(a) Purpose and scope. This part prescribes requirements, in addition to those contained in parts 171, 172, 173, 178 and 180 of this subchapter, that are applicable to the acceptance and transportation of hazardous materials by private, common, or contract carriers by motor vehicle.
(b) Responsibility for compliance. Unless this subchapter specifically provides that another person shall perform a particular duty, each carrier, including a connecting carrier, shall perform the duties specified and comply with all applicable requirements in this part and shall ensure its hazmat employees receive training in relation thereto.
(c) Responsibility for training. A carrier may not transport a hazardous material by motor vehicle unless each of its hazmat employees involved in that transportation is trained as required by this part and subpart H of part 172 of this subchapter.
(d) No unnecessary delay in movement of shipments. All shipments of hazardous materials must be transported without unnecessary delay, from and including the time of commencement of the loading of the hazardous material until its final unloading at destination.
[Amdt. 177-79, 57 FR 20954, May 15, 1992, as amended by Amdt.177-86, 61 FR 18933, Apr. 29, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Roberto Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d 464 (6th Cir. 1991).
“, 49 C.F.R. §§ 177.800 through 177.876. Likewise, the safe operation of large commercial vehicles is critical to the welfare of the motoring public.”
Multistar Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 707 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2013).
“800 (b) (offering or transporting hazardous materials without a security plan), identified as Violation 3 in the compliance report; 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 (c) (failing to train hazardous materials employee), identified as Violation 4 in the compliance report; 49 C.”
United States v. Abreu, 730 F. Supp. 1018 (D. Colo. 1990).
“§§ 2501 and 2502, and 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 and § 350.7. The regulations inform interstate carriers and operators that inspections will be made at fixed weigh and check stations.”
Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 438 A.2d 269 (Md. 1981).
“1300, and the vehicles in which they are carried, 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 -.870. The State of Maryland also administers a hazardous waste transportation and disposal program.”
Rowland v. Shell Oil Co., 179 Cal. App. 3d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
“Moreover, the purpose of these regulations is “[t]o promote the uniform enforcement of law and to minimize the dangers to life and property incident to the transportation of hazardous materials” ( 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 ) 3 rather than “. . .”
In re OPC Polymers v. Pub. Utils. Comm. of Ohio, 2013 Ohio 5443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“OPC Polymers now argues that, at best, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 177.800(b), by loading the truck it assumed a responsibility to perform only loading in conformance with regulations, and the commission incorrectly extended that responsibility beyond loading to all regulatory…”
Sd Dept. of Pub. Saf. v. Haddenham, 339 N.W.2d 786 (S.D. 1983).
“Title 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 (1982) applies to the transportation of hazardous materials by motor vehicles upon public highways.”
N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. State, 504 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
“817 was expressed in 49 CFR 177.800 which identified the purpose of this part of the regulation as follows: To promote the uniform enforcement of law and to minimize the dangers to life and property incident to the transportation of hazardous materials .”
United States v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 415 F. Supp. 104 (E.D. Tenn. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Oric in the hazardous materials regulations, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 177.800 . 2 Count 2 thereof charges further that the defendant permitted Mr.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 177.800(b) — 1 case
In re OPC Polymers v. Pub. Utils. Comm. of Ohio, 2013 Ohio 5443 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“OPC Polymers now argues that, at best, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 177.800(b), by loading the truck it assumed a responsibility to perform only loading in conformance with regulations, and the commission incorrectly extended that responsibility beyond loading to all regulatory…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.