49 C.F.R. § 177.823

Movement of motor vehicles in emergency situations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A carrier may not move a transport vehicle containing a hazardous material unless the vehicle is marked and placarded in accordance with part 172 or as authorized in § 171.12a of this subchapter, or unless, in an emergency:

(1) The vehicle is escorted by a representative of a state or local government;

(2) The carrier has permission from the Department; or

(3) Movement of the transport vehicle is necessary to protect life or property.

(b) Disposition of contents of cargo tank when unsafe to continue. In the event of a leak in a cargo tank of such a character as to make further transportation unsafe, the leaking vehicle should be removed from the traveled portion of the highway and every available means employed for the safe disposal of the leaking material by preventing, so far as practicable, its spread over a wide area, such as by digging trenches to drain to a hole or depression in the ground, diverting the liquid away from streams or sewers if possible, or catching the liquid in containers if practicable. Smoking, and any other source of ignition, in the vicinity of a leaking cargo tank is not permitted.

(c) Movement of leaking cargo tanks. A leaking cargo tank may be transported only the minimum distance necessary to reach a place where the contents of the tank or compartment may be disposed of safely. Every available means must be utilized to prevent the leakage or spillage of the liquid upon the highway.

[Amdt. 177-35, 41 FR 16130, Apr. 15, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 177-67, 50 FR 41521, Oct. 11, 1985; Amdt. 177-86, 61 FR 18933, Apr. 29, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, Plaintiff v. Union Pac. Motor Freight Co., a Corp., 650 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1981).
Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, Plaintiff v. Union Pac. Motor Freight Co., a Corp., 650 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “Inspection of such shipments is required by Department of Transportation regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 177.823 (1979). In 1966 the Department of Labor conducted an investigation of defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation to dispatchers.”
Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646 (D.P.R. 1979). “49 C.F.R. 177.823. The boxes of ordnance are also marked with signs clearly signifying that they are mass detonating high explosives.”
Am. Trucking Associations v. Sec'y of State, 595 A.2d 1014 (Me. 1991). “§§ 246-B & 246-C and enacted section 246-D, which created a hazardous material transportation license requirement for all trucks designated by 49 C.F.R. § 177.823 as carrying hazardous materials.”
People v. Kavanaugh, 133 Misc. 2d 689 (1986). “He is charged operating with improper placarding, operating with improper shipping papers, operating with defective steering, and operating with insufficient air pressure in violation of 49 CFR 177.823, 177.817, 396.3 (a) (1) and 393.”
In re LMD Integrated Logistic Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2016 Ohio 5385 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “817(a) because the shipping papers associated with the cargo did not include the phrase "Poison-Inhalation Hazard," and (3) violating 49 C.F.R. 177.823(a) because the required poison-inhalation hazard placards were not present on the trailer.”
United States v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 415 F. Supp. 104 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). “49 C.F.R. § 177.823 (a). . The defendant received notice on December 31, 1962, indicating the necessity that it comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, revision of 1952, of the ICC.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 177.823(a) — 1 case
In re LMD Integrated Logistic Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2016 Ohio 5385 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “817(a) because the shipping papers associated with the cargo did not include the phrase "Poison-Inhalation Hazard," and (3) violating 49 C.F.R. 177.823(a) because the required poison-inhalation hazard placards were not present on the trailer.”
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.