Notice2024-12395
Hazardous Materials: Request for Feedback on Tare Weight Marking Policy for Cylinders
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 6, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Abstract
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is publishing this notice to solicit information pertaining to the current tare weight, mass weight, and water capacity marking requirements for compressed gas cylinders.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 110 (Thursday, June 6, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48482-48484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12395]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2023-0130 (Notice No. 2024-06)]
Hazardous Materials: Request for Feedback on Tare Weight Marking
Policy for Cylinders
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is publishing this notice to solicit information pertaining to
the current tare weight, mass weight, and water capacity marking
requirements for compressed gas cylinders.
DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on or before
September 4, 2024. Comments received after that date will be considered
to the extent possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2023-0130 by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
<bullet> Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: Docket Management System; Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2023-0130) for this notice. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will
be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
and will include any personal information you provide.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> or the Department
of Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at <a href="http://www.dot.gov/privacy">http://www.dot.gov/privacy</a>.
Confidential Business Information (CBI): CBI is commercial or
financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as
private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5
U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as ``CBI.''
Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.''
Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven Andrews, Standards
and Rulemaking Division, 202-366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Noah Jacobson by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f01000e0741050e0c000d1c00012f0b001b41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8b6b7b9b0f6b2b9bbb7baabb7b698bcb7acf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>, or Steven Andrews by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f4c4b5a495a51115e515b4d5a484c7f5b504b11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acdfd8c9dac9c282cdc2c8dec9dbdfecc8c3d882cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a> or by phone at 202-366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit input pertaining to the
current tare weight marking requirements in the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180)--specifically, Sec.
178.35(f)(8)--regarding DOT specification 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E
cylinders used in liquefied compressed gas service to determine what,
if any, effect they may have on the safe transportation of hazardous
materials.
II. Background
On May 1, 2009, the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) petitioned (P-
1540 \1\) PHMSA to revise Sec. 178.35(f) to require DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW,
and 4E cylinders be marked with the tare weight or mass weight, and
water capacity. Tare weight is the weight of the fully assembled
cylinder, including the valve(s) and other permanently affixed
appurtenances; mass weight is the weight of the fully assembled
cylinder, excluding valve(s) and removable protective cap(s) or
cover(s); and water capacity is the total volume of water the cylinder
is capable of holding. The purpose of marking these measurements on the
cylinder is to ensure that cylinders filled by weight, a method
primarily used for liquefied gases like propane, are filled with the
correct amount of material. The HMR requires that, for liquefied gases,
the content of the cylinder be checked after filling by an ``accurate
scale''--see Sec. 173.304a(c)--to avoid overfilling cylinders, which
can cause cylinder rupture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P-1540--CGA (PHMSA-2009-0146), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/PHMSA-2009-0146">https://www.regulations.gov/document/PHMSA-2009-0146</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CGA's petition requested that the markings be permitted to vary
from the actual tare weight, mass weight, and water capacity of the
cylinder to account for the accuracy of the stamped weight during
manufacture. Specifically, the CGA's petition requested that for
cylinders up to and including 25 pounds, the tare weight/mass weight
marking be allowed a lower tolerance of three (3) percent and an upper
tolerance of one (1) percent, while the tare weight/mass weight marking
for cylinders larger than 25 pounds be allowed a lower tolerance of two
(2) percent and an upper tolerance of one (1) percent. Similarly, the
CGA's petition requested that water capacity tolerances for cylinders
up to and including 25 pounds of -1 percent with no requirement for an
upper tolerance, and for cylinders larger than 25 pounds of minus -0.5
percent with no requirement for an upper tolerance. In
[[Page 48483]]
practice, a three (3) percent tolerance in the lower bound equates to
approximately 0.5 pound for typical consumer-sized propane cylinders
with average stamped/stenciled tare weights between 16.6 pounds and 18
pounds (i.e., a cylinder with a true tare weight of 17 pounds could be
marked as low as 16.5 pounds).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Calculation: 17 * .03 = .51. 17-.51 = 16.49 rounded to 16.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CGA's petition was accepted on July 23, 2009, and first
addressed in the HM-234 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
\3\ titled ``Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining
to DOT Specification Cylinders (RRR).'' In the ANPRM, PHMSA solicited
data from the regulated community regarding the costs, benefits, and
implications of the proposed cylinder markings on manufacturers, as
detailed in the CGA's petition. PHMSA also sought data on alternative
strategies to prevent overfilling accidents, as well as the safety
advantages of the proposed markings. The goal of the ANPRM was to
collect industry information to assess whether the proposed enhanced
cylinder markings would offer safety benefits that justify the
potential costs, particularly for small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 77 FR 31551 (May 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the ANPRM, commenters voiced concerns that mandating
both tare weight and mass weight markings could lead to confusion among
cylinder fillers due to potential discrepancies between the
manufactured stamped weights. The commenters suggested that PHMSA
refine the regulatory language to assign the marking of the tare weight
specifically to the valve installer, given that some cylinders are not
valved by the original manufacturer. The commenters also pointed out
the limited space available for additional stamping on some cylinders
that could affect the space for retest information. In summary, the
commenters urged careful consideration of the language to prevent
conflicting stamped weights, and to ensure the party best suited to
mark the tare weight is clearly identified.
PHMSA then published the HM-234 NPRM \4\ titled ``Hazardous
Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT Specification
Cylinders (RRR),'' which proposed to revise Sec. 178.35(f) to require
marking the tare weight or mass weight, in addition to the water
capacity, on DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders. The NPRM proposed to
adopt the accuracy tolerances as presented in CGA's petition. PHMSA
emphasized that while cylinder markings are crucial for safely filling
liquefied compressed gas, they cannot replace comprehensive personnel
training and procedures. These measures, along with ongoing
requalification and maintenance of cylinders, are essential for
preventing incidents. PHMSA subsequently expressed interest in
receiving further comments on the possibility of extending this marking
requirement to other DOT-specification cylinders, and was particularly
interested in understanding the associated costs, benefits, and safety
implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 81 FR 48978 (July 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, PHMSA received comments opposing the
proposed requirement to mark all DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders
with tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity. These commenters
cited concerns about the challenges and costs of implementing the
proposal. In particular, commenters noted that while many DOT 4B, 4BA,
4BW, and 4E cylinders are used for liquefied gases, some are used in
non-liquefied gas services, such as fire extinguishers, and these
markings do not serve a useful purpose for a cylinder filled by
pressure. Other commenters were generally supportive of the proposed
revisions and reflected a range of perspectives on the costs, benefits,
and potential unintended consequences of the proposed marking
requirements. PHMSA received no comments related to existing tare-
weight marking standards for consumer cylinders mandated by states.
PHMSA then published the HM-234 final rule \5\ to revise certain
requirements applicable to the manufacture, use, and requalification of
DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders. Prior to this revision in the HM-
234 final rule, the HMR did not contain any requirement for liquefied
compressed gas cylinders that are filled by weight to be marked with a
tare weight, mass weight, or water capacity. PHMSA determined that
these cylinder measurements are critical for liquefied compressed
gases, which are filled by weight, rather than by pressure. Improperly
filled liquefied gas cylinders (i.e., overfilled cylinders) have
contributed to significant hazardous materials incidents, including the
2014 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, food truck explosion.\6\ The HM-234
final rule revised the NPRM's proposal and imposed the tare weight or
mass weight, and water capacity marking requirements to only apply to
DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders used for liquefied compressed gases,
an adjustment made in response to the comments in the NPRM. PHMSA
received no comments regarding the accuracy tolerances proposed in the
NPRM, and the final rule adopted them as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 85 FR 85380 (Dec. 28, 2020).
\6\ <a href="https://www.nafi.org/blog/propane-safety-investigation-findings-and-lessons-learned-in-the-2014-philadelphia-food-truck-explosion/">https://www.nafi.org/blog/propane-safety-investigation-findings-and-lessons-learned-in-the-2014-philadelphia-food-truck-explosion/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, 2023, PHMSA received a petition for rulemaking (P-
1772) \7\ from the National Council on Weights and Measurements (NCWM)
requesting that PHMSA reconsider the allowable differences on stamped
tare weight verses actual tare weight for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
cylinders. In their petition, NCWM recommends a <plus-minus>0.5 percent
tolerance between actual and marked TW/MW for cylinders weighing 25
pounds or less, with an additional requirement that ``good quality
control practices'' be followed. This tolerance is significantly
tighter than the accuracy tolerances adopted in the HM-234 final rule
(i.e., 6x less variance is permitted in the tare weight/mass weight
marking for a cylinder weighing less than 25 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ P-1772--National Council on Weights and Measurements,
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2023-0008/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2023-0008/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCWM also suggested that the stamped tare weight on ``used''
cylinders be verified periodically to ensure accuracy. Additionally,
the NCWM recommends that the allowable difference between the stamped
tare weight verses the actual tare weight for cylinders more than 25
pounds be reviewed and be based on data. Finally, the NCWM suggests
that the current edition of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 \8\ be incorporated by reference for the
marking and weighing of cylinders to be filled with liquefied petroleum
gas. NCWM also requests that PHMSA add an ``Average Requirement'' to
the tare weight regulations to improve measurement accuracy and
production controls, and to ensure a business is not using the
allowable differences to gain a competitive advantage. The NCWM
proposes the ``average requirement'' to mean ``when used to determine
the net contents of cylinders, the stamped or stenciled tare weights of
cylinders at a single place of business found to be in error
predominantly in a direction favorable to the seller and near the
allowable difference limit shall be considered to be ``not in
conformance with these requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Handbook 44, <a href="https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/nist-handbook-44-current-edition">https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/nist-handbook-44-current-edition</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA requests feedback from the public on the current regulation
as
[[Page 48484]]
adopted in the HM-234 final rule, and on the proposed provisions in the
NCWM petition.
III. PHMSA's Current Tare Weight Marking Requirement for Cylinders
The HMR mandates in Sec. 178.35(f) that DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E
cylinders--used for liquefied compressed gases--be marked with either
tare weight or mass weight, in addition to the water capacity. For
cylinders weighing 25 pounds or less at the time of manufacture, a
variance is permitted with a lower tolerance of three (3) percent and
an upper tolerance of one (1) percent. For cylinders weighing more than
25 pounds at the time of manufacture, a variance is allowed with a
lower tolerance of two (2) percent and an upper tolerance of one (1)
percent. If mass weight marking is chosen over tare weight marking, the
same variance tolerances apply based on whether the manufacturing mass
exceeds or is at or under 25 pounds.
IV. Request for Feedback
PHMSA requests comment on the following questions to better inform
potential regulatory revisions. For all questions, please explain your
answers and provide any economic, technical, or other information
available to you as justification for your response:
1. Do you believe the current language for the marking of DOT
cylinders in Sec. 178.35(f)(8) leads to confusion between marked tare
weight at the time of manufacture and the stamped tare weight for the
filling of cylinders?
2. How should PHMSA revise the requirements in Sec. 178.35(f)(8)
for marking of tare weights on DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders used
in liquefied compressed gas service?
3. What impact would PHMSA incorporating the current edition of
NIST Handbook 44 for scales used to weigh cylinders containing
liquefied compressed gases have on ensuring accurate scales in both
direct sale applications and for prepackaging liquefied compressed gas
cylinders in advance of sale?
4. What would be the impacts of PHMSA adding an ``average
requirement'' to the tare weight regulations in Sec. 178.35(f)(8) to
improve measurement accuracy and production controls, and to ensure a
business is not using the allowable differences to disadvantage
consumers while at the same time maintaining safety compliance?
5. What would be the impacts of PHMSA reconsidering the allowable
differences on stamped tare weight as opposed to actual tare weight and
applying a <plus-minus>0.5 percent tolerance for cylinders 25 pounds or
less? How would PHMSA define a requirement to follow ``good quality
control practices'' as suggested in the NCWM petition?
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2024.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-12395 Filed 6-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 6, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.