USPS To Ban International Shipping On Lithium Ion Powered Gadgetry

sl4shd0rk writes "Apparently the USPS is enacting a ban on the international shipment of all devices containing Lithium Ion batteries. The ban is expected to lift in January of 2013. It seems like this would drive more business away from the already floundering USPS financial situation. The article focuses on the shipment of items out of the U.S., but doesn't mention whether the same ban will apply to purchasing these items on eBay from overseas sources."

Comments

Good job not reading

[damn_registrars]

The very USPS page that is linked to from this summary says that batteries that are in devices are generally exempt from this. Essentially you can ship all the iPods/iPads/iPhones you want. It is external (ie not built-in) batteries that have additional restrictions, though those are not very severe.

Re:Good job not reading

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until January 2013, the Postal Service will not be able to accept packages containing lithium batteries and electronic devices containing lithium batteries addressed to international destinations"

I bolded the part you chose not to read.

Re:Good job not reading

[Idbar]

Not also that according to the table (Exhibit 10.20.8 Lithium Battery Mailability Chart). The ones non-mailable are the called primary, which seem to refer to the lithium batteries, not "Secondary" which seem to refer to the Lithium-Ion (rechargeable) batteries.

Am I confused about this?

Re:Good job not reading

[Idbar]

Also, you should read... the fact that there's a differentiation between Lithium and Lithium-Ion. Where the latest, the rechargeable ones seem to be allowed, contrary to the non-rechargeable ones.

Re:Good job not reading

[sl4shd0rk]

The very USPS page that is linked to from this summary says that batteries that are in devices are generally exempt from this

Not sure what article you're reading so will paste it verbatim here from TFA. I don't interpret the "rechargeable" and "nonrechargeable" to explicitly mean "removed from the device":

"primary lithium metal or lithium alloy (nonrechargeable) cells and batteries or secondary lithium-ion cells and batteries (rechargeable) are prohibited when mailed internationally"

and then the part about being installed in the device - that's not until 2013:

"on January 1, 2013, cusÂtpmers will be able to mail specific quantities of lithium batteries internationally (including to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location) when the batteries are properly installed in the personal electronic devices they are intended to operate."

Re:Good job not reading

[mk1004]

The very USPS page that is linked to from this summary says that batteries that are in devices are generally exempt from this. Essentially you can ship all the iPods/iPads/iPhones you want. It is external (ie not built-in) batteries that have additional restrictions, though those are not very severe.

Read it again. It says that the USPS is prohibiting international shipments of lithium cells this year. They anticipate that the UPU and ICAO will allow lithium cells that are enclosed within personal electronic devices, starting 2013. Right now, you are not allowed to ship either the bare cells or cells contained within electronic devices.

IIRC, there have been several incidences in years past where fires have occurred after containers of bulk cells have been damaged by forklifts at airport terminals. Between that and some other isolated cases of consumer devices having problems on aircraft, plus some crashes of cargo planes that may be linked to fires from lithium cells, they've become a bit reluctant to allow lithium cells on passenger aircraft.

Re:Good job not reading

[dgatwood]

Which is fascinating, because I've never heard of a watch battery bursting into flame during normal operation, yet this would appear to ban the international shipping of nearly all watches. Lithium ion batteries are a fire risk because of overheating, but probably 99% of the time, the overheating is caused by charging, which lithium primary cells do not do. I understand why you would not want to pack cartons of a hundred lithium primary cells (because if a fire occurs external to the batteries, they tend to intensify it), but a single cell here or there would seem to pose little risk.

Re:Good job not reading

[kelemvor4]

So, what keeps the shippers from sticking a huge resistor and a low-current LED into a plastic housing, shoving the battery in (hey look, it's a low-power long-life flashlight!) and using that to ship? You could make them extra-huge to store backup batteries, even.

Why go to the trouble. There's plenty of other shipping companies out there with better reputations and better services. I think if there's any real impact from this change it is that more products will make it to their destinations since they'll be shipped by reputable carriers.

Re:Good job not reading

[mk1004]

It's not the USPS but the UPU/ICAO that's banning international shipments of all lithium cells. The USPS is saying that they expect to be able to ship cells that are contained within consumer products in 2013, indicating that UPU and ICAO intend to allow that type of shipment. The USPS still allows some types of shipments within the US.

I doubt that they (UPU/ICAO) will allow bulk shipments of cells. When I worked for an IC manufacturer a few years back, we had some products (modules) that contained an IC and a lithium cell. ICAO started requiring that containers holding products with lithium cells be marked clearly that lithium cells were in the package. The link to the USPS contains verbiage about the restrictions on the amount of lithium, how it's packaged, and so on, is pretty much a copy of those previous ICAO restrictions. Those restrictions were in response to the fires from the damaged containers of bulk cells. The restrictions have been evolving since then. It sounds like a moratorium on international shipments until they can get the details of the restrictions worked out.

It's not my fault!

[ColdWetDog]

This is an issue with International Postal Union and aviation authorities:

MEDIA STATEMENT ON Outbound International Mailing of Lithium Batteries

REACTIVE ONLY — FOR IMMEDIATE USE

Until January 2013, the Postal Service will not be able to accept packages containing lithium batteries and electronic devices containing lithium batteries addressed to international destinations. This includes mail destined to, or from, APO (Army Post Office), FPO (Fleet Post Office) and DPO (Diplomatic Post Office) locations.

This change is required by the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), both of which currently prohibit lithium batteries in mail shipments that are carried on international commercial air transportation.

So it is a) hopefully temporary b) because the hazardous little bombs are hazardous little bombs and c) everything is complicated these days.

So, just cram those AAA batteries into you iPhones and wait it out.

Canada will keep the USPS alive

[i_ate_god]

As long as our currency is on, near, or above par with the US dollar, most sensible canadians will order stuff from the US and use USPS to deliver it, since UPS and the like are really just crooked extortionists. How their extortionist techniques are legal, I just don't know.

Re:Canada will keep the USPS alive

[tlhIngan]

As long as our currency is on, near, or above par with the US dollar, most sensible canadians will order stuff from the US and use USPS to deliver it, since UPS and the like are really just crooked extortionists. How their extortionist techniques are legal, I just don't know.

Yeah, USPS is probably one of the best shippers around - it's trackable through Canada (USPS stops at the border, but Canada Post tracks it through). It's also cheap. It will cost more to ship via USPS, but you don't pay UPS' extortionate fees to receive the package.

DHL is probably another good one - their fees are pretty reasonable (similar to Canada Post's), but very few American companies support DHL as a shipping option (probably because it sucked inside the US - despite being close or is the #1 worldwide carrier).

After that comes FedEx, because they do flat rate $25+taxes.

UPS - it's probably their cash cow - total bill can be anywhere from 30-200% of the item value. It's so bad that many US stores stopped shipping to Canada because people were refusing packages ($50 for a $40 item?) over the extortionate and gouging fees.

Now, there is ONE saving grace - there's something called "UPS Mail Innovations" that uses UPS within the US, who then hands it off to the local post office or USPS to carry across the border. Costs more than USPS and few know about it, but it's an option.

And it looks to be an ICAO rule, which means every country is affected (but only internationally - local laws can override ICAO if it stays in-country). Though, I suppose USPS just has to innovate and use ground crossings - fly it to the border gateway city, drive it across, and have Canada post continue with it. After all, the only time ICAO really applies is across countries (it's a set of de-facto rules). Though, nothing stops the US and Canada from forming an agreement to allow air transport across the border of batteries.

Re:Canada will keep the USPS alive

[toastyman]

DHL is probably another good one - their fees are pretty reasonable (similar to Canada Post's), but very few American companies support DHL as a shipping option (probably because it sucked inside the US - despite being close or is the #1 worldwide carrier).

DHL ended US-to-US delivery in 2009. They have a service where they'll use the USPS for local delivery, but it's expensive and slow. They also don't do pickup service (for any destination country) in many parts of the US now, so they've made it really hard for US companies to use them. Not all of it is their fault, but it's hard to use DHL if you're in the US now.

Re:Canada will keep the USPS alive

[SlippyToad]

Both parties do this.

Umm, you are just wrong. The Republicans have been on a privatizing tear that has been well-publicized and nearly non-stop for decades now. Examples include Reagan turning our student loans over to third parties, which jacked up the costs of college (Obama ended this practice, btw). Rick Santorum proposing to end our national weather services' free information so that he could stick his (or his buddies') private company in that place instead. Florida governor Rick Scott foisting a mandatory drug test law on welfare recipient so that his company Solantic could cash in on the misery of the less fortunate, Arizona governor Jan Brewer's nasty anti-immigration law which was, as it turns out, funded at the behest of the private prison complex so they could put more bodies in beds on the taxpayer's dime. The examples of GOP leaders shit-canning a public industry, or deliberately creating a market to funnel taxpayer dollars to their private buddies, are FUCKING LEGION.

I know Democrats are occasionally found sticking their hands in the till. But it is almost universally a Republican issue.

As a post script, I'm pretty fucking sick of this "both sides do it, so we can't/shouldn't do anything about it" attitude. That is an utterly false dichotomy that is designed specifically to shut down debate.

So, bring your "Democratic" examples or shut the fuck up.

Re:Canada will keep the USPS alive

[aceboomblain]

Um, how about using your favorite search engine to look for things like "wayne county corruption" or "detroit corruption". *All* of the involved in those cases are Democrats.

So get your head out of your ass - some (not all) people who achieve some level of power in politics tend to abuse that power. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they sit on, but each of the SOBs should be tarred and feathered!

Consistent problem? Or paranoia?

[LehiNephi]

I don't recall hearing much in the way of incidents involving lithium-containing batteries combusting during shipping. This leads me to wonder which of the following is going on. Is it:
1) A response to actual incidents?
2) An over-reaction to the potential of an accident, much like the no-electronic-gadgets rule on airplanes?
3) Something more sinister involving patents and/or protectionism?

Given the USPS's boneheaded management style (e.g. you still can't buy first-class postage on their site, only the much more expensive Priority and Express), I'm thinking option #2, but that's just speculation

Re:don't rogres then you can get us directv if you

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't rogres? Don't he? He does!

Then you can get us directv! How will you get us it?

Under the table, I see. I prefer to watch TV from a a sofa, not under a table.

Your English, it is teh suck to the point nobody understands you. Please take some classes before you come back.

Not such a bad thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

If vendors have to airfreight electrically powered items without their batteries, this is a good thing.

Why?

Because it means the batteries will have to be shipped separately, which means:

they will need to be user-installable, which means:

they will be user replaceable.

No longer will you have to replace kit simply because the battery no longer recharges.

About that floundering financial situation

[SlippyToad]

. It seems like this would drive more business away from the already floundering USPS financial situation.

The USPS is struggling because they've been required by a vindictive right-wing to maintain an absurd 75-year pension plan commitment, basically they are being forced to fully fund pension plans for employees who haven't even been born yet.

If they were simply required to do business under the same rules as their competitors, they'd be kicking UPS' punk ass raw.

So, just for clarity let's make sure everyone understands that the USPS is being deliberately engineered to fail by the same vandals and saboteurs who are deliberately engineering our economy to fail.

Re:About that floundering financial situation

[TubeSteak]

So, just for clarity let's make sure everyone understands that the USPS is being deliberately engineered to fail by the same vandals and saboteurs who are deliberately engineering our economy to fail.

It passed a unanimous voice vote in the Senate.
Before that, it was also passed by voice vote in the House and the motion for a roll call vote was denied.
The law that created this fiasco was passed after midnight on the last legislative day of Congress.
Our lawmakers just wanted to get the hell out of there.

Worse threat than terrorism.

[Animats]

• Plane crashes caused by lithum batteries, last 10 years: 2.
• Plane crashes caused by terrorism, last 10 years: 0.

And Fast Company is whining that the USPS is overreacting because they refuse to ship a product that randomly catches fire and blows up? And sets off other batteries in the same shipment?

The FAA has a whole site on aircraft fires. All their lithium battery documents appear there. Here are the current US battery rules for air transportation. Phone batteries usually aren't big enough to be a problem, but as battery sizes move up from "small" to "medium" (laptop batteries) the restrictions get tougher.

The real news here

[kelemvor4]

The real news here is that someone somewhere was apparently shipping products OUT of the united states.

Re:Consistent problem? Or paranoia?

[bws111]

It is not a UPS rule, it is an international civil aviation rule. No lithium batteries in mail shipments on international commercial flights.

an over-reaction?

[YesIAmAScript]

Just because you didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Although official conclusions are not out yet, it is strongly believed that UPS Air flight 6 crashed due to a lithium battery fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

There are also other flights where lithium ion fires are suspected but not anywhere near conclusively proven, like Asiana Air 991 linked in that article.

Talk about paranoia. Why do people find it so hard to believe someone is doing their job instead of just being out to inconvenience them?

The real problem here

[eclectro]

Electronics that don't have battery compartments and no standards for rechargeable batteries that they contain.

Re:why?

[Beardo the Bearded]

They're the stand-alone batteries and they are quite volatile unless they're protected and spread around like in a shipment of devices. Just because yours haven't exploded doesn't mean they don't explode. There's internal circuitry in your device that keeps the batteries from exploding. Most, but not all, Li and Li-Ion batteries have the circuitry internally. There's no easy way for me to tell (I'm an EE) so there's not a chance that a USPS worker will know.

A D Lithium cell will blow apart a cinderblock once it gets into thermal runaway.

Re:why?

[wiedzmin]

Has this been a documented problem for a lot of USPS shipments, and is there a reason the ban is temporary? Are they hoping for all Lithium Ion batteries to self destruct by then?

Re:why?

[osu-neko]

why?

TFA:

Lithium batteries, which power many personal electronic devices, can explode or catch fire in certain conditions. In order to get around this, consumer electronic manufacturers such as Apple or Amazon ship their products with a minimal charge--which mitigates the safety risk. Fully charged, improperly stored, or improperly packed lithium batteries do pose a risk of explosion, however. Lithium batteries have been implicated in at least two fatal cargo plane crashes since 2006, including a UPS jet in Dubai.

I know... reading is hard... :p

Re:why?

[deathlyslow]

Well duh... The world is ending on the 21st of December. They just want you to think it's temporary...