{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0085","title":"Safecraft Fire Protection Systems — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-04-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0085 response to Safecraft Fire Protection Systems concerning 173.309.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0085.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0085.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0085","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000085.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMAY - 4 20CO\nMr. Donald E. Warren\nRef. No. 00-0085\nVice President Engineering\nSafecraft Fire Protection Systems\n2708 Teagarden St.\nSan Leandro, CA 94577\nDear Mr. Warren:\nThis is in response to your letter dated March 22, 2000, regarding the applicability of the\nrequirements contained in 49 CFR 173.309(a) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\nCFR Parts 171-180) to your non-DOT specification fire extinguishers. Specifically, you request\nclarification on the requirements for the manufacture and transportation of small fire\nextinguishers containing liquefied compressed gases.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1\nIs it true that a non-DOT specification cylinder that is used as a fire extinguisher and\ncontains an extinguishing agent; such as Halon 1211 and Halon 1301, may have a\nvolumetric capacity of no larger than 900 ml?\nAl. The answer is yes. See § 173.309 (a)(3)(i).\nQ2.\nIf a manufacturer states that a cylinder is \"approved\" by Underwriters Laboratories\n(UL/UL.C), can it be assumed that it is a non-DOT specification cylinder and is subject to\nthe 900 ml maximum capacity?\nA2.\nThe answer is yes, if the cylinder is not marked as conforming to an applicable\nspecification prescribed in part 178 of the HMR. A non-DOT specification cylinder usec\nas a fire extinguisher must fully conform to the requirement prescribed in $173.309(a)\nand to the general packaging requirements prescribed in § 173.24. The extinguishing\nagent must conform to the criteria in Special Provision 18 of § 172.102.\nQ3.\nIs it correct that a cylinder that is not marked or stamped with the applicable markings\n(i.e., DOT XX-XXX or DOT E-XXXX) would be classified as a non-DOT specification\ncylinder? Would this also include foreign-made cylinders, either unmarked/unidentified\nor with manufacturers information?\nA3.\nThe answer is yes. See A2 above.\nQ4.\nIf a fire extinguisher has an adhesive label that states, for example, \"MEETS DOT\nREQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM CYLINDERS\", does this in anyway override the\n900 ml capacity limit?\n- 000085\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA4.\nThe an not rie use The require is parion a nadation to cylinder this vorainer\n\"MEETS DOT REQUIREMENTS\". See § 173.309(a)(3)(iii).\nQs.\nDoes § 173.309 (a) provide for the use of a non-DOT specification cylinder with a\ncapacity greater than 900 ml as a fire extinguisher if it will contain a liquefied compressed\nA5.\nThe answer is no. However, you may submit an application for exemption in accordance\nwith the procedures contained in §107.105. Your application must contain sufficient\ninformation to demonstrate that, if an exemption is issued, an equivalent level of safety\nwill be achieved that is at least equal to that required by the regulations.\nQ6.\nUnder § 173.309 (b), several DOT specification cylinders commonly used for fire\nextinguishers are absent from the list. For example, 4DS, 4D, welded steel cylinders\nwhich are used and shipped for aircraft fire protection, and DOT 39 cylinders which are\ncommonly used for portable extinguishers. İs it correct that these cylinders are not limited\nto the 241 psig at 70 °F and 900 ml limitations as discussed above?\nA6.\nThe answer is yes. The quantity limitation prescribed in § 173.306(a) is applicable only to\nnon-DOT specification cylinders. However, those cylinders referenced in your example are\nnot authorized for shipment under § 173.309. When filled with a liquefied compressed gas,\nthe cylinders must be shipped in accordance with\n§ 173.304.\nQ7.\nAre there any other requirements that specifically relate to the manufacture of non- DOT\nspecification cylinders?\nA7.\nDOT has no requirements on the manufacture of non-DOT specification cylinders used as\nfire extinguishers, other than as noted in §§ 173.24 and 173.309 (a). I suggest that you\ncontact the National Fire Protection Association for any industry standards that may be\napplicable to fire extinguishers.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nThathe s mothell\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n03/23/2000 17:00\n5102976932\nSAFECRAFT.\nBetts\nSAFECRAFT\n$173.309\nBAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS\n22 March 200(\n20~0085\nsheet 1 / 2\nf. firex RSPA\nFAX MSG 202/365-3012\nEdward T.Maazzullo, Director\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards, DHM-10\nU.S.Department of Transportation\nwashington, DC 20590-0001\n400 7th St. Sw\nRe:\n49 CFR $ 173.309 Fire extinguishers.\nDear Sir:\nWe are requesting clarification as to specific application\nof the subject DOT CFR in regards to shipping (and manufacturing)\not small tire extinguishers. We will limit our discussion to\nthose designs that\nonly use liquifiad compressed gas\nextinguishing agents. These agents are of the familiar type as\nfollows :\nHalon 1301, bromotrifluoromethane, CBrEg\nHalon 1211, bromochlorodifluoromethane, CHICIF2\nEM 200™M, 1,1,1,2,3, 3, 3-heptafluoropropane, CF3CHECF3\nFE-13,\nFE-25, FE-36, FE-241, (DuPont Agents)\nare of the (liguified) compressed gas definition. i.e.\nnot water based or dry chemical.\nThere seems to be a lot of confusion in the industry about\nshipping of these fire extinguishing agents within a variety of\nnonspecification\ncylinders. Our questions relate to $ 173.309\nFire extinguishers, unless otherwise noted.\n.. Is it true that an extinguisher that uses a nonspecification\njes\ncylinder pressurized with any of the compressed gas agents above\ncan be NO LARGER THAN 900ml.?\n2. If a manufacturer claims that their cylinder is \"approved\" by\nUnderwriters Laboratories (UL/ULC), does this still mean that 1t\nis a NONSPECIFICATION cylinder and is subtect to the 900ml\nmaximum capacity ?\nyes\n3. Is it correct that any cylinder that is NOT marked or stamped\nwith designation DOT XX-XXX or DOT E-XXXX would be classified as\nSee: 173247\na NONSPECIFICATION cylinder 2 Would this include foreign (made)\ncylinders, either unmarked/unidentified or with manufacturers\ninformation ?\n2708 Teagarden St. San Leandro CA 94577 Ph: 800-400-2259 Fx: 510-297-6932\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n03/23/2000\n17:00\n5102976932\nSAFECRAFT\nPAGE 02\n22 March 2000\nsheet 2 / 2\nI. firex RSPA\nNo.\nexample,\n4. If a fire extinguisher has an adhesive label tratestates s07\nanyway override the 900m1 capacity limit?\nREQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM CYLINDERS\",\n5. Within\npressure 11mit of 24ipsig @ 70°F, there are several references to\nthe first paragraph of S173.309 (a) after charge\nNo.\nconditions and exceptions.\nanything that we may have missed that allows transportation of a\nin parts 172, 174 and 177. Is there\nfire extinguisher using liquified agents in nonspecification\ncylinders greater than 900ml ?\nLimitat. 6, Inder S173.309 (b) there are several DOT specification\ncylinders commonly used for fire extinguishers absent from this\nof apple list. Examples are 4DS, 4D, ADA welded steel cylinders used and\nto nonse Shipped for aircraft fire protection, and DOT 39 commonly used\ncylinders are limited to the 24lpsig and 900ml rules as discussed\ntor portable extinguishers. Is it correct that none of these\nspecifically relate to the manufacture of NONSPECIFICATION\n7. Are there any 49 CFR parts or other DOT requirements that\ncylinders ?\nclarification. If you need discussion with me, please call on\nWe hope that we are reasonably clear in our request foI\n510/297-6931.\nSincerely","truncated":false,"body_characters":7453}