{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0210","title":"A123 Systems — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-11-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0210 response to A123 Systems concerning 172.102, 173.185.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0210.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0210.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0210","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090210.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nu.s. Department Washington, DC 20590\nof Transportation.\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOV 4 2009\nMr. C. Michael Hoff\nDirector Product Safety and Compliance\nA123 Systems\n10 Avenue E\nHopkinton, MA 01748\nRef. No. 09-0210\nDear Mr. Hoff:\nThis responds to your September 16, 2009 email requesting clarification of the requirements\nfor lithium-ion batteries contained in equipment under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether an uninterruptible power\nsupply (UPS) device containing a lithium-ion battery that has been tested in accordance with\n§ 173.185 must also be tested. You suggest that our March 5, 2008 letter (Ref. No. 07-0198)\ncreates some confusion on this issue.\nThe answer is no. A UPS, or any other electronic equipment containing a lithium battery, is\nnot subject to the testing requirements for lithium batteries specified in § 173.185.\nThe interpretation provided in our March 2008 letter responded to questions about\nnonspillable (wet electric storage) batteries contained in equipment, and secondarily whether\na UPS is equipment for purposes ofthe HMR. Although the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials\nTable (HMT) includes the hazardous materials description for \"Battery-powered equipment,\"\n§ I 72.l02(c)(l), Special provision 134 assigned to this description limits the application of\nthis entry to items such as electrically-powered cars, lawn mowers, wheelchairs, and other\nmobility aids. Thus, for lack of a more appropriate hazardous materials description to\ndescribe a nonspillable battery contained in a UPS and to ensure correct referral to authorized\npackaging for nonspillable batteries in § 173.159 rather than referral to transportation\nrequirements for battery-powered equipment in § 173.220, it is the opinion ofthis Office that\na UPS containing a nonspillable battery could be viewed as a battery and appropriately\ndescribed by the battery type housed in the UPS.\nWith respect to a lithium-ion battery contained in a UPS, the § 172.101 HMT includes the\nhazardous materials description \"Lithium batteries, contained in equipment\" that\nappropriately describes lithium-ion batteries contained devices such as a UPS and\nappropriately refers to authorized packaging in § 173.185. In addition, for the description\n\"Battery-powered equipment,\" packaging and transport requirements in § 173.220 include\nspecific provisions pertaining to lithium batteries. These requirements include: (1) lithium\nbatteries contained in vehicles or engines must be of a type that have successfully passed\ntests in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria as specified in § 173.185; and (2) equipment,\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nother than vehicles or engines, containing lithium batteries must be transported in accordance\nwith § 173.185. Therefore, the UPS device containing a lithium battery that has successfully\npassed tests in the UN Manual ofTests and Criteria is not itself subject to testing.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\nSi7Jb~\nCharles E. Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nnce of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\n·\nVel KlndereVl Page 10f2\n~ 113. l~ct\n\"BA-H-er;es\n,\"\"\".~_,~.~O=--~q\"~.\"\"\"'-'hO,\"Z I0\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1 :39 PM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Question Regarding Intrpretation of\nAttachments: 070189.pdf\nFrom: Michael Hoff [mailto:mhoff@a123systems.com]\nSent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:57 PM\nTo: II\\lFOCI\\JTR (PHMSA)\nCc: Relerford, Darral (PHMSA)\nSubject: Question Regarding Intrpretation of\nTo whom it may concern,\nAt one time the DOT interpreted Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS's) containing batteries NOT as equipment with\nbatteries, but as a battery itself. I read and attached the letter which makes this assertion.\nThis letter discusses wet cells, then makes a judgment of battery vs. equipment. This judgment, I believe is relevant to\nwet cells and does not impact their situation much. The result ofthis judgment simply places requirements on the\npackaging and labeling of those devices.\nHowever, this judgment has a significant impact on the situation of UPSs with lithium ion batteries. This judgment\nforces the following to happen:\n1. The UPS vendor will to have to conduct additional UN testing on its products because it is putting the lithium ion\nbatteries into its product.\n2. The weight ofthe UPS is now taken into account when considering such things as \"large\" vs \"small\" and\nacceptability for cargo air, passenger air, etc.\nBecause the lithium ion batteries are relatively low weight in comparison to the traditional lead-acid batteries, the\nweight of whole UPS is significantly affected if not DOMINA TED by the electronic hardware when eq uipped with\nlithium ion batteries.\nUPS are often constructed with heavy steel transformers, ferrite inductors, and other bulky electronic components and\naluminum heat sinks. It seems completely unfair that the copper, steel, ferrite, aluminum and electronic components\ninvolved in the construction of a UPS are considered in the weight of a device considered as a WHOLE to be\n\"hazardous material.\" If the majority of the UPS were lithium Ion batteries, I could see where it wouldn't matter, but\nconsider the situations where the battery comprises 1/2 or 1/3 or even 1/5 of the weight ofthe whole UPS.\nFrom a safety standpoint, the added (non-battery) bulk weight adds no danger to the article. Nothing about the UPS\nmakes it more unsafe during transport than if it were another equipment using the same batteries. In fact, it could be\nsafer. More mass contributes to heat absorption in a high temperature situations and reduces accelerations seen in highl\nvibration or shock situations. .\nI request that the DOT take a new look at the judgment of whether a power supply or UPS with lithium ion batteries is\nconsidered a \"battery\" or \"equipment with batteries.\"\nIf not, or in the meantime, does the physical connection of the battery internal to the UPS make a difference in this\nconsideration? For example, if the battery were transported packed within the UPS but physically NOT connected to i~,\nwould the article then still be considered a battery? In such a case, the UPS would NOT be able to provide power to its\noutput connectors, and would not be able to function as a \"power providing device\" and therefore functionally could\nnot be considered a battery.\ni\n9/16/2009\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPage 2 of2\nI would appreciate a response to my queries as soon as you can, since our customer has a tight deadline and needs to\nmake decisions on how to proceed with UN testing, shipping, and packaging conformances, all of which are affected\nby this decision.\nC. Michael Hoff\nCMicilaellioff\nDirector Product Safety and Compliance, ESG\nAI23Systems\n10 Avenue Hopkinton MA 01748\nPhone (508) 497-7228 iMobile (857) 891-4918\nwww.a123~ystems.com\nLearn Grow and Make a Difference\n9/16/2009","truncated":false,"body_characters":7021}