{"operation":"document","citation":"07-0052","title":"Compliant Technologies, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2007-03-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"07-0052 response to Compliant Technologies, Inc. concerning 171.15.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0052.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0052.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0052","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2007/070052.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJ.S. Departmer\nf Transportatio\nWastington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nipeline anc\nAdministration\nlazardous Materials Safet\nMAR 2 0 2007\nMr. David Ellis\nRef. No. 07-0052\n325 Beals Chapel Roa\nompliant Technologies, In\nLenoir City, TN 37772\nDear Mr. Ellis:\nThis is in response to your February 28, 2007 letter requesting further clarification of our\nletter to you dated August 16, 2006 concerning the requirements for immediate notice of\ncertain hazardous materials incidents under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\npractical moment\" used in our previous response is correct.\nCFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether your understanding of the term \"carliest\nIn your recent letter, you state your belief that a person must report an incident as soon as\nexist. You provide examples of extenuating circumstances such as, if an incident occurs on\n\"earliest practical moment\" used in our August 16, 2006 response is correct.\na remote highway, or a driver is incapacitated. You ask if your interpretation of the phrase\nThe answer is yes. As required under § 171.15 of the HMR, an incident listed under\nparagraph (b) must be reported by telephone by each person in physical possession of the\nhazardous material to the National Response Center (NRC), or to the Director, Centers for\nDisease Control and Prevention, in place of the NRC, for a notice involving an infections\nsubstance (etiologic agent). Notice must occur as soon as practical, but no later than 12\nhours after the occurrence of the incident. Any reporting delay beyond what is necessary to\nsafely secure the scene of the incident is not permitted.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n17/.15\n070052\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMar 02 07 03:03p\nCooley Law\nFirm\n865-354-9359\np. 2\nFoster\n3/71.15\nFebruary 28, 2007\nHazardous Materials Incickents\nCompliant Technologies, Inc.\nDavid Ellis\n8325 Beals Chapel Road\n07-0052\nLenoir City TN 37772\nPhone: (865) 384-3926\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nWashington, DC 20590\n400 Seventh Street S. W.\nRe: Follow-up Question on Interpretation\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nDepartment of Transportation dated August 16, 2006 (Reference number 06-0149)\nI have a brief follow-up question regarding an interpretation that we received from the\nregarding immediate notification requirements for certain incidents described in 49 CFR\n171.15. The question revolves around the meaning of the phrase \"earliest practical\nmoment\" used in the interpretation. We believe that the earliest practical mor ent under\n49 CFR 171.15 means minutes and not hours provided that no extenuating circumstances\nexist preventing such. Essentially, one must report as soon as physically possible after\ninitiated. The EPA has a long standing interpretation that immediate (at tłe earliest\nquantities of hazardous substances.\npractical moment) means a period of 15 minutes or shorter if feasible for reportable\nAn example where hours might be permissible\nwould be an accident on a remote highway and/or where a driver is incapacitated. Is our\nunderstanding of the earliest practical moment requirement accurate?\nWe believe this question is important to answer for at least two reasons. First and\npossible after a triggering incident. Secondly, the question is relevant to ensure that no\nforemost, all Federal and State agencies should have information in their hands is soon as\nperson or entity uses \"semantics\" in language to avoid enforcement action. Accidents\ncan and do happen, but it is absolutely critical that the notification and energency\nresponse process does not fail.\nI would appreciate a prompt written reply to the above question.\nSincerely,\nDavid Ellis\nCompliant Technologies, Inc.","truncated":false,"body_characters":3796}