Shipping Perfume

Man, there’s a lot of populist claptrap in the other concurrent threads concerning the issue. This is no grand conspiracy. The sky is not falling. Nobody’s hair should be on fire.

Really, how about we try and have an intelligent conversation.

If you haven’t already looked into your respective countries’ gov’t run mail orgs policies and procedures, please do so for yourselves. No, that doesn’t mean picking up the phone and talking to 1 of the 500,000 USPS employees, lol. You do that, and you are liable to get up to 500,000 different answers. Rather, find their most recent policies and procedures from their site. Read them, then ask specific questions to the point person indicated in the ‘contact us’ area. Also, you should acquaint yourselves with alternative private shippers in your locale (fedex, ups, dhl etc)… I think you’ll find that you can still ship internationally. Sure, the cost might give you GI distress but more likely than not it reflects a truer cost of air transporting such material. Arguably, for a while now you and I have simply been lucky enough to exploit a process with lower costs to us because of lax monitoring. At least, up till now. Yeah, we’ve been stealing. Face it. Perhaps lax monitoring will continue for some of us, while others may see more monitoring come out of their respective gov’t run mail orgs.



For the U.S.

-Today… straight from USPS website:


-USPS Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail was updated December 2012. The following link gets you to that publication in all its 398 pages of glory. Obviously, it’s informative.



-USDOT put out this little flier – note that hazmat is ok to ship as long as mailers adhere to DOT’s indentified safe ways of packaging and shipping them – the system of visual hazard communication involves labels, markings, placards, shipping papers that will let everyone in the transport process know what it is and will enable them to use this visual communication quickly to limit damage and protect lives. This is consistent with the international community (i.e. think 'United Nations').


I’m not certain but I would not be surprised if most other countries are the same or quite similar. I will be saying this alot I think.

- - - Updated - - -

So… why is this all happening now?

Well, I don’t think it is all just happening now. At least not in the U.S. In the U.S., perfume has ‘always’ been known as a hazardous material (‘hazmat’ in the U.S. is known as ‘dangerous goods’ internationally). I’m sure we all know that perfume is mostly ethanol, a flammable liquid, with a flashpoint of around 70F. With the advent of the internet and the boom of online transactions, there has been a huge increase in the number of people sending more and more parcels through the mails. In the U.S. the USPS puts the onus on the mailer to be truthful and knowledgeable about what they’re mailing. Just because you do not hear “Does this parcel contain anything fragile, liquid, perishable,or potentially hazardous?”, does not mean you’ve effectively been given a discount to use the mails to ship hazmat at non-hazmat prices. So, for those in the U.S. that have been truthful all along, well nothing has changed. NADA. Five years ago when you declared to the postmaster that you had perfume to send cross country via air OR overseas or Canada or Mexico, you would’ve/should’ve been told that the USPS cannot help you. You would’ve/should’ve been told that it can be shipped ground only to its U.S. destination but that transport (air or ground, no matter) of perfume internationally was prohibited. That hasn’t changed.

I’m not certain but I would not be surprised if most other countries were the same or quite similar in this regard, both back then as well as today.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thought: Do a Search: “shipping perfume internationally” for past threads on the shipping issue… you’ll see that this has been talked about here at BN for years.
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/250...lly-is-illegal
from 2010
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/209...ipping-Perfume
from April, 2008
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/262...-to-Australia-!
from Oct, 2010
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/203...(USA-shipping)
from Dec, 2007
and so on and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

So, why is there a perceived change all the sudden? In general, standard rules have recently changed for treatment of lithium batteries and a few other items unrelated to perfume. Memos and rule updates ensued. Also, through the continued efforts of international orgs to ensure that dangerous goods are properly handled, I believe that more pressure is being put upon those mail carrying orgs that do not offer such international transport services for dangerous materials. More pressure to step up their monitoring to ensure that these dangerous goods and dangerous materials (e.g. bombs) do not find their way into the mail stream for rational reasons of security and safety. The international effort involves standard labels, markings, placards, shipping papers, etc., that lets everyone in the transport process know what it is. This will enable those folks to readily identify the package contents in a quick and visual manner if/when they should have to deal with an accident in order to limit damages and protect lives, including their own. I don’t know about you guys, but this doesn’t sound diabolical to me. This is common sense.

- - - Updated - - -

So who are these international ‘agitators’? If you're patient enough with my cut/pastes from the respective sites, I think you’ll soon get a feel for the interwoven and unified international collaboration regarding safety/security efforts as they relate to air transport.

- - - Updated - - -

ICAO refers to the International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO biannually publishes the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, which specifies the procedures for shipping hazardous materials via air transportation and is recognized by USDOT (in 49 CFR 171.11). ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations and was created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection. The organization serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 191 Member States. The broad principles governing the international transport of dangerous goods by air are contained in Annex 18 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation —The Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The Technical Instructions amplify the basic provisions of Annex 18 and contain all the detailed instructions necessary for the safe international transport of dangerous goods by air. Dangerous goods can be carried safely by air transport providing certain principles are adopted. These principles have been used in developing the Technical Instructions. They are intended to facilitate transport while providing a level of safety such that dangerous goods can be carried without placing an aircraft or its occupants at risk, providing all the requirements are fulfilled. They try to ensure that should an incident occur it cannot lead to an accident. Annex 18 deals with the "Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air". In general it sets down broad principles but one of the Standards requires that dangerous goods are carried in accordance with the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (the “Technical Instructions”). States are required by Annex 18 to have inspection and enforcement procedures to ensure that dangerous goods are being carried in compliance with the requirements. In a nutshell, dangerous goods are carried regularly and routinely by air all over the world. To ensure that they do not put an aircraft and its occupants at risk, there are international Standards that each State, under the provisions of the Chicago Convention, is required to introduce into national legislation. This system ensures governmental control over the carriage of dangerous goods by air and gives worldwide harmonization of safety standards. Contact info: Dr. Katherine Rooney, Chief, Dangerous Goods Section, E-mail: dgs@icao.int . Just remember though… ICAO has no direct authority over and does not tell the USPS how to run its business. If USPS does not wish to offer international shipping services for hazmat/dangerous materials, that’s its call. Required training, compliance, audits, etc., cost real resources that USPS has already decided can be put to better use.

- - - Updated - - -

ICAO (cont.)From its latest Annual Report… As the report shows, the global accident rate, while remarkably low at four accidents per million departures, has remained constant over the past several years. The report emphasizes ICAO’s strategy to reduce the accident rate through greater coordination and harmonization of multiple safety programmes, in a synchronized and systemic manner. This proactive approach relies on new analytic capabilities to prioritize existing and emerging safety issues, and to better target mitigation and enhancement resources to areas with the highest risk. Global air transport is arguably as safe and secure as it has ever been. ICAO remains vigilant and attuned to evolving issues and trends. We are increasingly proactive, while demonstrating the required flexibility to react quickly and assuredly when necessary. Overall, our programmes and activities remain aligned with our three Strategic Objectives: safety, security, and environmental protection and the sustainable development of air transport. In safety, these include: the growing demand for ICAO’s assistance in transition and reconstruction after conflict or crisis; the growing awareness of the human factors aspects of increased automation on the flight deck; the entry of remotely piloted aircraft into non-segregated airspace; harmonization of ICAO’s safety monitoring framework with those of States and international organizations; and the expansion of the transport of dangerous goods by air.

- - - Updated - - -

ICAO (cont.)
Dangerous Goods Programme -- A dangerous goods training course on Volume 1 of the Dangerous Goods Training Manual — Using the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (Doc 9375) was provided at ICAO Headquarters and in various States. The course is directed towards safety inspectors responsible for dangerous goods, yet benefits anyone with a need for knowledge of the detailed provisions in the Technical Instructions. An agreement signed with the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA) established an ICAO/FIATA Dangerous Goods by Air Strengthening and harmonizing security approaches. A wide range of developments in the regulatory field contributed to the strengthening of the security framework and the harmonization of approaches to aviation security by States, ICAO and other stakeholders, as highlighted below. Amendment 12 to Annex 17 — Security, which became applicable in July, included new and strengthened aviation security provisions, including more stringent air cargo security measures and a requirement to apply screening and other security controls to persons other than passengers. The amendment emphasized the need for States to implement security measures in line with a risk-based approach. During its 22nd meeting in Montréal in March, the Aviation Security Panel
considered ways of enhancing the global aviation security policy framework in light of the continuing threat to civil aviation and established new working groups to focus on air cargo security and the issue of mandatory staff screening. A revamped edition of the Aviation Security Manual (Doc 8973, Restricted), formerly titled the Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference, was disseminated to better assist States in implementing Annex 17 provisions, including those introduced by Amendment 12. The eighth edition consolidates the five volumes of the previous edition into a single comprehensive document, improving usability and effectiveness. Among other things, it provides aviation security authorities with enhanced guidance on cargo supply chain security, human factors and one-stop security arrangements. In light of the ever-changing threat and the need for States to implement measures based on risk assessment, ICAO started developing a new risk assessment tool known as the Risk Context Statement. The living document will provide States with a more accurate description of the threat and risk environment as well as a methodology for preparing their own national risk assessments. As a result of concerns raised by States with regard to the Annex 17 Standard requiring the screening of persons other than passengers, a working group of the Aviation Security Panel agreed in June on alternative amendments to be considered by the Panel in 2012. In a related development, a definition for the sensitive areas of an airport requiring such screening was developed, as well as guidance material for implementing relevant measures. ICAO and the World Customs Organization (WCO) strengthened cooperation in order to address threats to global air cargo security and improve cargo facilitation. In June, the two organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding that calls for harmonized development of ICAO and WCO policies, Standards and guidance material for air cargo security, while considering contributions from partners such as the Global Express Association (GEA), Universal Postal Union (UPU), and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). As part of the effort to enhance guidance to States on strengthening cargo security, ICAO began developing a high-risk cargo concept. States were also urged to develop supply chain security programmes that distinguish between high-risk cargo and conventional shipments, and to implement appropriate methods to screen high-risk cargo. ICAO adopted a leadership role in the development of a blueprint for a future passenger screening checkpoint and enhanced processes that will achieve security objectives while minimizing the impact on operations. Working with the newly established Technical Advisory Group on Next Generation Screening (TAG/NGen), the Secretariat is coordinating global efforts to define concepts for screening checkpoints of the future in collaboration with State and industry partners. The first meeting of the TAG/NGen convened in Paris in December. A study group met in December to consider guidance on the harmonized implementation of screening technologies for the detection of explosives in liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs). It developed general principles for ensuring a harmonized approach to LAGs and recommended that a list of mutually recognized minimum requirements for the screening of LAGs be developed and maintained by States and industry stakeholders. Membership of the AVSEC Point of Contact (PoC) Network expanded to 183 States and two Special Administrative Regions (SARs), up from a total of 172 in 2010. A system test of the communications network, used to transmit information on imminent threats as well as guidelines on countermeasures, was conducted in June and confirmed its efficiency and effectiveness.

IATA refers to the International Air Transportation Association. IATA annually publishes the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, which provides procedures for shippers to prepare hazardous materials for safe transport by air via commercial air transportation. The IATA regulations contain all of the ICAO Technical Instructions as well as some more restrictive requirements that reflect air transport industry standard practices or operational considerations. It’s available on their site for about $300 and they call it the industry standard for shipping dangerous goods internationally by air. IATA is the trade association for the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic. They support many areas of aviation activity and help formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues. Vision: To be the force for value creation and innovation driving a safe, secure and profitable air transport industry that sustainably connects and enriches our world. Mission: IATA’s mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline industry. They improve understanding of the air transport industry among decision makers and increase awareness of the benefits that aviation brings to national and global economies. Advocating for the interests of airlines across the globe, they challenge unreasonable rules and charges, hold regulators and governments to account, and strive for sensible regulation. For nearly 70 years, they have developed global commercial standards upon which the air transport industry is built. They aim to assist airlines by simplifying processes and increasing passenger convenience while reducing costs and improving efficiency. They help airlines to operate safely, securely, efficiently, and economically under clearly defined rules.

I’d think they’d be one of the organizations to contact should a BNr really wish to put forth exactly how and why these recently perceived developments are unfair and should be reconsidered. Afterall, part of its mission is to challenge unreasonable rules. Whether they’d consider a BNr a stakeholder is another questionable though.

- - - Updated - - -

FIATA, in French "Fédération Internationale des Associations de Transitaires et Assimilés", in English "International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations", in German "Internationale Föderation der Spediteurorganisationen", was founded in Vienna/Austria on May 31, 1926.

FIATA, a non-governmental organisation, represents today an industry covering approximately 40,000 forwarding and logistics firms, also known as the "Architects of Transport", employing around 8 - 10 million people in 150 countries.

FIATA has consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations (inter alia ECE, ESCAP, ESCWA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

It is recognised as representing the freight forwarding industry by many other governmental organisations, governmental authorities, private international organisations in the field of transport such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Union of Railways (UIC), the International Road Transport Union (IRU), the World Customs Organization (WCO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc.

In summary FIATA is the largest non-governmental organisation in the field of transportation. Its influence is worldwide. FIATA's main objectives are: to unite the freight forwarding industry worldwide to represent, promote and protect the interests of the industry by participating as advisors or experts in meetings of international bodies dealing with transportation to familiarise trade and industry and the public at large with the services rendered by freight forwarders through the dissemination of information, distribution of publications, etc. to improve the quality of services rendered by freight forwarders by developing and promoting uniform forwarding documents, standard trading conditions, etc. to assist with vocational training for freight forwarders, liability insurance problems, tools for electronic commerce including electronic data interchange (EDI) and barcode.

Enough with the international players. It should be obvious that there is a push for standardization and harmonization in order to enhance security and safety as it relates to air transport of hazmat/dangerous goods.

The system is loose. There are gaping holes... we know them. Some of us, myself included have helped create them. When I go to the USPS and just say "NO" (per above) they don't label that package of flammable liquid properly. It gets sorted with like packages, finds its way to the airport and is put aboard a FedEx, UPS or other private carrier that has contracted out with the USPS (yeah that's right, the USPS contracts most if not all of this out). There are two good reasons why this looseness is unsustainable and will change. (1) Cargo plane accidents are not unheard of [ http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?page_id=3259 ] and there have been at least a couple within the last few years presumably caused by fires in the cargo hold ignited by lithium batteries. The lithium batteries were obviously properly declared, and the carrier had to report as much to the country of incident. Were there any mis-labelled parcels containing perfume? Did they ignite? If so, would they have been stored in the same area and ignited if properly labelled? If the air transporters are going to be held accountable for these mishaps, which they obviously should, they will justifiably continue to fight to close the "just say NO" loopholes within the system. (2) Bombs sent through the mail system are not unheard of [ Oct 2010; 1 on FedEx cargo jet, 1 on UPS, both originating from Yemen ] and there is a continued drive for greater inspection of packages before departure and upon arrival for the obvious national security and transport personnel safety reasons. We've already seen BN'r accounts of thier "just say NO" mis-labelled parcels getting caught up either by customs or the ultimate air transport carrier. This net is just going to get tighter, as it should.

The system has been loose and the USPS (RM, etc.) have, more or less, been asked to do what it can to tighten things up. For now, a reminder campaign is what we're seeing. However, if it remains loose, what next? Perhaps requiring items to be packed in front of a postclerk?

- - - Updated - - -

Aside:
After poking around a few aviation forums, it appears that most jets that reach relevant altitude keep the passenger cabin and cargo hold areas at the same pressure; Bad things tend to happen when, for instance, cargo doors fail and the cargo hold looses pressure. Also, it appears that temperation in the cargo hold is kept at, or close to, that of the cabin. Both holds true for either passenger flights or freight flights. Hence, it would seem that pressurization issues don't normally exist and are likely not the reason for damaged bottles.

If anyone knows differently, I'm all ears.

It did sound a little condescending. Sorry folks. Not my intent. There does seem to be so much misinformation being bandied about on this topic, though. Hopefully we agree that perceived or real changes in the enforcement of rules does not necessarily mean that the rules themselves have changed.

On other threads it was made out that U.S. regs had changed. As should be clear now, they certainly have not changed with respect to transporting hazmat/flammable liquids/perfume. In the states we have the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, legislated in 1960, which defines what hazmat is and how it may be acceptably transported. Enforcement over carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.) is shared by various agencies mostly under the Department of Transportation. Proper labeling seems a key criteria. Neither the USPS, UPS or FedEx have changed their rules regarding offered transport of truthfully declared perfume. By its rules…USPS will only ship it domestically using ground and will label it accordingly to its category 3 hazmat requirements; air is prohibited; international is prohibited. These rules have not changed. Private carriers can and do offer ground, air, and/or international transport of it and will label it accordingly.

I (wrongly?) assumed the UK and most other countries represented by BNrs had similar legislation in effect regarding the transport of dangerous goods with proper labeling being a key criteria as well and that those regs and gov’t carrier policy & procedure had not changed or had not changed as drastically as some of the posts were making it out to be. So, in other words, was it a change in rules or simply a change in enforcement?

Please help me understand. Are UK and others who have and are pro-actively declaring the parcels as perfume experiencing any difference in the services offered and/or in the success of their shipments? After re-viewing the posts from other similar threads, it seems that many of us are simply now seeing the consequences of not declaring perfume as the material shipped (aka the “just say NO” approach from a few posts above).

If this all boils down to a RM royal phuck up... meaning: if they are the only carrier (gov’t or private anywhere) that has changed its rules recently AND it’s not the case of stepped up enforcement of what’s already on the books, then I stand by my first few words of my OP. If this is the case, in my opinion it is naive, ignorant, and plain irresponsible to start threads or add to them claiming such global changes and conspiracy. Eh, maybe these words are too harsh. In any event, I’m just trying to put a fine point on the issue and perhaps provide a little clarity in my own way.

I'm familiar with the UN and as of late with its appendage UPU (Universal Postal Union). To be blunt, I don't agree with assertions made here or in other threads that the UPU has instituted rules prohibiting the domestic ground or domestic air transport of dangerous goods/flammable liquid/perfume that are now binding upon it's members (effectively all UN members). If you can, please provide a cite. It is a diplomatic functionary and does not have the authority, real or imagined, to usurp that of the USDOT, impose stricter requirements than those laid out in the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, or have any say whatsoever as to how the USPS operates its business. In this, I am rather certain.

The US representative to the UPU as well as representatives from the other member States convene and work towards standards and harmonization that effectively and efficiently allow all postal sectors to work with each other in order to promote and maintain the international mail. The UPU has no business, nor has it shown an inclination to, meddle in the affairs of any one or group of member States' domestic postal services. It is not what they are about.

===
update:

I jumped to conclusions you were referring to UPU when you mentioned the UN. The other and perhaps more relevant UN specialized agency in this context would be the ACIO (see OP). As noted, ACIO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air are formally recognized by USDOT, the inference being they are adopted through the administrative law process. However, and again, these do not relate to whether a carrier (gov’t or private) can offer domestic or international air transport services of the dangerous goods, rather they are about the safe and secure handling of dangerous goods when air transport is used.

Yes, I've seen that.

Can you narrow your cite down a bit? <chuckle>

I take issue with posts that confuse fact with speculation and conjecture. Yours are know for just that. When dealing with subject matter like this, the community is best served with sticking to the facts. If you've got an opinion, offer it up as just that. It makes for lively discussion if you can back it up good logic and reasoning. You're right, that is my attitude. If you've got a problem with it, I really don't care.

If you care to stick to the facts and further explore and discuss the reasons behind some of the rule or enforcement changes we've seen, I'd like to see you add to this thread. But please don't blow the issue out of proportion like you've done elsewhere. This is not some grand conspiracy originating with the UPU/UN. Perfume has not, just now, been deemed as hazmat either. It has been the case for decades in the US and I would bet the same in most developed countries.

david... I mostly like your posts. Seriously. It seems you are very passionate about perfume/cologne. That is admirable. In fact, I think I owe you a beer for your words about Les Copains Homme and specifically how you’d tied it to Yatagan. I found a bottle and it's great. I might just owe you 2 beers because I went back and got another. If you’re ever in Chicago, let me know


That’s exactly the issue david. I’m not into ad-hominen attacks, but I do take umbrage with some of your posts on this subject. If you want credibility from me as well as others (I’m quite sure) on this issue, I strongly suggest you edit or delete your posts #33 and #64 in mr. dampier’s thread entitled “USPS' Perfume Crackdown March 1; No Air/Priority Shipments” in the male fragrance forum http://www.basenotes.net/threads/324...rity-Shipments . As they read now:




What we know:

1. There has been no documented ban on perfume transport, either globally or at any national level.

2. Aside from UK’s Royal Mail, it appears that no gov’t or private carrier has made any recent rule changes affecting the transport of perfume.

3. The recent RM documented changes are actually an easing of restrictions with respect to perfume transport. Now, a properly registered business can transport perfume domestically provided restrictions are met. In July, this additional freedom will be extended to the personal class. Neither class could, can, or will be allowed to transport internationally though.

4. Rules of some gov’t carriers (e.g. CanadaPost, AusPost,) have not and do not allow for the domestic or international transport of perfume.

5. In some countries, gov’t carriers appear to be administering a reminder campaign that perfume is a hazardous material / dangerous good and, as such, is either non-mailable or can be mailed with restrictions (e.g. ground only).

6. For the most part, the reminder campaigns noted above are typically relegated to the postal clerk asking “Does this parcel contain anything fragile, liquid, perishable, or potentially hazardous?”, or similar, and posters on the walls, etc.

7. We, in the BN community, have yet to identify and pinpoint any credible, publicly accessible, documentary support indicating exactly why the RM changed its rules.

8. We, in the BN community, have yet to identify and pinpoint any credible, publicly accessible, documentary support indicating why some gov’t carriers appear to be administering a reminder campaign as to the mailability of hazardous materials / dangerous goods.

9. Most countries have hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation.

10. Some country’s hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation expressly adopt or assimilate international hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, and/or UN model regulations into their own national regulations.

11. Perfume is typically categorized under hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation as a flammable liquid (i.e. category 3).

12. Perfume is mostly ethanol.

13. Ethanol has a flashpoint of around 70F.

14. We’ve yet to come across any recent documented national hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation amendments affecting either the categorization or transport of perfume.

15. We’ve yet to come across any recent documented international hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, or model UN regulation showing amendments affecting either the categorization or transport of perfume.

16. We’ve yet to hear any instances where BNrs have had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were being followed.

17. We’ve heard plenty of instances where BNrs have had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were not being followed.

18. Confiscations, etc. do not appear to be a new development, however, apparently it may be occurring more frequently within some nations or at some national borders.

19. We’ve heard plenty of instances where BNrs have not had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were not being followed.

20. Just because gov’t carriers’ rules expressly prohibit or restrict the domestic or international transport of perfume, that does not mean that private carriers are prohibited or restricted from offering those transport services.

21. Private carrier rates for domestic and/or international perfume transport tend to be greater, and oftentimes much greater than the rates charged by gov’t carriers for similar sized parcels of non-hazardous materials / non-dangerous goods.

22. There is recent readily available documented national hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation amendments affecting the transport of lithium ion batteries.

23. There is recent readily available documented international hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, or model UN regulation showing amendments affecting the transport of lithium ion batteries.

24. There have been at least two documented and relatively recent occurrences where bombs were found in the international mail-stream.

25. Most (All?) gov’t and private carriers put the onus on the mailer to accurately declare the contents of packages the mailer puts into or attempts to put into the mail-stream.

26. Most gov’t carriers put the onus on the mailer to understand and abide by its rules.

27. Mailers that are ignorant of gov’t carrier rules and/or inaccurately declare the contents of packages put into the mail-stream are subject to loss of property, fines, prison time... whether because gov’t carrier rules or national/international hazardous materials/dangerous goods regulations were violated.

28. As a service to BNrs of all experience, it is probably more helpful to have an unemotional, factual account of this broad issue available in these forums. As adults, we can then make our own informed decisions about how best to transport our perfumes.


There are a few of us here that, for whatever reasons, feel compelled to dig a little deeper with this issue in order to pass along good and useful information. If anyone sees any errors in any of the above points, please air it out, let's discuss, and I'll make the changes to the list.

I’m not out to prove anybody right or wrong or make anyone look bad. I just want accuracy for the benefit of the BN community. And… for the sake of the seriousness of this subject matter, I ask that emotional out pouring or rants be saved for a different thread. Please contribute if you can.

- - - Updated - - -

just to make it clear re USPS, I'm adding...

29. The USPS has not changed any of its rules affecting the transport of perfume. Per its rules, perfume is a hazardous material that is prohibited from domestic air and international transport; ground transport is permissible if it is accurately declared as perfume and its hazardous materials rules are followed.

For those still tuned in...

There are 2 great articles (pp. 9 & 13) perhaps explaining alot of what we're seeing/hearing as of late: http://news.upu.int/uploads/media/un..._2_2012_en.pdf

The mentioned UPU security chain standards were apparently both approved at its Oct2012 Doha Congress. As of yet, I've not been able to find any documentation trail referencing the UPU security chain standards to the ICAO, IATA, our goverment regs, or postal regs. It's odd to me that there is no apparent formal tract. I've got some queries outstanding, maybe they'll shed more light.

^ Yeah, it could be like Midnight Express where the protagonist sends some perfume through USPS air because he did not truthfully declare it as such. It accelerates a fire in the cargo hold caused by some spontaneously combustible lithium-ion batteries. Most of the crew perish, but one grabs the last remaining bits of the package the protagonist sent before parachuting to safety. The flamming wreckage falls on an orphanage. His return address is clearly visible. He's sentenced to life in guatonimo... Until he head-butts a corrupt guard then swims off to the Cayman Islands where he works his way up from a conch fisherman, to scuba instructor, to owning a Creed Boutique in Georgetown. He makes money hand over fist selling at exorbitant prices to the Cruise sect. Having changed his name to Count Montecristo, he returns to the US and convinces the gov't to sell him the USPS because it is not making nearly as much money as it could if it had only allowed perfume to be transported as a non-hazardous material. He then allows all mailers to use his Count Montecristo's Postal Service to transport perfume and other legislated hazardous substances as if they were not, in fact, hazardous. And he, (a) lives happily ever after, (b) is thrown back in jail for willfully violating the hazardous materials act, or (c) he is elected prez because he give the people what they truly want. Hey, aren't alternative endings en vogue?