# Laws regarding mailing CR123A and LiIon within/from the USA



## Handlobraesing (Mar 31, 2008)

Summary: It is unlawful to mail any primary lithium battery(i.e. 123A) using any form of airmail within the US and it is prohibited by any means in the international mail. 

LiIon maybe mailed by air within the states properly marked as hazmat, but it is illegal in any form for internatinal mail.

Yes I'm aware it happens all the time. I know people ship aerosols, drugs, weapons etc in the mail and get away with it, but it's still *illegal*.

From what I just read, it's *ILLEGAL* to use USPS to mail CR123A in international mail or standard first class mail within the states and the only lawful means of shipping them in the mail is to use surface only mail as an ORM-D Hazmat which is Parcel Post, NOT Priority, NOT First Class.

In the USPS publication 52 hazardous materials guide
( http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52a2.html ) 
Lithium battery is classified as 9C and its mailability is defined in 
348.22b and 349.22

9C: International Mail: Prohibited, period.
( http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c_029.html#vnameref_1 )


349.22
" 
Mailable Class 9 Materials

A Class 9 material that can qualify as an ORM-D material is permitted in the domestic mail via air or surface transportation up to a weight limit of 25 pounds per mailpiece. Primary and Secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries that contain an equivalent content of 0.5 grams of lithium or less are mailable. *Primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries are prohibited via air transportation.* Mailable batteries must be securely packed to preclude short circuiting. In addition, the general packaging requirements in DMM 601.1 through 601.8 apply. "

348.22b

"348.22 Mailable Corrosives

As a rule, liquid corrosives are limited to 15 percent solution or less as stated in 348.2 and DMM 601.10.19, unless otherwise specified below. Mailable corrosives include the following:
b. Batteries. Mailable batteries include:

(1) 49 CFR identifies lithium batteries as Class 9 (Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials). *Primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries and cells are prohibited via air transportation.* Mailable batteries must be securely packaged to preclude a direct short. A strong outer packaging must be capable of firmly and securely holding the inner contents and must be clearly marked on the address side with "Surface Mail" or "Surface Mail Only." In addition, the general packaging requirements in DMM 601.1 through 601.8 apply. "

( http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c3_004.html#QzV34131aedwa )


----------



## gearbox222 (Mar 31, 2008)

im in Australia and i can receive batteries mailed from US... 
but when i tried to send a light to the US, i was asked by the post office to remove the batteries from the package.


----------



## lightforce2 (Mar 31, 2008)

gearbox222 said:


> im in Australia and i can receive batteries mailed from US...


 
Me too. only ever imported RCR123a-LiFePo4 & 18650's via USPS, all went well.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 31, 2008)

lightforce2 said:


> Me too. only ever imported RCR123a-LiFePo4 & 18650's via USPS, all went well.



However it's still illegal. I think the law went into effect around the same time TSA added a lot of restrictions on stuff you can take/check in onto a plane. 

Primary lithium cells by themselves are not permitted to for check-in luggage and prohibition on airmail shipment is probably for the same reason..


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 31, 2008)

Hello Handlobraesing,

You are correct. It is illegal to ship primary lithium batteries in the mail by themselves without the proper declaration, paperwork, and labeling. However, I don't think this goes fully into effect until October of 2008.

However, it is not illegal to ship, via the USPS, a flashlight with primary lithium batteries installed in it. And it is not illegal to ship a flashlight and batteries with the batteries removed from it, as long as only the amount of batteries needed to make the flashlight work are shipped, and the batteries are packaged to prevent physical damage and electrical shorting.

This also applies to FedEx, UPS and DHL air shipments.

Tom


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 31, 2008)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Handlobraesing,
> 
> You are correct. It is illegal to ship primary lithium batteries in the mail by themselves without the proper declaration, paperwork, and labeling. However, I don't think this goes fully into effect until October of 2008.
> Tom



I think you can mail it the same way you mail aerosol paint, hair spray etc, by shipping it as Parcel Post(surface mail) and labeling it as ORM-D.


----------



## WildChild (Mar 31, 2008)

Damn! I'll have to stock up! CR123A are really expensive here... 

So, living in Canada, what would be a good way to get quality CR123A (SureFire, Panasonic, Energizer, Duracell, Streamlight, Rayovac, etc.) at a price not too high?


----------



## RGB_LED (Mar 31, 2008)

So... I guess that means that the 20 free CR123 primary li-ions that some dealers are offering with the purchase of a SF UA2 Optimus can only be shipped via surface route and not airmail... 

It's a good thing I live across the border and not overseas. :sweat:


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

WildChild said:


> Damn! I'll have to stock up! CR123A are really expensive here...
> 
> So, living in Canada, what would be a good way to get quality CR123A (SureFire, Panasonic, Energizer, Duracell, Streamlight, Rayovac, etc.) at a price not too high?



From a local dealer, who buys from a supplier with access to freight broker who can do ocean carrier and US/Canada ground shipments. It looks like UPS allows lithium batteries.
www.ups.com/media/chemical_table_additions_10012001.xls
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/service/terms/common_items.html

It must be shipped as a hazmat and only qualified personnel can ship hazmat. 

Retail customers are no longer able to ship USPS international economy (ocean carrier) anymore.

I believe the TSA/FAA restrictions apply only for passenger aircrafts(don't quote me on it) and I think postal service

Can you get away with shipping 100 CR123A batteries as ordinary items to avoid paying hazmat fees? Probably

Could you fill a 2 liter bottle full of concentrated sulfuric acid and ship it as non-hazardous liquid? Probably.

Should you do either? No! 

Although technically not permitted without a hazmat declaration, shipping one or two battery would be like shipping a 1 oz bottle of cologne(flammable). 

It would be unethical and wrong for a merchant to mail 50+ CR123As in the mail. In my opinion it's ethically equivalent to a laboratory chemical supplier mailing a liter of concentrated sulfuric acid in a plastic bottle without declaring hazmat to evade the hazmat fees.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 1, 2008)

I wouldn't worry too much. By current regulations, all our orders of tritium, high power lasers, signal blockers, etc should all be confiscated by US Customs. As we all know from experience, the US postal service don't give a flip about what's in our padded envelopes, as long as you put enough postage on the thing.


----------



## Jerb (Apr 1, 2008)

off of fedex's site:

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DOT PHMSA) implemented a prohibition of primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries on passenger-carrying aircraft. The prohibition, which became effective on Dec. 29, 2004, was enacted based on research from incidents involving the transport of lithium batteries.

While the law does not prohibit primary lithium batteries on cargo aircraft, FedEx Express is implementing, on an interim basis, additional packaging requirements for primary lithium batteries as outlined below. These requirements are in effect immediately and apply to all primary lithium batteries and cells, including:


Lithium batteries and cells shipped fully marked, labeled and certified in accordance with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) dangerous goods regulations.
Lithium batteries and cells shipped under "Competent Authority" granted by any national authority.
Lithium batteries and cells previously excepted from other regulatory requirements in the IATA dangerous goods regulations Special Provision A45.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is scheduled to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) regarding the transportation of primary and secondary lithium batteries, effective Jan. 1, 2008. Shippers are encouraged to review the amended regulations for compliance.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

Marduke said:


> I wouldn't worry too much. By current regulations, all our orders of tritium, high power lasers, signal blockers, etc should all be confiscated by US Customs. As we all know from experience, the US postal service don't give a flip about what's in our padded envelopes, as long as you put enough postage on the thing.



Are you saying it's perfectly ok to send something in the mail that would cause grievous damage to property/injuries to people in the event it's damaged in transit without a proper hazmat disclosure and payment of appropriate hazmat fees?

Is it ok for clinics to send infected blood samples to labs in the mail without any disclosure, as long as it's safe unless accidentally broken?


----------



## WildChild (Apr 1, 2008)

Don't spread FUD with your exemples, there's a difference between CR123A and infected blood samples! We all know there is stuff more dangerous than than batteries in the postal system and a lot of these law are because a few people think the sky will fall on their head. In a plane, there is probably more chances to have a reactor burst into fire than having 50 CR123A, well packaged, catching fire.


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 1, 2008)

WildChild said:


> Damn! I'll have to stock up! CR123A are really expensive here...
> 
> So, living in Canada, what would be a good way to get quality CR123A (SureFire, Panasonic, Energizer, Duracell, Streamlight, Rayovac, etc.) at a price not too high?


 
I'm sure we can get mail from the states via surface transportation?


----------



## jasonck08 (Apr 1, 2008)

Ok well quite a few laptops use 18650's and large companies like Dell / HP are still shipping them... Give me a break, its a small battery. As long as it is like 2 batteries it shouldn't be harmful.


----------



## dfred (Apr 1, 2008)

Jerb said:


> off of fedex's site:
> [...]
> Regulations (HMR) regarding the transportation of primary and secondary lithium batteries, effective Jan. 1, 2008. Shippers are encouraged to review the amended regulations for compliance.



Thanks for posting this, Jerb. I hadn't heard about the updated regs.

Compliance with these regulations, past and present, is quite the "elephant in the room" around here. In my dealings with flashlight suppliers since 2004 when the original regulations went into effect, only one has complied with them: Surefire. The other 10 or so sellers/manufacturers have sent lithium primaries, sometimes in fairly large quantities (50-60 CR123s), without the proper labeling. I have since curtailed my orders of bulk lithium primaries online as I feel it is my responsibility to avoid contributing to potential hazards to airline passengers -- a group which I count myself among on a semi-regular basis. IMHO, dealers and manufacturers really need to face reality here and start complying with these regulations.

If you've received a package in the US in the last few years containing lithium primary cells (whether in packaging or a device) which did not have a big red and white sticker on it saying, "PRIMARY LITHIUM BATTERIES -- FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD PASSENGER AIRCRAFT" then the shipper failed to comply.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

WildChild said:


> Don't spread FUD with your exemples, there's a difference between CR123A and infected blood samples! We all know there is stuff more dangerous than than batteries in the postal system and a lot of these law are because a few people think the sky will fall on their head. In a plane, there is probably more chances to have a reactor burst into fire than having 50 CR123A, well packaged, catching fire.



That's not the point. Same with shipping a jug of 100% sulfuric acid in the regular mail. It's very safe... unless accidentally damaged. 

Lithium battery was specifically banned due to incidents of very serious consequences from accidents.

If John Q. Public throws out a NiCd RC car pack out of ignorance, it's one thing. If a NiCd distributor dumps all of their stale inventory into the regular trash, it's quite another. Merchants are expected to be knowledgeable in their products are are held to higher standards of expectations. 

A merchant who sells batteries are expected to follow all courier, state, federal, local regulations regarding shipping dangerous goods. 





jasonck08 said:


> Ok well quite a few laptops use 18650's and large companies like Dell / HP are still shipping them... Give me a break, its a small battery. As long as it is like 2 batteries it shouldn't be harmful.



18650s are SECONDARY LITHIUM battery without using "lithium metal". and you can bet they have regulatory compliance dept making sure its in full compliance.

What Jerb said is applicable to FedEx and if you want to ship as hazmat by FedEx Air (can you say $$$$$$) it's up to you, but postal regulation specifically prohibits primary lithium batteries as shown in links I posted previously.


----------



## dfred (Apr 1, 2008)

SilverFox said:


> You are correct. It is illegal to ship primary lithium batteries in the mail by themselves without the proper declaration, paperwork, and labeling. However, I don't think this goes fully into effect until October of 2008.
> 
> However, it is not illegal to ship, via the USPS, a flashlight with primary lithium batteries installed in it. And it is not illegal to ship a flashlight and batteries with the batteries removed from it, as long as only the amount of batteries needed to make the flashlight work are shipped, and the batteries are packaged to prevent physical damage and electrical shorting.
> 
> This also applies to FedEx, UPS and DHL air shipments.



Hi Tom,

Just to clarify your comments, doesn't the DOT PHMSA "red-letter" labeling requirement I mentioned above currently apply in all cases, whether the batteries are in a device or not? If so, it would seem to rule-out many forms of shipping where the cargo could end-up in the holds of passenger aircraft.

Thanks.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2008)

Hello Dfred,

No.

If the product has batteries included inside of the product, and meets the exemption requirements, it does not have to have additional labeling.

If only enough batteries are shipped with the product to make it work, i.e. no spare cells, and it meets the exemption requirements, it does not have to have additional labeling.

However, and I believe this regulation goes fully into effect in October 2008, it is illegal to ship a single, or several, primary Lithium cells by themselves without proper declaration, paperwork, and labeling.

I have received batteries from SureFire (box of 72) with proper labeling and paperwork a while back, so I think they are on top of this. I think the old regulations had an exemption for limited quantities, but I don't remember the exact amount.

Tom


----------



## WildChild (Apr 1, 2008)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Dfred,
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



I received a replacement SureFire L1, shipped using DHL with the red sticker about lithium batteries on the box, and an information sheet about the chemistry from Panasonic, because it came with 1 CR123A inside. Seriously, I'm just wondering about how it will affect Intl customers who buy lights/CR123A from USA because they are much cheaper than here. In Canada, we can get Chinese CR123A for over $2 each and USA made CR123A for $4 at the cheapest... Talk about security with those expensive but cheapest chinese CR123A... Yet, ordering USA made CR123A from USA cost me at most $1.8 per cell.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2008)

Hello WildChild,

I believe you will see more and more of that. The problem with exemptions is that not all are aware of them, and it can sometimes be difficult to sort out how they apply.

It is far easier just to declare that the item has a Lithium battery in it and then there is no issue at all. This would eliminate any delay at Customs, and would eliminate any interpretation of the exemption.

I think the TSA regulations that went into effect in January 2008 got the ball rolling on this, and as a result we can expect stricter enforcement of these regulations. If my business involved shipping lithium batteries or products that contained lithium batteries, I would opt to be a step ahead of the regulations. There may be some increase in cost as a result, but I would simply factor those into the price of the product.

It will be interesting to see what eBay and other discount places do.

Tom


----------



## dfred (Apr 1, 2008)

Thanks for the reply, Tom. Apparently I stand corrected regarding cells in or for a particular device. I guess I was confused by the section on page 44948 of the above PDF, Section 172.102, Subsection 188 "Small lithium cells and batteries". What I find strange is that this subsection begins:


```
188 Small lithium cells and batteries.	
 Lithium cells or batteries, including cells or	
 batteries packed with or contained in		
 equipment, are not subject to any other	
 requirements of this subchapter if they meet	
 all of the following:
```

But then points a-h are not all literal requirements, but rather some of them seem to modify what's above, granting additional exemptions. I guess it's the phrase "if they meet all of the following" that is causing me confusion. As a fairly analytical person, the logic of the way this is written/structured does not seem entirely consistent. I guess I need to just read through it again and try to build some sort of flow-chart type thing to parse this... 

(NOTE: Posted before I saw the reply to WildChild...)


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

WildChild said:


> *Yet, ordering USA made CR123A from USA cost me at most $1.8 per cell*.



But do the e-tailers ship them by UPS, FedEx or DHL as HAZMAT, instead of unlawfully concealing it as non-hazardous in regular mail? 

USPS website doesn't say it's not illegal yet.


----------



## Wattnot (Apr 1, 2008)

Do we have 100 percent confirmation on any of this? I ask because government regulations are amongst the poorest written and are very often open wildy differing interpretations, up to _opposite meanings_. I know, I work with them every day. It's most important to grab ALL pieces of regulation and read them all carefully. 

An example (and this is not my field), try looking up regulations for shipping a handgun through the USPS. It IS legal for one FFL to another FFL but if you ask 10 FFL's, 8 of them will tell you they cannot ship a handgun through the mail, even to another FFL. You can even call the BATF and ask them and 50% of them will say you cannot as well. I know for a fact you can (at least as of a few months ago, when I checked).

Another great example would be the tax laws.

Another example is gunpowder and primers. Most vendors will tell you they have to be shipped separately. They do not, provided ALL of the regs are understood and followed.

I've been receiving CR123's and 18650's and the like through the mail in this hobby and my RC hobby for many years and have yet to see any ORM-D or other hazmat info on ANY of them. I doubt everyone is doing it wrong.


----------



## dfred (Apr 1, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> But do the e-tailers ship them by UPS, FedEx or DHL as HAZMAT, instead of unlawfully concealing it as non-hazardous in regular mail?
> 
> USPS website doesn't say it's not illegal yet.



Just as a general comment...

I believe there are (at least) three areas of discussion here: 1) the rules and regulations of individual shipping organizations (USPS/FedEx/etc); 2) US DOT regulations regarding what can go onto various forms of transport; and 3) International transport/customs issues. These topics are clearly intertwined, but it is possible that multiple sets of regulations may be at play for any given shipment.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

Wattnot said:


> Do we have 100 percent confirmation on any of this? I ask because government regulations are amongst the poorest written and are very often open wildy differing interpretations, up to _opposite meanings_. I know, I work with them every day. It's most important to grab ALL pieces of regulation and read them all carefully.
> 
> An example (and this is not my field), try looking up regulations for shipping a handgun through the USPS. It IS legal for one FFL to another FFL but if you ask 10 FFL's, 8 of them will tell you they cannot ship a handgun through the mail, even to another FFL. You can even call the BATF and ask them and 50% of them will say you cannot as well. I know for a fact you can (at least as of a few months ago, when I checked).
> 
> ...



Just because a lot of them are doing it wrong doesn't make it right. At least some are learning about the new law and taking proper actions.

Someone already mentioned Surefire. Here's another example:
http://www.gearzone.com/Energizer-Lithium-AA-E2-p/132-10801-12.htm

The ban on air mailing of lithium batteries is new and I wouldn't expect everyone to learn about it immediately. If it was as common knowledge as the fact it's illegal to dump oil down the sanitary sewer, I wouldn't have made this thread. 

I believe it was not illegal until a year or two back. 

I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I don't think couriers are as concerned about very occasional shippers shipping hazmat as regular item compared to commercial merchants shipping in great quantity. If the probability of accidental damage is 0.1%, 80% of shipments are hazmat and they ship 2,000 a month, the probability of incident is much greater than someone who ships 3% hazmat and 4-5 a month.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 1, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> If the probability of accidental damage is 0.1%, 80% of shipments are hazmat and they ship 2,000 a month, the probability of incident is much greater than someone who ships 3% hazmat and 4-5 a month.



Gotta love the imaginary numbers....


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Gotta love the imaginary numbers....





Marduke said:


> I wouldn't worry too much. By current regulations, all our orders of tritium, high power lasers, signal blockers, etc should all be confiscated by US Customs. *As we all know from experience, the US postal service don't give a flip about what's in our padded envelopes, as long as you put enough postage on the thing.*



I like your straight out of butt speculations better


----------



## warlord (Apr 1, 2008)

See, this is good information to know. I mean it wont stop me from having batteries shipped to my house but still, good to know.

I like imaginary statisctics, too. There is a 0% that I'm going to change my habits and a 0.1% that they'll confiscate my batteries in the mail.  I get packages that say "batteries" on them all the time...


----------



## Marduke (Apr 1, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> I like your straight out of butt speculations better




Real experience =! speculation


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 1, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Real experience =! speculation



Your experience has nothing to do with whether they care or not. There is no way they have the resource to open up and inspect every single package. 

The fact you got away is not an indicator that they don't care. You can go 110mph on the road too and not get caught, but that means you didn't get caught, not that cops don't care.


----------



## Ragiska (Apr 2, 2008)

That's a mighty high horse you're riding there Handlobraesing, preaching about the specifics of what's "legal" and "moral" vs. accepted practice and ok to "look the other way" when you have personally advocated stealing "souvenirs" while criminal trespassing.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 2, 2008)

This just makes even more of a case for not bothering with all the SF type primary Lithium powered lights, since this will lead to more price increases. 

They would have a hard time including Lithium Cobalt rechargeable (secondary) batteries, such as all those in laptops and portable electronic devices...even though there are well publicized cases of their shorting and exploding with flames. _(Yes, Tom, I said "exploding" and not "venting.")_ LOL!

This reminds me of all the threads in January about the personal air travel TSA Lithium bans...yet I have not seen any screeners that fully understand and follow those 1/1/2008 regulations. 

What do you suppose is the chance of an average postal employee understanding Lithium primary vs. secondary.....or for that matter, secondary Lithium Cobalt vs. safe Lithium Manganese or Nano Lithium Iron Phosphate cells? :sigh:


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 2, 2008)

Ragiska said:


> That's a mighty high horse you're riding there Handlobraesing, preaching about the specifics of what's "legal" and "moral" vs. accepted practice and ok to "look the other way" when you have personally advocated stealing "souvenirs" while criminal trespassing.



Whoever said it was illegal exploration and who said I stole it? Keep lurking. Who's alternate ego are you? In your flawed logic, if I post a picture of the Statue of Liberty, I'm advocating stealing the Statue.


----------



## Ragiska (Apr 2, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> Whoever said it was illegal exploration and who said I stole it?


 
The building was slated for demolision according to you, meaning it was closed to anyone other than the demolision crew. Even if you didn't take it (which I highly doubt), you were still tresspassing.

If you hadn't have done either, you would have already said so to defend yourself, and given an explanation of why you were in the clear. Instead, you replied with "who said I did??", which is type typical statement of someone who refuses to admit to an act which they were in the wrong without technically implicating themselves.


However, I'm sure that you will come up with some lame excuse now as to why you are of course correct, and anything else is dead wrong.


----------



## dfred (Apr 2, 2008)

Please don't get this thread closed by devolving into ad hominem attacks, folks. Let's get back to the topic...


----------



## Wattnot (Apr 2, 2008)

Yes, back to topic is a good idea but I feel this thread will soon be closed anyway. :shakehead

Well I ended up doing my own research and verification and it seems the OP, as I feared, has misinterpreted some of the rules, which as I warned in an earlier post, is very easy to do! All of the regulations he referred to do NOT apply to CR123's due to their below 1g per cell lithium content. I verified this on the USPS site and followed it up with a phone call. :thumbsup:


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

Wattnot said:


> Yes, back to topic is a good idea but I feel this thread will soon be closed anyway. :shakehead
> 
> Well I ended up doing my own research and verification and it seems the OP, as I feared, has misinterpreted some of the rules, which as I warned in an earlier post, is very easy to do! All of the regulations he referred to do NOT apply to CR123's due to their below 1g per cell lithium content. I verified this on the USPS site and followed it up with a phone call. :thumbsup:




Hurray for the studious!!!


----------



## dfred (Apr 2, 2008)

Wattnot said:


> Yes, back to topic is a good idea but I feel this thread will soon be closed anyway. :shakehead
> 
> Well I ended up doing my own research and verification and it seems the OP, as I feared, has misinterpreted some of the rules, which as I warned in an earlier post, is very easy to do! All of the regulations he referred to do NOT apply to CR123's due to their below 1g per cell lithium content. I verified this on the USPS site and followed it up with a phone call. :thumbsup:




EDIT: Found link myself... http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c3_004.html#QzV34131aedwa

" 349.22 Mailable Class 9 Materials

A Class 9 material that can qualify as an ORM-D material is permitted in the domestic mail via air or surface transportation up to a weight limit of 25 pounds per mailpiece. Primary and Secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries that contain an equivalent content of 0.5 grams of lithium or less are mailable. Primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries are prohibited via air transportation. Mailable batteries must be securely packed to preclude short circuiting. In addition, the general packaging requirements in DMM 601.1 through 601.8 apply. "

So the cutoff is 0.5g and they apparently are never sendable via airmail. The labeling requirements would seem to apply as noted in OP (and possibly the DOT labeling as well if not exempt -- whatever that means..  )


----------



## WildChild (Apr 2, 2008)

dfred said:


> Interesting, please post a link to the USPS exemption for <1g Li primaries.
> 
> The Sections quoted in the OP "348.22 Mailable Corrosives" and "349.22 Mailable Class 9 Materials" seem fairly definitive. They seem to indicate no airmail and special labeling. (This is apparently an independent labeling requirement than the DOT requirements we were discussing above).



This is always a problem with such documents... They are often contradictory. Here in Canada, it seems it's also "illegal" to send lithium primaries by mail, based on the documents available at Canada Posts but nobody says the same thing when you call. Recently, many people posted on forums they made long calls with supervisors at Canada Posts and many other people and it would actually be legal to ship customer type lithium batteries... Talk about clear rules...


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 2, 2008)

Handlobraesing -- I'd like to ask you some questions about why you seem to be pushing the danger and illegality of shipping lithium batteries so much. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what it seems here. Do you work for USPS? If so I guess I could understand being concerned for your own safety knowing people pack things carelessly at times. In viewing your profile I see your favorite non-incandescent light is a Minimag 2AA LED, your favorite Manufacturer is Mag Instrument, Inc. (MagLite) and your favorite dealer is Wal-Mart (and Fox-Intl ). These particular lights for the most part do NOT use Lithium based batteries and of course Wal-Mart's battery business is based much more heavily in Alkalines than Lithium. Based on looking at hundreds if not thousands of profiles here the last few years that seems somewhat unusual - not that I'm saying it's bad but for my next wild and crazy guess I'm wondering if you work for any of these companies or have some particular interest that might be served by causing Lithium batteries to become more expensive or less used. I don't really think anything you say here is going to have much influence on the situation but it just brings the question to my mind as to why this is such a concern to you. I'm all for making things safe as possible but of course would not like to see batteries get so expensive as to be unafordable. I have tried to go to rechargeables on everything I can and am well enough stocked with them now that I don't foresee needing to buy any more batteries for some time - so for myself it's not much of a concern.
Please don't take offense at my attempt to understand why this is such a concern to you. I just would like to understand why this seems so important. I'm sure millions of these batteries are being shipped in the U.S. every day and I don't recall any incidents making big news lately so other than concerns with TSA clamping down a bit (and I can understand that to an extent) I don't know why this needs to be of such importance.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> Handlobraesing -- I'd like to ask you some questions about why you seem to be pushing the danger and illegality of shipping lithium batteries so much.



I think it's less of a matter of shipping lithium batteries in general, and more of a matter of gunning for a particular band, and more importantly a particular dealer which commonly ships CR123's loose in the package. If you read through the above linked thread (last couple posts) and the OP's previous threads, you will see a common theme. 


Am I warm "Argumentation Kid"?


----------



## dfred (Apr 2, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> Please don't take offense at my attempt to understand why this is such a concern to you. I just would like to understand why this is such concern. I'm sure millions of these batteries are being shipped in the U.S. every day and I don't recall any incidents making big news lately so other than concerns with TSA clamping down a bit (and I can understand that to an extent) I don't know why this needs to be of such concern.



IMO, this is not a matter of TSA security theater, this is a matter of air travel safety. Passenger air travel is amazingly safe. This is due to very severe regulation and the general recognition that these regulations are the reason for the safety and are worth the hassle.

And, BTW, just to be clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem 

And, for the record, I certainly *do not* look forward to the additional hassle and expense the new regulations Tom alluded to above. I am an active user of various lithium batteries. But Li primary batteries have apparently risen above the threshold of tolerable risk in the minds of the air transport establishment, so the folks suggesting it's not an issue have their heads in the sand as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 2, 2008)

You are right - I didn't read the whole thread - just skimmed the first few posts. Sorry if it seemed I was Ad_hominem but I had to wonder WHY this is of such concern to the OP other than the obvious safety issue. I'm still trying to get up to speed on this and will follow Marduke's suggestion to dig a little deeper here. I think this may all become history anyway before long since the nature of Lithium does have danger and new chemistries and safer batteries are very much in the works by many companies right now.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 2, 2008)

Hello Wattnot,



Wattnot said:


> Well I ended up doing my own research and verification and it seems the OP, as I feared, has misinterpreted some of the rules, which as I warned in an earlier post, is very easy to do! All of the regulations he referred to do NOT apply to CR123's due to their below 1g per cell lithium content. I verified this on the USPS site and followed it up with a phone call. :thumbsup:



Wow, as you have indicated, this can get very confusing...

Are you sure about the 1.0 gram limit?

When I go to the USPS website, I find this:



USPS said:


> 349.22 Mailable Class 9 Materials
> 
> A Class 9 material that can qualify as an ORM-D material is permitted in the domestic mail via air or surface transportation up to a weight limit of 25 pounds per mailpiece. Primary and Secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries that contain an equivalent content of 0.5 grams of lithium or less are mailable. Primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries are prohibited via air transportation. Mailable batteries must be securely packed to preclude short circuiting. In addition, the general packaging requirements in DMM 601.1 through 601.8 apply.



This seems to indicate that the limit is actually 0.5 grams.

Looking at a data sheet for a typical CR123 cell indicates that a single cell exceeds the 0.5 gram limit.

The other confusion is how the maximum limit is applied. If the limit is 1 gram, does that mean 1 gram per package, or 1 gram per cell. If it is 1 gram per cell, then I should be able to mail 100 cells without problems because each cell is less than 1 gram.

However, if it is 1 gram per package, then I could ship 1 cell, but not 2 in a package.

If the limit actually is 0.5 grams of lithium, that changes everything.

I talked to the DOT and the Air Traffic Authority. They gave me similar information. When I called the USPS, they told me that in general they follow DOT and ATA regulations, but shipping primary lithium batteries was not allowed without declaration, and paperwork. They went on to tell me that this applied to all lithium primary batteries regardless if they were separate or installed in a product. They went on to say that there are new regulations and they are still trying to figure them out.

Tom


----------



## Wattnot (Apr 2, 2008)

According to what I found when doing a search (I'll show you how I found it below) it's 1 gram PER CELL for non-rechargeables and 2 grams for rechargeables. 

Go to www.usps.com click on products and services. Then search. Limit search to publications only and search "lithium battery" and it will come up. Even if the 1/2 gram turns out to be true, someone in the TSA thread found that our beloved CR123's are even under that.

That and like I said, I followed it up with a phone call to confirm. Again, and like others have pointed out, these regulations are poorly written and often contradict even themselves. You can't tell me that one or two people on this board are more right than the post office and every business that's shipping these CR123 batteries with impunity every day. Businesses are always notified in advance of regulation changes that will significantly affect them.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

Wattnot said:


> According to what I found when doing a search (I'll show you how I found it below) it's 1 gram PER CELL for non-rechargeables and 2 grams for rechargeables.
> 
> Go to www.usps.com click on products and services. Then search. Limit search to publications only and search "lithium battery" and it will come up. Even if the 1/2 gram turns out to be true, someone in the TSA thread found that our beloved CR123's are even under that.
> 
> That and like I said, I followed it up with a phone call to confirm. Again, and like others have pointed out, these regulations are poorly written and often contradict even themselves. You can't tell me that one or two people on this board are more right than the post office and every business that's shipping these CR123 batteries with impunity every day. Businesses are always notified in advance of regulation changes that will significantly affect them.



Or in summary, here:
http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/2007/html/pb22218/updt_001.html



> Small consumer-type primary lithium cells or batteries (lith*ium metal or lithium alloy) like those used to power cameras and flashlights are mailable with the following restrictions. Each cell must contain no more than 1.0 gram (g) of lithium content per cell. Each battery must contain no more than 2.0 g aggregate lithium content per battery.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 2, 2008)

Hello Wattnot,

Thanks. I found it. It looks like my information was from an earlier revision.

So, it looks like CR123 batteries can be mailed, but not air mailed, unless they are installed in equipment or shipped along with equipment. Is this what you see from their table 10.20.7?

If you follow the CR123 link I posted, Energizer lists the lithium content of their CR123 cell as 0.55 grams. The AA L91 lithium batteries have 0.98 grams of lithium per cell.

Tom


----------



## Beamhead (Apr 2, 2008)

According to this a primary cell must contain no more than 1 g of lithium and can be installed in/or packed with the device to ship via Air.
A primary "battery" must contain no more than 2 g of lithium.

A rechargeable Li-Ion battery must contain no more than 8 g of "equivalent" lithium and up to 3 cells can be shipped via Air with or without the device.

So a Li-Ion battery can contain 8x the "equivalent" lithium content and ship freely :thinking: different chemical make up? 


Just for those who may not be aware:
Cell = 1 single cell
Battery = can look like one piece but contains more than one cell


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 2, 2008)

Wow - looking at that USPS page and chart I could mail over 10 pounds of Lithium CR123's by airmail or International even as long as a flashlight using those batteries goes along with it. It doesn't even say they have to be in the device - one section of the chart just says if they are packed along with it. Based on this it seems the OP's statement that "Summary: It is unlawful to mail any primary lithium battery(i.e. 123A) using any form of airmail within the US and it is prohibited by any means in the international mail." are FAR from being correct.


----------



## Beamhead (Apr 2, 2008)

While this matter is confusing and possibly a problem for those of us who purchase multiple cells perhaps we might see the return of the "hurricane lamp" ?


----------



## WildChild (Apr 2, 2008)

Someone, make a cheap 1 CR123A light (under $5) so we can buy one along with 10 lbs of CR123A for intl shipping...  That's just stupid!


----------



## dfred (Apr 2, 2008)

Marduke, thanks for posting that link -- very helpful. Though as Wattnot and others have observed, there does seem to be inconsistency with other documents posted on the USPS site (specifically 0.5/1.0g issue). But in any case, this is much clearer than anything yet introduced wrt to USPS...

It does seem to indicate that whether or not the batteries are installed, some type of special labeling is required:

For cells/batteries not installed or packed with devices: “Surface Mail Only, Primary Lithium Batteries — Forbidden for Transportation Aboard Passenger Aircraft"

For cells/batteries installed in a device or that quanity packed with it: "Package Contains Primary Lithium Batteries".


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

Everyone is forgetting one thing, "passenger aircraft" isn't the same as "cargo aircraft". USPS doesn't ship airmail on passenger aircraft to begin with. They have their own fleet of planes for mail, as does UPS and FedEx.


----------



## WildChild (Apr 2, 2008)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/28/5131421-cp.html

That doesn't help... We often have all to pay because of senders that package like crap...


----------



## Beamhead (Apr 2, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Everyone is forgetting one thing, "passenger aircraft" isn't the same as "cargo aircraft". USPS doesn't ship airmail on passenger aircraft to begin with. They have their own fleet of planes for mail, as does UPS and FedEx.


 
IIRC USPS has no fleet of planes, they contract with others Fed UPS.......and I have heard that some commercial airlines do carry mail when there is room.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

Beamhead said:


> IIRC USPS has no fleet of planes, they contract with others Fed UPS.......and I have heard that some commercial airlines do carry mail when there is room.



Since September 1st, 2001 only letters are permitted on passenger aircraft.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 2, 2008)

Wattnot said:


> Yes, back to topic is a good idea but I feel this thread will soon be closed anyway. :shakehead
> 
> Well I ended up doing my own research and verification and it seems the OP, as I feared, has misinterpreted some of the rules, which as I warned in an earlier post, is very easy to do! All of the regulations he referred to do NOT apply to CR123's due to their below 1g per cell lithium content. I verified this on the USPS site and followed it up with a phone call. :thumbsup:



I believe it is yourself who misinterpreted it. My post said:

Summary: *It is unlawful to mail* any *primary* lithium battery(i.e. 123A) *using any form of airmail* within the US and it is prohibited by any means in the international mail.(AIRMAIL is the only option available for retail senders)

Within Class 9 substances, there are MAILABLE and NON-MAILABLE. 

MAILABLE includes as you mentioned, lithium with lithium content below a certain amount, HOWEVER NOT by AIRMAIL. I didn't say "you absolutely positively cannot mail CR123A".


----------



## Marduke (Apr 2, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> I believe it is yourself who misinterpreted it. My post said:
> 
> Summary: *It is unlawful to mail* any *primary* lithium battery(i.e. 123A) *using any form of airmail* within the US and it is prohibited by any means in the international mail.(AIRMAIL is the only option available for retail senders)
> 
> ...



How can you prove yourself wrong in a single post yet still claim to be correct?? :thinking:

CR123's are exempt from the restriction due to their small size. You can mail them however you wish, *airmail included *(try actually *reading *the above posts instead of sticking your fingers in your ears like a five year old and pretending you can't hear us).


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 2, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> Wow - looking at that USPS page and chart I could mail over 10 pounds of Lithium CR123's by airmail or International even as long as a flashlight using those batteries goes along with it. It doesn't even say they have to be in the device - one section of the chart just says if they are packed along with it. Based on this it seems the OP's statement that "Summary: It is unlawful to mail any primary lithium battery(i.e. 123A) using any form of airmail within the US and it is prohibited by any means in the international mail." are FAR from being correct.



Read 10.20.5 here:
http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/2007/html/pb22218/updt_001.html

"Via surface or air transportation when the cells or batteries are properly packed with or properly in*stalled in the equipment they operate and *the mail*piece has no more than the number of batteries needed to operate the device.*"

I think what you're thinking is very similar to bringing in a five gallon bucket into a fast food place who has "free refills". Well what keeps you from refilling, then dumping it into the bucket and repeating 30 times? 

I think most people would realize that such is a CLEAR abuse. 




Beamhead said:


> So a Li-Ion battery can contain 8x the "equivalent" lithium content and ship freely :thinking: different chemical make up?



Yes, quite different. CR123A is a LiMnO2 chemistry and the anode ia actually made of pure lithium, a highly reactive metal


----------



## js (Apr 3, 2008)

Marduke, Ragiska, and Handlobraesing,

Take it down a notch guys. Stop the personal attacks and bickering. Stop bringing up the criminal trespassing issue. Stop appearing on my moderator radar.

Please stay focused on the issue at hand and on trying to get as much accurate and authoritative information as possible. This is a valid thread, a valid topic, and an important discussion. Let's get on with it.


----------



## tino_ale (Apr 3, 2008)

If I have understood the regulation well, it seems that :

- it's illegal to ship, say 10 CR123 by regular airmail
- it is perfectly legal to ship the same 10 CR123 along with 10 single CR123 flashlights, the batteries NOT being necesseraly installed into the flashlights.

Is this right?

If yes, I can hardly see why the second case would be any safer than the first one.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 3, 2008)

In short, you can ship up to 5 lbs of plain cells via ground, and up to 11lbs of cells via airmail if the device "uses" as many cells as you pack. Cells being installed in device not necessary. There are multiple permutations if you include battery packs into the mix.

Source


Edit:
Also, these regulations are nothing new. They have been in affect in one form or another for years with just minor tweaks along the way. Nothing to worry about here, business as usual.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 3, 2008)

tino_ale said:


> If I have understood the regulation well, it seems that :
> 
> - it's illegal to ship, say 10 CR123 by regular airmail
> - it is perfectly legal to ship the same 10 CR123 along with 10 single CR123 flashlights, the batteries NOT being necesseraly installed into the flashlights.
> ...



That's concerning mail pieces leaving the United States by the Postal Service. This is no assumption that it applies to your country. 

You have a valid point. I think that's a compromise of safety and convenience they come up with, so items like watches, small flashlights can still be sold. They do however place a limit on total package weight containing pieces containing lithium. 

*in my opinion* this would put a limit on amount of lithium that would be sent air mail in practical sense. i.e. if CR2025s had to be shipped with a watch, you can send only so many within the weight limit, but just batteries up to the weight limit would increase the lithium content significantly.

There are many laws players in the industry disagree with, but "screw this regulation, we'll do however the heck we want" isn't about the way they would approach it.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 3, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> Read 10.20.5 here:
> http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/2007/html/pb22218/updt_001.html
> 
> "Via surface or air transportation when the cells or batteries are properly packed with or properly in*stalled in the equipment they operate and *the mail*piece has no more than the number of batteries needed to operate the device.*"
> ...



I am reading that page and I only read the chart the first time but now I read this :
_"Primary lithium cells and batteries are mailable as follows: 
a. Via surface transportation when the cells or batteries (not packed with or installed in equipment) are “in the originally sealed packaging.” They are forbidden aboard passenger aircraft. The outside of the package must be marked on the address side “Surface Mail Only, Primary Lithium Batteries — Forbidden for Transportation Aboard Passenger Aircraft.” The mailpiece must not exceed 5 pounds." _ which indicates it is not a problem if following the above directions. If it follows the rules how would that be abuse? The drink refill ananlogy doesn't make much sense to me - that is about someone basically stealing and I'm sure a restaurant wouldn't allow it to go on for 30 refills or even more than a couple refills. The USPS rules seem to clearly state what is okay so why would you label that 'abuse'?

At this point as I've said I don't have a whole lot to be concerned about regarding these rules as I fairly well set with rechargeables - BUT I'd hate to see some dealer here reading this and deciding he can no longer ship batteries to people here because it's too much trouble or too expensive. Or dealers deciding they have to charge a lot more to ship Lithiums. If that snowballed I could imagine seeing a shift toward AA powered lights (NiMH or Alkaline). At least until some of the new tech batteries arrive - which I understand could be within 2-3 years at which time this may all become a moot discussion.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 3, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> The drink refill ananlogy doesn't make much sense to me - that is about someone basically stealing and I'm sure a restaurant wouldn't allow it to go on for 30 refills or even more than a couple refills. The USPS rules seem to clearly state what is okay so why would you label that 'abuse'?



I find it analogous to your comment, because both examples try to circumvent the good faith intent. They're both malicious effort to exploit the offer. 

What you call "basically stealing" can be phrased "Taking a full advantage of my entitlement under my contract, which was made by taking my money and selling me a drink with conditions of permitting free refills without a stipulation of upper limit" 

This is why fine prints are such a common place to protect themselves against abuse. 

Do you also believe to be "basically ripping off Microsoft Corporation" by cutting their profit margin by buying a significantly cheaper OEM copy of Windows with bare minimum to meet their "must be sold with a piece of non peripheral hardware", such as a 128MB RAM or an internal floppy drive? 

Fine prints could be unreasonable. In my opinion such an example is Sprint's "free roaming" and "unlimited nights and weekend minutes", yet if you exceed 50% roaming avg or 800 minutes per month, you are subject to termination. 

Comcast may not have taken into consideration of people using torrents to steal IP when they offered non restricted usage and as a result, some IP thieves are making grievances because they received an excessive bandwidth usage notice. 



> Wow - looking at that USPS page and chart I could mail over 10 pounds of Lithium CR123's by airmail or International even as long as a flashlight using those batteries goes along with it.



A. "oh so I can ship 10 lbs of CR123As as long as I ship ANY flashlight to go with it". This is along the line of buying a light, in order to exploit the good faith allowance meant to allow convenience. 

They had to add the "as many as needed to operate the device" fine print, because of people thinking along this line.

B. "oh free refills as long as you fill during the same visit, doesn't say I can't transfer the liquid into anything else from the supplied cup" This too is along the line of exploiting the good faith "free refill". 

When they get people coming along with this line of thought, they'd have to create a new policy "transferring the contents to another container is not allowed" or "free refills limited to two per person"

Does this make sense?


----------



## VidPro (Apr 7, 2008)

USPS didnt allow certian quantities (grams) of lithium to be delivered air mail LONG before the new TSA restrictions.
all the large sellers of lithium-ion batteries always use UPS-Ground in the states. because all the good honest law abiding battery selle4rs have always used UPS ground to deliver many "grams" of lithium, it wont change anything at all for me.

until the day you see some guy jumping out of the back of a big brown un-airconditioned truck, screaming , and smoke is pouring out the back :duh2: , i dont have anything to worry about .

and i agree (fully) with the person who said, a few Shippers packing stuff totally inapropriatly ruining it for the rest of us, AND ruining it for themselves.
a little shipper forsight would help out everyone, including the shipper, if your making money selling batteries, protect your investment, and PACK THEM RIGHT , , , please . . . then they wont have to make up one more reguation and restriction that effects everyone, like they have to be hand delived by bike courier :sick2:


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 7, 2008)

VidPro said:


> USPS didnt allow certian quantities (grams) of lithium to be delivered air mail LONG before the new TSA restrictions.
> all the large sellers of lithium-ion batteries always use UPS-Ground in the states. because all the good honest law abiding battery selle4rs have always used UPS ground to deliver many "grams" of lithium, it wont change anything at all for me.
> 
> until the day you see some guy jumping out of the back of a big brown un-airconditioned truck, screaming , and smoke is pouring out the back :duh2: , i dont have anything to worry about .
> ...



No amount of proper packing can immunize against brutal forklift fork piercing...


----------



## lolzertank (Dec 16, 2009)

Okay, I'm completely confused after reading the three pages of this thread.

Can someone tell me whether mailing Li-ion cells (say 2 18650s) is legal in the US? If they are, do they need to be packaged in a special manner?


----------



## baterija (Dec 16, 2009)

Lolzer, the simple answer is yes. Domestic Mail Manual 601 from the post office covers mailability for primary and secondary cells. The regulations actually differ between the two. For Li-ion look at section 10.20.6 and 10.20.7 for the requirements.

You can send up to 3 batteries. Requirements:
- "be mailed in a firmly sealed package separated and cushioned to prevent short circuit, movement, or damage"
- "Except for batteries installed in equipment, they must be in a strong outer package." I read that as in a box not simply a padded envelope.
- "All outer packages must have a complete delivery and return address."
- "The outside of the package must be marked on the address side 'Package Contains Lithium-ion Batteries (no lithium metal).'

There's a device lockout requirement for those mailed inside devices. Overall it's not horribly complicated to comply. Put them in a box, with the cells separated and protected, and mark it properly.

Primary are different. The requirements for that are in the same reference though.


----------



## lolzertank (Dec 17, 2009)

Thanks for the answer, baterija! That really clears things up for me. :twothumbs


----------

