{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0202","title":"Safecraft Safety Equipment — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-03-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0202 response to Safecraft Safety Equipment concerning 173.309.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0202.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0202.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0202","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040202.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nMAR\n19. 2005\nAdministration\nMr. Donald E. Warren\nRef. No.: 04-0202\nVP Engineering\nSafecraft Safety Equipment\n5165 C Commercial Circle\nConcord, CA 94520\nDear Mr. Warren:\nThis is in response to your request for a clarification of the requirements in § 173.309(a)\nof the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You state that\nyour company plans to use non-specification stainless steel cylinders as a component in a\nthe delay in responding and any inconvenience it may have caused. Your questions are\nfire suppression syster for installation in vehicles, primarily race cars. We apologize for\nparaphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1.\nThe cylinder will have, at a maximum, a volumetric capacity of 6.1 L (375 cubic\ninches), an operating pressure of 200 psig, a test pressure of 600 psig at 70° F, and\na minimum burst pressure of 1200 psig at 70° F. The extinguishing agent will be\nan approved water-based surfactant and/or foam. The cylinder may be removed\nfrom the vehicle and transported via commercial carrier to a facility for refilling\nand/or retesting. The cylinder will be in compliance with the Department of\nLabor's Occupational and Safety Administration (OSHA) retest requirements in 29\nCFR 1910.157(e). Does the cylinder comply with the requirements in\n§ 173.309(a) of the HMR?\nAl.\nYour cylinder appears to meet the limited quantity requirements contained in\n§ 173.309(a) (3)(1) through (a)(3)(iv). As stated in paragraph (a)(3)(111), a\ncrieder for the tested, eife ion dyin der fail that prior a initial shame, each\ntimes its charged pressured at 21° C (70° F). Each fire extinguisher must be\nmarked with the test date and with the words \"MEETS DOT REQUIREMENTS\"\nBecause your cylinder has a capacity exceeding 900 ml (55 cubic inches), it may\nnot contain any liquefied compressed gas. The extinguishing agent must meet the\nrequirements in Special Provision 18 in § 172.102 of the HMR. Also note that\nOSHA's retest requirements are contained in paragraphs (e) and (f) in 29 CFR\n1910.157.\n173.309\n040202\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2.\nIf the answer to Ql is yes, may we use a cylinder with a capacity of not more than\n18 L (1,100 cubic inches) charged to not more than 1660 kPa (241 psig) at 21°C\n(70 °F)?\nYes, provided the cylinder does not exceed the 18 L (1,100 cubic inches)\nmaximum capacity limitation and is in full conformance with the requirement in\n§ 173.309(a) if the charged cylinder is removed from the vehicle and offered for\ntransportation. Also see §§ 173.24 and 173.29.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nHitle mitche mitchell\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSep 07 04 01:42p\nSAFECRAFT\n9254050311\np. 1\nMitchell\nSAFECRAFT\n$173.309\nSAFETY EQUIPMENTI\nfire Extinguishers\nFax Msg 202/366-3012\nSheet 1 of 1\n04-0202\n18 Aug 2004\nAttn: Ms. Hattie Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention DHM-12\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S.DOT, RSPA\nRe: Request for Confirmation on Requirements of 49 CFR 173.309. Fire Extinguishers\nDear Ms. Mitchell:\nWe request a conformity check for a specific fire extinguisher component we intend to\nmanufacture and ship to our customers. It involves a conventional, pressurized,\nstainless steel cylinder, filled with an approved water-based surfactant and/or foam type\nagent. The application is for vehicle on-board fire suppression systems, primarily race\nconfusion within the industry.\ncars. We believe that para. 173.309 is clear enough, but there still seems to be some\nWe believe our question to be simple enough, so it relates to the largest unit we expect\nto manufacture. Our fundamental question is, \"Does the fire extinguisher described\nbelow, using a nonspecification cylinder, comply with 173.309(a) ?\"\n455\nDESCRIPTION:\n1. Size:\nCylinder internal volume- 375 cu. In. (6.1 liters)\n2. Pressure:\nCharged with nitrogen to 200 psig\n3. Agent:\n4. Test Pressure:\n10 Ibs. (277 cu. In.) 6% concentration wetting / foam agent in water\n600 psig @70 F\n5. Burst Pressure: 1200 psig minimum @ 70 F\n6. Marking:\nAdhesive label (example) PRESSURE TESTED TO 600 PSIG (4240 kPa)\n7. Retest:\nCompliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910. 157(e)\nMEETS DOT REQUIREMENTS\n( 2004]\nComment: We recognize that 173.309(a)(3)(iv) requirements for subsequent\nshipment (e.g., refill) is for \"portable\" extinguishers. Our cylinder is a \"fixed\"\nextinguisher, but we would abide by the retest requirements cited\nIn closing, if the answer to our question is yes, then we could extend our system\ncapability to 1,100 cu.in. capacity cylinders charged to less than 241 psig @ 70 F, using\na water-based agent and non-DOT cylinders.\nSincerely,\nDonald E. Warren, VP Engineering\n5165 C Commercial Circle, Concord, CA 94520 ; 1-800/400-2259, Fax 1-925/405-0311","truncated":false,"body_characters":4913}