SUSPECTED and REQUIRED and D.O.T. in the above...

David Erbas-White

Fred,

Not arguing, simply asking for clarification -- so, if I, as Joe Schmoe, received an improperly packaged hazmat item, I would (in all likelihood) not have any obligation to report it. But if you, Fred, as a trained and certified hazmat handler, receive an improperly packaged hazmat item, you are obligated to report it? Is that correct?

Here's where I see 'danger' (government encroachment type of danger) in this system -- the system is supposed to be set up such that hazmat materials are only handled/transported by trained personnel (I get that part). But, hazmat personnel also receive non-hazmat rated items. So, if I send you a box of paperclips, and it's not marked as hazmat material, but you 'feel' (again, note the distinction from 'are sure') that there is lead or mercury in the paperclips, you are OBLIGATED to report it? This is what bothers me, as it 'adds' to the 'enforcement personnel' of the government in a very silent way.

BTW, is the 'requirement' that a certified handler report this punishable as a crime, or by removal of the certification? For example, if I misuse my Civil Air Patrol radio license, the 'penalty' is that my license can be removed. I'm not guilty of a crime (unless, of course, I ALSO violated other FCC rules).

Again, not trying to pick a fight or troll, I'm just troubled by the implications...

David Erbas-White

No I can go along with that.

But my queston was NOT answered by you.

Why would he have an obligation to report?

Is the certified doofus.

Precisely.

Especially if you have a government issued piece of paper that says something is at least NOT a Class B explosive. Perhaps saying more if you are familiar with the related rules. AND followed exactly by yet another government agency (DOT).

Precisely.

Moron detector on full.

You are asking "Dave Grayvis" to pay attention to detail?

Hey Brian, put down the bong for 2 days before replying.

Your mom says hi. I saw her at church.

You really should talk with your mom.

Jerry