{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0067","title":"Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. — 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":"08-0067 response to Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. concerning 173.159.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0067.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0067.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0067","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080067.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipellne and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUN - 3 ZOO8\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 5 173.1 59(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. 01-0054) 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 submittedwith\nthe application. The April 20,2001 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 5 173.159(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 9 173.159(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 8 173.159(e)(2). You indicate that some enforcement officials are asserting that\nthe April 20,2001 letter renders the letter from 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 fiom 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 from the Associate Administrator that\nelectric storage batteries loaded and transported in \"Mickey Body\" trucks as described in the\napplication achieves the performance standards of 5 173.159(e)(2). According to your\n\n<<>>\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\n5 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 further 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 Office 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 20,200 1 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 73.159(e)(2).\nlL--H *\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.\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\ncc:\nCharles A. Key\nAuto Supply Company, Inc.\n\n<<>>\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 01 -0054\n\n<<>>\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 3037 1\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 17 1 - 180). 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 5 173.159(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 $ 173.1 59(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<<>>\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 further assistance, please\ncontact us.\nSincerely,\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosure:\nLetter of Interpretation 08-0067\n\n<<>>\n\n400 Swmlh Strut. 8.W.\nWaal~lqlm D.C. Z 6 S J\nAPR 2 0 Bl1\nCaptain Bruce Bugg\nHazardous Materials Specialist\nGeorgia Public Service Commission\n244 Washington Street SW\nAtlanta, GA 30354\nRef. No. 01 -0054\nDear Captain Bugg:\n. This responds to ywr February 13,2001 letter questing clarification of rquimnents for the\ntxansport8tion of batteries under the Haza~dous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). Specifically you ask if batteries resting on a NWer fricticm mat that art pushed fom91.d so\nthey are against tbe forward wall of a compartment meet the requknents of 5 173.159(e)(2).\nThe answer is no. Bathxies must be loaded or braced in order to prevent damage and short-\ncircuits during transit. Batteries tbat are simply resting & a rubber friction mat and pushed forward\nso they are against the forward wall of a compartment are not b e d to prohibit lateral or afi\nmovement.\n. I tmst this satisdes' your inquiry. If we can be of fmhei~assistance, please cootact us.\nSincerely,\nf TransporMion Regulations Specislist\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Stanclads\n\n<<>>\n\nMarch 6,2008\nMr. Ed Mazzullo\nDirector of the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nThis letter is to request a clarification of the \"loaded 3 braced\" requirement of 49 CFR\n173.159(e) (2) pertaining to the transportation of electric storage batteries.\nOn June 2, 1995 (Docket 11501-N) our company, Interstate Battery System of America,\nInc., submitted an Application for Exemption to ship electric storage batteries without\nbracing in specially-designed vehicles equipped with \"Mickey Bodies\" Our application\ndescribed how the Mickey Body prevents damage and short circuits, even in\ncompartments that are less than fully loaded. We provided photographs, drawings,\ntechnical data, and a video tape. We met with officials of the Office of Hazardous\nMaterials in Washington, DC to present the information in the fall of 1995, (Our\nApplication for Exemption and supporting information appears at Attachment 1 .)\nOn April 4, 1996, the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety responded\nthat our vehicle loading configuration, in fact, met the requirements of 49 CFR173.159\n(e) (2) without bracing -including in less-than-hll compartments - and so an exemption\nwas unnecessary. (The Associate ~dministrator's letter appears at Attachment 2.)\nOn February 13,2001, a Hazardous Materials Specialist with the Georgia Public Service\nCommission wrote to the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards inquiring as to\n'tvhether a less-than-full compartment of batteries in which the only load securement\ndevice is a friction mat7' and \"whether moving all the remaining batteries in the\ncompartment forward\" (the Mickey Body configuration) meets the requirements of 49\nCFR173 (e). On April 20,2001 a Transportation Regulations Specialist with the Office\nof Hazardous Materials Standards responded that \"batteries resting on a friction mat that\nare pushed forward\" do not meet the requirements of 49 CFR 173 (e)(2) because they are\nnot braced. The April 20,2001 letter is posted on the PHMSA web site as interpretation\n#01-0054. (Both letters appear as Attachment 3.)\nThe design of our battery trucks is very safe, as demonstrated by the data we submitted in\nsupport of our Application for Exemption and the Associate Administrator's response.\nThe design has not changed and all the data that we submitted in support of our 1995\napplication remains valid. We have used this design for the last 25 years to transport\nmore than 100 million automotive batteries. We have never had a broken battery or a\nbattery short circuit while in transit. In 2007, Interstate Battery System used\n\n<<>>\n\napproximately 1,000 of these special design vehicles to deliver approximately 15 million\nvehicle batteries to some 200,000 locations in all 50 states. Over one-third of the battery\ndelivery trucks in the U.S. today have this same, or a very similar, design including\ntrucks operated by Delco, Continental Battery, Centennial Battery, and Deka Battery.\nHowever, our vehicles and drivers continue to be detained by state and local\ntransportation officers, particularly in New York, Texas, California, Virginia, and\nGeorgia. We have been fined and required to strap our batteries, even though our vehicles\nare specifically designed and built to prevent damage and short circuiting without\nstrapping. We submitted the Application for Exemption because we were getting\nquestions about our trucks from state and local officers and our drivers have carried the\nAssociate Administrator's letter since it was issued in1996. Since the posting of the 2001\nletter on the PHMSA web site, some state and local officers have asserted that the\nAssociate Administrator's letter is invalid.\nNeither the regulation nor the facts have changed since the issuance of the Associate\nAdministrator's letter. Therefore, Interstate Battery believes the 1996 determination is\nstill valid. Unlike the Associate Administrator's letter, which was issued in response to\ndetailed technical and safety data, we believe the 2001 letter was issued in response to a\nnarrow question and without the benefit of complete information. However, the\npublication of that letter as a PMHSA Interpretation has led some state and local\nenforcement officials to conclude that the Associate Administrator's letter is no longer in\neffect.\nWe have an outstanding safety record. It is in our business interest to deliver batteries\nsafely and without incident. We have gone to considerable expense to design and build\nvehicles that provide what we believe to be the safest configuration to prevent damage\nand short circuits. We strongly support aggressive safety enforcement. However, because\nwe believe that the 2001 letter is being incorrectly interpreted in relation to the 1996\nletter, causing delays in product delivery and substantial loss of person hours by our\ndrivers and other personnel in subsequent state and local enforcement proceedings, we\nare requesting a clarification.\nWe appreciate your review of this matter. We are prepared to come to Washington to\nmeet with you and to show you one of our Mickey Body vehicles. Thank you for your\nconsideration.\nSincerely yours,\nDan Lane\nSupply Chain Management Department\nInterstate Battery System of America, Inc.\n\n<<>>\n\nATTACHMENT 1\n\n<<>>\n\nJune 2,1995\nAssociate Administrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nATTENTION: EXEMPTIONS BRANCH\nDear Associate Administrator:\nEncloscd herewith you will find an Application for Exemption in triplicate of Interstate\nBattery System of America, Inc. for an exemption from hazardous materials\ntransportation I-egulation 49 C.F.R. 173.159(e), one copy of this transmittal letter and my\n.self-addressed, stamped envelope. This Application for Exemption is submitted pursuant\nto 49 C.F.R. 107.103.\nPlease acknowledge receipt and filing of the Application by file milrking the copy of this\ntransmittal letrer, and returning it to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope.\nYours very truly,\nINTERSTATE BAITERY SYSTEM\nOF AMERICA, INC.\nWalter C. Holmes, III\nAttorney\nEnclosure\ncc: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison\nAtm: Joyce - 961 Federal Building\n300 E. 8th Street\nAustin, TX 78701\n1NTEi)STATE BATTERY SYSIEM OF AMERIW INC.\n72770 Merit Drive Sulte 400 - Dallas, Texas 75261 (214) 991-7444 . FAX 4688288\n\n<<>>\n\nAPPLICATION OF INTeRSTAm BATTERY SYSTEM OF AM&RICA, INC.\nFOR EXEMPTION FROM IIAZARDOUS MATERIALS\nTRANSPORTATION REGULATION 173.159(e)\n\n<<>>\n\nBEFORE THE\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRIESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMTNSTRATION\nAPPLICATION OF INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF AMERICA, INC.\nFOR EXEMPTION FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS\nTMNSPORTATION REGULATION 173.159(e)\nCOMES NOW Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. (herein refemd to as\n\"Interstate\") and makes this application to the Associate Administrator for Hazardous\nMaterials Safety under its Research and Special Programs Administdon (\"RSPA) for\nan exemption under 49 C.F.R. 4173.159(e) (hereinafter \"173.159(e)\" or \"Section\n173.159(e)\"), pursuant to 49 C.F.R. $107.103 (hereinafter, the \"Applicauon\"). In support\nof its Application, Interstate respectfully shows as fallows:\nInterstate is a Delaware corporation which has its corporate headquarters at 12770\nMerit Drive, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75251, The telephone number to Tnterstate's\ncorporate headquarters is (2 14) 99 1 - 3444. Interstate and a related enti9 operatkg under\nthe \"Interstate\" name operate 22 battery distributorships in the United States and Canada\nIn addition, there are approximately 350 independent disrriburors supplying Interstate\nbatteries to various points of sale. These independent distributorships are located in the\nUnited Statcs, Canada and Puerto Rico. Obviously, critical to the business of Interstate\nand its independent distributors is the transportation of batteries to its more than 200,000\npoints of sale Imations. These points of sale locations are known as \"Dealers.\" Since\n1985, the primary vehicle used by Interstate and its independent distributors for the\ntransportation of these batteries is the \"Mickey Body\" truck. More detailed information\nabout the Mickey Body truck, its design, testing and historical accident experience will be\nset forth in the sections that follow in this Application.\nHazardous materials transportation regulation 173.159(e) states: -\n\n<<>>\n\n(e) Electric storage batteries containing electrolyte or corosive battery\nfluid are not subject to the requirements of this subchapter for\ntransportation by highway or rail if all of the foilowing requiremen& are\nmet:\n1. No other hazardous materials may be transported in the same\nvehicle;\n2. 3. The batteries must be loaded or braced so as to prevent\ndamage and short circuits in transit;\nAny other material loaded in tbe same vehicle must be blocked,\nbraced, or otherwise secured to prevent contact with or damage to\nthe batteries; and\n4. The transport vehicle may not carry material shipped by any person\nother than the shipper of the batteries.\nIntersrate believes batteries loaded into the compartments within the Mickey Body trucks\nare \"loaded . . . so as to prevent damage and short circuits in transit.\" To date however,\nthe Department of Transportation (\"DOT\") has construed Section 173.159(e) to require\nthat the batteries be \"loaded a braced.\" Assuming Section 173.159(e) does, in fact,\nrequire \"loading and bracing,\" lnterscaee applies for an exemption to this regulation in\nconsideration of rhe burdens placed upon Interstate and its independent distributors when\nviewed in light of, one, the apparent purpose of the regulation; two, the design of the\nMickey Body truck; and three, Interstate's experience with the Mickey Body truck.\nPROPOSAL Inrcrstate proposes that the RSPA grant Interstate an exemption\nfrom the DOT'S present interpretation of Section 173.159(e). Thc proposed exemption\nwould only apply to Interstate, Interstate's affiliated entities, and Interstate's independent\ndistributors utiliz.ing the Mickey Body truck for the transportation of batteries. Further,\nthe proposed exemption would only apply in the event the batteries transported in the\nMickey Body truck are loaded within the \"compartments\" of the truck and the\ncornpartment(s) sealed. The Mickey Body design is explained in more detail below.\nDOT APPUCATION FOR EXEMPTION Page 2\n\n<<>>\n\nPURPOSE The Mickey Body rruck was designed through the coordinated\nefforts of Interstate and Johnson Controls, Inc. with the specific purpose of promoting the\nsafe uansport of batteries. Consideration was given not only to a design that would\nprevent damage to the product during transport (thus protecting the environment and\npublic as well as reducing expenses for damaged product), but also to the feasibility of\nany design from a labor standpoint (time and burden on individuals loading and\nunloading batteries).\nPRINCIPAL OF OPERATION The Mickey Body trucks utiIized by Interstate and\nits distributors are basically two axle trucks with a uniquely designed cargo carrying hull\nor shell. This shell is designed with various compartments into which batteries are loaded\nfor transport. The compartments are arranged primarily in a vertical fashion, with one or\nmore \"columns\" of vertical companments being sealed by a door that slides up and down.\nThe largest of the compartments measures approximately 3 feet in l e n e by 3 feet in\ndepth. The compartments themselves have a gradual slant going upward from the inside\nto outside of the truck. On thc bottom of each compartment is a polyurethane covering\nwhich creates a coarse surface. Further, each battery is, in the vast majority of cases,\nindividually wrapped in plastic and \"shrink-wrapped\" on the bottom. The sloping and\npolyure~anelplastic combination work together to essentially eliminate movement (side\nto side) of batteries during transit. The b a a r i a are not stacked on top of one another in\nthe compartments. Photographs of the compartments are attached as Exhibit A.\nThere are basically six \"models\" of Mickey Body trucks utilized by Interstate and\nits distributors. However, the only difference is the capacity of each of the models. The\nlayout'of each of the trucks is as set forth above. The smdIest truck will hold up to 125\nbatteries, whereas the largest truck will hold approximately 400 batteries. A diagram of\nboth the \"8-bay\" and the \"6-bay\" designs have been attached to this Application as\nExhibit B. Also included as part of Exhibit B are photographs of the Mickey Body\ntrucks.\nThe Mickey Body truck i s critical to the operation of the Interstare\ndistributorships. Batteries are supplied to the various distributorships, with these batteries\neventually transported to Dealers. To get the batteries to the Dealers, the batteries are\nloaded in the vast majority of cases into a Mickey Body truck, and the loaded truck is\nthen driven to the Dealers along a predetermined route by what is known as a \"Route\nDOT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION P a p 3\n\n<<>>\n\nManager.\" The batteries are loaded so that one compartment is fully loaded before\nanother battery is placed into anorher cornpamnenr ~ c c o r d i n ~ l ~ , here is generally no\nmore than one compartment on any Mickey Body truck with Iess than a \"full\" load. In\nthose compartments that are fully loaded, there is virtually no movement of the batteries\nwithin that compartment CIS there is no room for any such movement. In those\ncompartments that are less than fuIl, even with the assumption of only one battery in the\ncomparunent, there is virtually no movement during normal transit due to those design\nfeatures of the compartments as explained above. Moreover, in those compartments that\nare less than full, the batteries are loaded to the front and inside of each compartment\nwhich also reduces or eIiminates any movement. Further, to the extent there may be\nsome inconsequential movement, this \"movement\" does not cause damage or short-\ncircuiting.\nA Route Manager will make roughly 30 Dealer stops per day. The batteries are\nunloaded from the compartments and placed on \"racks\" at a Dealer's place of business.\nOn occasion, used or 'junk\" batteries are given to the Route Manager by the Dealcr for\ndisposal. The junk batteries are then loaded back into the compartments in the same\nmanner in which the \"new\" batteries are loaded at the beginning of the route. The junk\nbatteries are the11 transported back to the distributorship where they can be disposed of in\nan EPA-approved manner.\n.- ANDTQRTCAL EXPERIENCE Testing of the batteries was\nperformed by engineers and other represenrafives of Johnson ControIs, Inc. at the\ndirection of Interstate. The parameters of the testing were established with the special\ndesign features of the Mickey Body trucks in mind. According to the results of the\ntesting, damage did not occur to any battery until a force in excess of 30% of that which\ncould be expected was achieved. It must also be noted that this testing was done at\ntemperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit (more extreme and detrimental than what could\nbe normally anticipated in transit). Also, in the derivation of the force that could be\nexpected to be exerted upon a single battery in a compartment sliding from wall to wall,\nno consideration was given to the slope and friction factors existing within a\ncompartment (i.e., the estimated 60 foot-pound force is much higher than the actual force\nwhich could be expected to be placed upon a single battery Ioaded within a\ncompartment). hlformation related ro this testing has been attached to this Application as\nExhibit C.\nDOT AF'PUCAnON FOR EXEMPTION Page 4\n\n<<>>\n\nProbably more significant than the testing performed is Interstate's historical\nexperience with the transportation of batteries in the Mickey Body trucks. Estimating that\nthere have been 600 Mickey Body trucks on average in use per year since the inception of\nthe Mickey Body design in 1985 (a very conservative estimate) and approximating that\n250 batteries are in transit on a daily basis in each Mickey Body truck, there have been\nroughly 150,000 batteries in transit per day since 1985 in these trucks. Utilizing this\nfigure, there have probably been in excess of three billion batteries in transit in the\nMickey Body compartments. Interstate is unaware of any units that were in a good\ncondition when placed into the compamenrS that were in a damaged condition when\nunloaded at a DeaIer location. Interstate is also aware of several vehicular accidents\ninvolving the Mickey Body trucks. Interstate is unaware of any \"preventable\" damage\noccumng to any units as a result of any of the accidents.\nOne such accident occurred July. 3 1, 1992, and involved a Mickey Body fruck\noperating our: of the Houston, Texas distributorship, owned and operated by Interstate.\nThe capacity of that particular Mickey Body truck was approximately 350 batteries. At\nthe time of the accident, that truck was transporting approximately 225 units. The truck\nand the engine were totaled. The \"Mickey Body\" on the truck had to be sold for scrap.\nDespite the severity of the accident, there were no broken batteries resulting fmm this\naccident. The officers at the scene observed no leaking acid and ordered no acid clean up.\nMultiple copies of color photographs demonsrrating the nature of this accident are\nattached to this application as Exhibit D.\nAnother accident occurred June 15, 1994. The Mickey Body truck involved was\noperated by Interstate out of its own DaIIas distributorship. The truck was carrying\napproximately 125 batteries when it was rear-ended by another truck. The back of the\nMickey Body truck as well as the compartments on the truck were damaged. Yet, the\nbatteries contained within the compartments were not damaged and showed no signs of\nmovement.\nAnother accident dso involving a Mickey Body truck operating out of the Dallas\ndistributorship occurred December 12, 1994. This accident involved five vehicles,\nincluding ocher trucks. The Interstate Mickey Body truck was one of the middle vehicles.\nThe mck itself & totaled and the Mickey Body \"sheI1\" was damaged so extensively that\nit was sold for scrap metaI. In fact, a portion of the body itself was ripped off of the\ntruck. Additionally, several of the compartments were damaged in such a fashion that the\nW T APPLICATION FClR EXEMPTION ' Pagc5\n\n<<>>\n\ndesign configurations were distorted. . Nevertheless, only ten out of the roughly 125\nbatteries in transit were damaged. The damage to the ten batteries resulted in minimal\nacid leaking w i b a very small portion of that acid making it outside of the truck on to the\npavement . The damage occurring in this accident was of such a nature that the damage\nwould almost certainly have occurred regardIess of any \"strapping\" of the batteries within\nthe damaged compartments.\nA number of slnaller \"fender bender\" type accidents also have occurred in the\nMickey Boby trucks dl across the United States. The results have all been consistent:\nminor damage to the truck, and occasionally, minor damage to the Mickey Body shell\nitself, with no rcsuIting damage to any of the batteries contained within the Mickey Body\ncompartment?. Interstate is not representing that it has discovered each and every\naccident that might have occurred since 1985 involving Mickey Body truck, but Interstate\nis confident in its position that the Mickey Body truck design minimizes to rhe point of\nelimination damage to the batteries uansported therein. This design certainly works, as\nwell as any \"non-Mickey style bodied truck\" containing \"straps\",\nIV.\nInterstate estimates that it will cost approximately $250 for material and labor to\n\"strap\" the compartments within a single Mickey Body truck. The more significant\nexpenditure, however, comes from a loss of use of a truck while the \"strapping\"\ninstallation process is taking place, and further, from the additional labor costs incurred as\na result of the strapping within the Mickey Body compartments. Using the 30-Dealer\nstop average discussed in paragraph m, and conservativeIy estimating that at least an\nadditional 30 seconds per stop will be necessary to latch and unlatch the straps within a\ncompartment, an additional 15 minutes per day per truck will be required. Considering\nthat rhere are 678 Mickey Body trucks presently in use within the Interstate \"system,\" the\nsystem will incur approximately 170 additional hours of labor expense per day due to the\nstrapping and unstrapping process. TransIating that labor cost to a yearly figure, it is\napparent chat the burdens imposed by rhe strapping are quite extensive.\nInterstate firmly believes that the Mickey Body design comports with the intention\nof Section I73.159(e) in that this design prevents movement which would cause damage\n\n<<>>\n\nor short-circuiting to the batteries durjng transit. Testing results and Interstate's historical\nexperience substantiate Interstate's belief. Thus, Interstate believes that the transportation\nof iu batteries in the Mickey Body trucks wiihout any strapping is consistent with the\npublic interest and adequately protects against risk to life and property which are inherent\nin the transpofl;ition of hazardous materials in commerce. Accordingly, Interstate sceks\nan exemption from Section 173.159(e) for the transportation of batteries in its Mickey\nBody design of truck, and that such exemption be effective at the earliest possible date.\nWHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Interstate Battery System of\nAmerica, Inc. prays that its Application for Exemption be granted.\nRespectfully submitted,\nInterstate Battery System of America, Inc.\n12770 Merit Drive, Suite 400\nDallas, Texas 7525 1\nBy: & C$L~/*\nTexas Bar No. 09908493\nDOT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION\nPage 7\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nINTERSTATE\nBATTERES\nmale\nFoodselegr\nTERSTATE\nATTERIES\nThe Longest Lasting Batteries\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nINTERSTATE\nBATTERIES\n2 PINNACLE\nToeDaology\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nCONTR 8 LS J HNSON\nM r . Lanny Yoder\nIBSA\n9304 F0re.s t Lane\nS u i t e 200\nDallas, TX 75243\nHay 24, 1988\nDear Lanny:\nWe have completed our 0\" F testing o f corner impact on Interstate batteries.\n(See enc:losed data) Based on out findings, an Interstate battery will meet\nthe 60 f t - l b f o r c e the battery would see if a truck having a 3' x 3'\ncompartment had an emergency s t o p , and the battery s l i d from side of the\ncornpar tment to the opposite side. Product failure occurred at 80f t-lbs, 30%\nover the maximum force ve calculated to impact at vhen hitting the wall of\nthe compartment. (We do have a v i d e o of t h i s testing.)\nJOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.\nr)o* ho' as J. Dough t ery\nManager, Product Innovation\nBattery Engineering\nEnclosure\n\n<<>>\n\nJUL-07-1999 12:12 RSPWRRHMS 282 366 3753 P.89/16\nrtteries Filled vith 50%EG/ %F\n29.7 I b Halamer v i th 20 i n c h shaft swung to the d e f l e c t i o n s indicated.\n_^_-___--IR------------------------------\nBATTERY IMPACT SIDE DEFLECTION FClXCE RESULTS--COMMENTS\ne (INCHES) (~t-lb) ---------------_------------------------------------------------------------\n1 corner 1 #1 25\n#2 29\n62 ---\n7 2 Slight Evidence of Cover\nStressing\n1 Corner 3 31 - 77 No Visible Effect\n2 Corner 1 3 1\n2 Corner 3 #1 31\n#2 36\n7 7 No V i s i b l e Effect\n7 7 No Visible Effect\n8 9 No Visible Effect\n3 Corner 1 3 0\n3 Comer 3 33\n7 5 No Visible Effect\n82* Cracked Vertically at Corner,\na hole about the size of a\nnickel formed on the bottom\nand electrolyte emptied our.\n4 Comer 1 3 0 7 5 No Visible Effect\nCorner 3 . 30 7 5 No V i s i b l e Effect\nI*' :Force may have been slightly higher than indicated due\nto additional force applied by rhe operaror d u r i n g t h e\nhammer s w i n g .\n\n<<>>\n\nATTACHMENT 2\n\n<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nResearch crnd\nSpeeicrl Programs Administration\n4W Seventh Slreet. S.W.\nWashinglon. D.C. 20590\nMr. Walter C. Holmes\nAttorney\nInterstate Battery System of America, Inc.\n12770 Merit Drive, Suite 400\nDallas. Texas 75251\nDear Mr. Holmes:\nThis is in response to your application for an exemption\n(Docket 11501-N) dated June 2, 1995, requesting authorization\nto ship electric storage batteries without bracing in\nspecially designed vehicles equipped with \"Mickey Bodies\". In\naccordance with 49 CFR § 107.109(c), your application is\ndenied as being unnecessary for the following reasons:\nSection 173.159 (el ( 2 ) requires that \"The batteries\nmust be loaded or braced so as to prevent damage and\nshort circuits in transit.,! Your application states\nthat loading in the Mickey Bodies does prevent\ndamage and short circuits and therefore bracing is\nunnecessary. You also stated that: (1) the shelves\nin your Mickey Bodies slope downward to the center\nline of the vehicle; (2) the shelves are covered\nwith a friction surface; (3) the batteries are\ntightly loaded to the front and inside of each\nvehicle compartment which is less than full; and ( 4 )\nthe batteries are not double stacked. Your\napplication further states that you tested these\ndesign features and operational controls and that,\nalthough they allow some inconsequential movement,\nthese features and operational controls prevent\ndamage and short-circuiting. Accordingly, your\n\n<<>>\n\napplication demonstrates that your vehicles, when\nfabricated and operated as specified in your\napplication, meet the requirements of Section\n173.159 (el ( 2 ) .\nSincerely,\nAlan I. Roberts\nAssociate Administrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety\n\n<<>>\n\nATTACHMENT 3\n\n<<>>\n\n8.. k\n- z. . .. -,.\n$1 73, 15 9 @) DEWW K FUNNAGAN .\nEXECUTNE DIRECTOR\nAL HATCHER\n. . eeorgia Wubltc Serbice\n244 WASHINGTON STREET, SW\nAWTA, GEORGIA 30354-5701\n(404) 656-4501 or 1-800-282-581 3\nhttp:llwww.psc.state.ga.us\nFebruary 1 3,2001\n- . .. -\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nU.S. DOT - RSPA - DHM-10\nOffice of Hazkdous Materials Standards\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nDear Sir:\nEnclosed are photographs of a buck inspected by one of our Enforcement Officers. This vehicle transports both new\nand used batteries that contain acid electrolyte. The vehicle has roll-up doors on both sides with shelving for the\nbatteries. The shelving has a rubber (or similar material) mat that the batteries rest on.\nThe carrier asserts that simply pushing the batteries forward, so that they are against the fowanl wall of t compartment, satisfies the requirements of $173.159(e), even if a gap remains to the rear.\nl ~ Our agency has long held that to meet the requirements of 49 (3FR §173.159(e), the batteries must be positively\nrestrained against motion in some manner, such as:\n(1) A shelf contains a full load of batteries; or,\n(2) Shelves without a full load have a positive restraint device, such as a strap that runs around the\nbatteries, a cargo net over the bakries, or a load restraint bar.\nWe would appreciate your judgment as to (1) whether a less-than-full compartment ofbattedes, ic which the only\nload securenient device is a friction mat, meets the requirements of 49 CFR 8 173.159(e), and (2) wbether moving all\nremaining batteries in the compartment forward meets the requirements of 49 CFR §173.159(c). If you need more\ninformation, please contact me at 404-559-6627 or by e-mail at: bmceb@psc.state.ga.us.\nSincerely,\n-ORB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION\n. ~\nHazardous Materials Specialist.\nEnclosures\nTRANSPORTATION DIVISION: 1007 VIRGINIA AVENUE, SUITE 329, HAPEVICLE, GEORGIA, 30354-1325\n\n<<>>\n\nPage 1 of 1\nDrakeford, Carolyn \nFrom: Mederos, Carolina [CMederos@PattonBoggs.com]\nSent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:30 PM\nTo: Mazzullo, Ed \nSubject: Interstate Battery System Letter and Attachments\nAttachments: lnterstate Battery System.pdf\nHi Ed\nIt was very nice talking with you the other day. I'm glad you're doing well. The lnterstate Battery System package\nis attached. I will send you the video in a separate email momentarily. As you can see from the pictures in this\npackage, the new batteries are contained through the Mickey Body configuration, but the used batteries are\nstrapped. The lnterstate Battery folks are happy to come to Washington to discuss this and answer any questions.\nPlease let me know how you want to proceed.\nThanks,\nCarolina\nCarolina L. Mederos\nPatton Boggs LLP\n2550 M Street NW\nWashington, DC 20037\n(202) 457-5653 -- (Direct)\n(202) 457-631 5 -- (Fax)\n(202) 744-5449 -- (Mobile)\ncmederos@pattonboggs.com\nwww.pattonboggs.com\nDISCLAIMER:\nThis e-mail message contains confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee.\nPlease do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received it in error,\nplease call us (collect) at (202) 457-6000 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would\nappreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.\nThis e-mail and all other electronic (including voice) communications from the sender's firm are for\ninformational purposes only. No such communication is intended by the sender to constitute either an\nelectronic record or an electronic signature, or to constitute any agreement by the sender to conduct a\ntransaction by electronic means. Any such intention or a","truncated":true,"body_characters":42705}