Interpretation Response #08-0067 ([Interstate Battery System of America, Inc.] [Mr. Dan Lane])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 06/03/2008

Company Name: Interstate Battery System of America, Inc.

Individual Name: Mr. Dan Lane

Location State: TX Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

June 3, 2008

Mr. Dan Lane

Interstate Battery System of America, Inc.

12770 Merit Drive, Suite 1000

Dallas, TX 75251

Ref. No. 08-0067

Dear Mr. Lane:

This responds to your March 6, 2008 letter requesting clarification of the "loaded" or "braced" requirement of § 173.159(e)(2) for the transportation of electric storage batteries under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether our letter dated April 20, 2001 (Ref. no. 01-0054) to Captain Bruce Bugg, of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, supersedes the response given to your company by the Associate Administrator regarding an application for an exemption (now referred to as a special permit) from § 173.159(e) of the HMR.

You provide a copy of the April 20, 2001 interpretation letter, a copy of the Associate Administrator"s response to the application, and copies of the materials originally submitted with the application. The April 20, 2001 letter states that "electric storage batteries resting on a rubber friction mat that are pushed forward so they are against the forward wall of a compartment do not meet the requirements of § 173.159(e)(2) because the batteries are not braced to prohibit lateral or aft shifting." The letter from the Associate Administrator states that your application was denied as unnecessary based on the conclusion that electric storage batteries loaded and transported in the manner presented in the application meets the requirements of § 173.159(e)(2). And finally, the materials submitted with the application provide information, data, and visual evidence supporting your claim that electric storage batteries loaded without bracing, and transported in specially-designed motor vehicles known as "Mickey Body" trucks, prevents damage and short circuits in transit in conformance with the requirements of § 173.159(e)(2). You indicate that some enforcement officials are asserting that the April 20, 2001 letter renders the letter from the Associate Administrator invalid and thus, are requiring your company to strap (brace) electric storage batteries transported in your specially-designed "Mickey Body" trucks.

The April 20, 2001 interpretation letter does not supersede nor affect the response your company received from the Associate Administrator concerning your application for a special permit. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations but are provided to help the public understand how to comply with the HMR. Based on a review of the materials you provided, this Office agrees with the original response from the Associate Administrator that electric storage batteries loaded and transported in "Mickey Body" trucks as described in the application achieves the performance standards of § 173.159(e)(2). According to your application, a Mickey Body truck is designed so that shelves in the compartments of a truck slope downward from the exterior toward the interior of the vehicle and the shelves are covered with a slip-resistant surface. Additionally, when loaded, the majority of the batteries are wrapped in plastic; the batteries are placed tightly to the front and interior of each compartment that is less-than-full; and the batteries are not stacked. If your company or another company transports batteries as described, then the batteries do not need to be braced. However, if evidence indicates batteries transported using this loading method and truck design are damaged or short circuited while in transport, then the performance standards of § 173.159(e)(2) are not achieved and the batteries must be loaded differently or braced in a manner to prevent damage or short circuiting while in transit.

Our letter of April 20, 2001 to Captain Bruce Bugg failed to fully consider the information provided by your original application for a special permit relative to the questions posed. Confusion may arise due to the similarity of the loading method described by Captain Bugg and the loading method used by your company. It is the opinion of this Office that, as was posed by Captain Bugg, placing electric storage batteries in a less-than-full compartment with a slip-resistant surface or pushing the batteries against the forward wall in combination with a slip-resistant surface by itself may not be sufficient to achieve the performance standards of

§ 173.159(e)(2). These batteries may need to be loaded differently or braced to meet the requirements of § 173.159(e)(2). However, loading electric storage batteries in a "Mickey Body" truck as described above differs in that, for example, shelving in the compartments of the truck slopes downward to the interior of the compartment to provide further resistance against shifting or jostling of the batteries that could cause damage or short circuiting. Additionally, information provided by your company as well as a number of other companies that distribute electric storage batteries indicates the widespread and historical use of this loading method and truck design without incidence of damage or short circuiting while in transit. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Office that this loading method and truck design sufficiently provides for achievement of the performance standards without having to brace the batteries. We will address the discrepancy between the Associate Administrator"s letter and the letter to Captain Bugg by rescinding the April 20, 2001 letter and issuing a new letter to Captain Bugg noting that electric storage batteries loaded in a "Mickey Body" truck as described in your application is a method of achieving the performance standard of § 173.159(e)(2).

I have enclosed a copy of correspondence with Captain Bruce Bugg of the Georgia Department of Public Safety related to this issue. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Edward T. Mazzullo

Director

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

cc:

Charles A. Key

Auto Supply Company, Inc.

Randy Clark

Tri-State Battery Supply, Inc.

Arthur Calhoun

Central Georgia Battery Co.

Rodney Burns

Continental Battery Company

Carolina L. Mederos

Patton Boggs LLP

Enclosure:

Letter of Interpretation 01-0054

173.159(e)(2)

Regulation Sections