# Compliant Technologies, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> J.S. Departmer f Transportatio Wastington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. ipeline anc Administration lazardous Materials Safet MAR 2 0 2007 Mr. David Ellis Ref. No. 07-0052 325 Beals Chapel Roa ompliant Technologies, In Lenoir City, TN 37772 Dear Mr. Ellis: This is in response to your February 28, 2007 letter requesting further clarification of our letter to you dated August 16, 2006 concerning the requirements for immediate notice of certain hazardous materials incidents under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 practical moment" used in our previous response is correct. CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether your understanding of the term "carliest In your recent letter, you state your belief that a person must report an incident as soon as exist. You provide examples of extenuating circumstances such as, if an incident occurs on "earliest practical moment" used in our August 16, 2006 response is correct. a remote highway, or a driver is incapacitated. You ask if your interpretation of the phrase The answer is yes. As required under § 171.15 of the HMR, an incident listed under paragraph (b) must be reported by telephone by each person in physical possession of the hazardous material to the National Response Center (NRC), or to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in place of the NRC, for a notice involving an infections substance (etiologic agent). Notice must occur as soon as practical, but no later than 12 hours after the occurrence of the incident. Any reporting delay beyond what is necessary to safely secure the scene of the incident is not permitted. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely Chief, Standards Development Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 17/.15 070052 <<>> Mar 02 07 03:03p Cooley Law Firm 865-354-9359 p. 2 Foster 3/71.15 February 28, 2007 Hazardous Materials Incickents Compliant Technologies, Inc. David Ellis 8325 Beals Chapel Road 07-0052 Lenoir City TN 37772 Phone: (865) 384-3926 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Washington, DC 20590 400 Seventh Street S. W. Re: Follow-up Question on Interpretation To Whom It May Concern: Department of Transportation dated August 16, 2006 (Reference number 06-0149) I have a brief follow-up question regarding an interpretation that we received from the regarding immediate notification requirements for certain incidents described in 49 CFR 171.15. The question revolves around the meaning of the phrase "earliest practical moment" used in the interpretation. We believe that the earliest practical mor ent under 49 CFR 171.15 means minutes and not hours provided that no extenuating circumstances exist preventing such. Essentially, one must report as soon as physically possible after initiated. The EPA has a long standing interpretation that immediate (at tłe earliest quantities of hazardous substances. practical moment) means a period of 15 minutes or shorter if feasible for reportable An example where hours might be permissible would be an accident on a remote highway and/or where a driver is incapacitated. Is our understanding of the earliest practical moment requirement accurate? We believe this question is important to answer for at least two reasons. First and possible after a triggering incident. Secondly, the question is relevant to ensure that no foremost, all Federal and State agencies should have information in their hands is soon as person or entity uses "semantics" in language to avoid enforcement action. Accidents can and do happen, but it is absolutely critical that the notification and energency response process does not fail. I would appreciate a prompt written reply to the above question. Sincerely, David Ellis Compliant Technologies, Inc. - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 3796