{"operation":"document","citation":"01-0054R","title":"Georgia Department of Public Safety — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-06-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"01-0054R response to Georgia Department of Public Safety concerning 173.159.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0054r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0054r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0054r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010054R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nCaptain Bruce Bugg\nMotor Carrier Compliance Division\nGeorgia Department of Public Safety\nPO Box 1456\nAtlanta, GA 30371\nRef. No. 0 1-0054\nDear Captain Bugg:\nThis letter serves as a rescission of our April 20, 2001 letter responding to your request for\nclarification of requirements for the transportation of batteries under the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 1 7 1 - 1 80). Specifically, you asked if electric storage\nbatteries resting on a rubber friction mat and pushed against the forward wall of a\ncompartment meets the requirements of § 1 73.159(e)(2). Upon further review, we find our\nprevious response to your question to be incomplete. Your question is answered below. We\napologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.\nElectric storage batteries must be loaded or braced in order to prevent damage and short-\ncircuits in transit. It is the opinion of this Office that placing electric storage batteries on a\nslip-resistant surface such as a rubber friction mat and pushing the batteries against the\nforward wall of a less-than-full compartment may not by itself be sufficient to achieve the\nperformance standards of § 173.159(e)(2) and therefore, the batteries may have to be loaded\ndifferently or braced in a manner to achieve the standard. However, loading and transporting\nthe batteries without bracing using a method that includes placing the batteries on a slip-\nresistant surface and pushing the batteries against the forward wall may be sufficient. For\nexample, a number of distributors of electric storage batteries use a method of loading\nbatteries in a specially-designed \"Mickey Body\" truck that incorporates the use of a slip-\nresistant surface and tightly loaded batteries pushed toward the forward and interior walls of\na less-than-full compartment in combination with shelves in compartments that slope\ndownward to the interior of the compartment. This method of loading and transport has had\nwidespread and historical use without incidence of damage or short circuiting while in\ntransit. This information is described in greater detail in our enclosed letter to Mr. Dan Lane\nof the Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. (Ref. no. 08-0067). If a company transports\nthe electric storage batteries as described in the enclosed letter, then the batteries do not need\nto be braced. However, if evidence indicates batteries transported using this loading method\nand truck design are damaged or short circuited while in transport, then the performance\nstandards of § 173.159(e)(2) are not achieved. This does not necessarily mean the batteries\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nmust then be braced but rather that the batteries must be loaded differently or braced in a\nmanner to prevent damage or short circuiting while in transit.\nI have enclosed a copy of prior correspondence with Mr. Dan Lane of Interstate Battery\nSystem of America, Inc. related to this issue. If we can be of fbrther assistance, please\ncontact us.\nSincerely,\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosure:\nLetter of Interpretation 08-0067\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdminlstratlon\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUN - 3 ZUO8\nMr. Dan Lane\nInterstate Battery System of America, Inc.\n12770 Merit Drive, Suite 1000\nDallas, TX 7525 1\nRef. No. 08-0067\nDear Mr. Lane:\nThis responds to your March 6,2008 letter requesting clarification of the \"loaded\" or \"braced\"\nrequirement of 5 173.159(e)(2) for the transportation of electric storage batteries under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1-1 80). Specifically, you ask whether\nour letter dated April 20,2001 (Ref. no. 0 1-0054) to Captain Bruce Bugg, of the Georgia\nDepartment of Public Safety, supersedes the response given to your company by the Associate\nAdministrator regarding an application for an exemption (now referred to as a special permit)\nfrom $ 173.159(e) of the HMR.\nYou provide a copy of the April 20,2001 interpretation letter, a copy of the Associate\nAdministrator's response to the application, and copies of the materials originally submitted 'with\nthe application. The April 20,200 1 letter states that \"electric storage batteries resting on a\nrubber friction mat that are pushed forward so they are against the forward wall of a\ncompartment do not meet the requirements of $ 173.159(e)(2) because the batteries are not\nbraced to prohibit lateral or aft shifting.\" The letter fiom the Associate Administrator states that\nyour application was denied as unnecessary based on the conclusion that electric storage\nbatteries loaded and transported in the manner presented in the application meets the\nrequirements of 5 173.159(e)(2). And finally, the materials submitted with the application\nprovide information, data, and visual evidence supporting your claim that electric storage\nbatteries loaded without bracing, and transported in specially-designed motor vehicles known as\n\"Mickey Body\" trucks, prevents damage and short circuits in transit in conformance with the\nrequirements of 173.159(e)(2). You indicate that some enforcement officials are asserting that\nthe April 20,2001 letter renders the letter fiom the Associate Administrator invalid and thus, are\nrequiring your company to strap (brace) electric storage batteries transported in your specially-\ndesigned \"Mickey Body\" trucks.\nThe April 20,2001 interpretation letter does not supersede nor affect the response your company\nreceived from the Associate Administrator concerning your application for a special permit.\nInterpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations but are provided to help the\npublic understand how to comply with the HMR. Based on a review of the materials you\nprovided, this Office agrees with the original response fiom the Associate Administrator that\nelectric storage batteries loaded and transported in \"Mickey Body\" trucks as described in the\napplication achieves the performance standards of § 173.159(e)(2). According to your\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\napplication, a Mickey Body truck is designed so that shelves in the compartments of a truck\nslope downward from the exterior toward the interior of the vehicle and the shelves are covered\nwith a slip-resistant surface. Additionally, when loaded, the majority of the batteries are\nwrapped in plastic; the batteries are placed tightly to the front and interior of each compartment\nthat is less-than-full; and the batteries are not stacked. If your company or another company\ntransports batteries as described, then the batteries do not need to be braced. However, if\nevidence indicates batteries transported using this loading method and truck design are damaged\nor short circuited while in transport, then the performance standards of $ 173.159(e)(2) are not\nachieved and the batteries must be loaded differently or braced in a manner to prevent damage or\nshort circuiting while in transit.\nOur letter of April 20,200 1 to Captain Bruce Bugg failed to fully consider the information\nprovided by your original application for a special permit relative to the questions posed.\nConfusion may arise due to the similarity of the loading method described by Captain Bugg and\nthe loading method used by your company. It is the opinion of this Office that, as was posed by\nCaptain Bugg, placing electric storage batteries in a less-than-full compartment with a slip-\nresistant surface or pushing the batteries against the forward wall in combination with a slip-\nresistant surface by itself may not be sufficient to achieve the performance standards of\n9 173.159(e)(2). These batteries may need to be loaded differently or braced to meet the\nrequirements of $ 173.159(e)(2). However, loading electric storage batteries in a \"Mickey\nBody\" truck as described above differs in that, for example, shelving in the compartments of the\ntruck slopes downward to the interior of the compartment to provide M h e r resistance against\nshifting or jostling of the batteries that could cause damage or short circuiting. Additionally,\ninformation provided by your company as well as a number of other companies that distribute\nelectric storage batteries indicates the widespread and historical use of this loading method and\ntruck design without incidence of damage or short circuiting while in transit. Therefore, it is the\nopinion of this Ofice that this loading method and truck design sufficiently provides for\nachievement of the performance standards without having to brace the batteries. We will address\nthe discrepancy between the Associate Administrator's letter and the letter to Captain Bugg by\nrescinding the April 20,2001 letter and issuing a new letter to Captain Bugg noting that electric\nstorage batteries loaded in a \"Mickey Body\" truck as described in your application is a method of\nachieving the performance standard of § 1 73.1 59(e)(2).\nI have enclosed a copy of correspondence with Captain Bruce Bugg of the Georgia Department\nof Public Safety related to this issue. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely.\nM ~ K Edward T. Mauullo %&&\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\ncc:\nCharles A. Key\nAuto Supply Company, Inc.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nRandy Clark\nTri-State Battery Supply, Inc.\nArthur Calhoun\nCentral Georgia Battery Co.\nRodney Burns\nContinental Battery Company\nCarolina L. Mederos\nPatton Boggs LLP\nEnclosure:\nLetter of Interpretation 0 1 -0054","truncated":false,"body_characters":9567}