Hazardous Materials: The State of Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements, 40128-40129 [2019-17255]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
40128
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Notices
case, the absence of a single indicator
does not significantly affect a person’s
ability to visually inspect a tire and
readily recognize when a significant
portion of the tire’s tread is worn to the
point that a tire should be replaced.’’
In the Cooper decision, it is relevant
to note:
(a) While the Cooper Mickey
Thompson Baja MTZ tires had only one
missing treadwear indicator, the
maximum circumferential space
between the two most distant treadwear
indicators was 120 degrees. NHTSA
determined that this confirmation of
treadwear indicators does not
significantly affect a person’s ability to
inspect a tire. In MNA’s case, the
maximum circumferential space
between the two most distant treadwear
indicators is less, at 90 degrees.
(b) The Cooper petition cites a Grant
of Petition issued to Motor Bikes
Imports, Inc. in 1987 which included a
49 CFR 571.119 S6.4 noncompliance
related to motor bike tires with only l
treadwear indicator. NHTSA’s decision
stated a ‘‘relatively small number of
tires which remain in use nevertheless
bear one treadwear indicator’’
concluding the existence of only a
single treadwear indicator combined
with the relatively low volume of tires
in the market were inconsequential as
they relate to motor vehicle safety.
3. Product Performance & Monitoring:
MNA has no indication through our
customer care network, fleet contacts or
field engineers, of any issues related to
monitoring and measuring of treadwear
on the l6.00R20 XZL tires. The lack of
two treadwear indicators on the tire was
detected in the manufacturing process.
We have no customer complaints or
warranty claims related to the reduced
number of treadwear indicators. The
reduced number of treadwear indicators
has no impact on product performance.
Product performance and customer
satisfaction of the subject tires is
equivalent to tires produced with 6
treadwear indicators. The tires comply
with all safety standards and tire
marking requirements of 49 CFR
571.119.
MNA concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of
MNA’s inconsequential noncompliance
petition and has determined that this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
particular noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
The agency believes that the purpose of
the treadwear indicators is to serve as a
means for a person to visually inspect
and determine if a tire has worn to the
extent of the tread depth, which is 1.6
mm (one-sixteenth of an inch) or less.
After review of the petition, NHTSA
agrees with the petition that this
noncompliance will have no significant
impact on the safety of the vehicles on
which the subject tires are mounted.
The subject tires have four indicators
spaced at 90 degrees around the
circumference of the tread pattern of the
tire. The absence of two indicators does
not significantly affect the end user’s
ability to visually inspect a tire and
recognize when the tire’s tread has been
worn to the point that it needs to be
replaced.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that MNA has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 119 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MNA’s petition is hereby
granted and MNA is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allows NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject tires
that MNA no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their
control after MNA notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8).
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–17339 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2019–0149; PDA–
40(R)]
Hazardous Materials: The State of
Washington Crude Oil By Rail—Vapor
Pressure Requirements
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice, and extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: PHMSA is extending the
period for comments on the State of
North Dakota and the State of Montana’s
application for an administrative
determination as to whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law
preempts the State of Washington’s
rules relating to the volatility of crude
oil received in the state.
DATES: Comments received on or before
September 23, 2019, and rebuttal
comments received on or before October
23, 2019, will be considered before an
administrative determination is issued
by PHMSA’s Chief Counsel. Rebuttal
comments may discuss only those
issues raised by comments received
during the initial comment period and
may not discuss new issues.
ADDRESSES: All documents in this
proceeding, including North Dakota and
Montana’s application and all
comments received, may be reviewed in
the Docket Operations Facility (M–30),
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. All documents
in this proceeding are also available on
the U.S. Government Regulations.gov
website: https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
PHMSA–2019–0149 and may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Operations
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Notices
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
A copy of each comment must also be
sent to (1) Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney
General, The State of North Dakota,
Office of the Attorney General, 600 East
Boulevard Avenue, Department 125,
Bismarck, ND 58505–0040, and (2) Tim
Fox, Attorney General, The State of
Montana, Office of the Attorney
General, Justice Building, Third Floor,
215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 59620–
1401. A certification that a copy has
been sent to these persons must also be
included with the comment. (The
following format is suggested: I certify
that copies of this comment have been
sent to Mr. Stenehjem and Mr. Fox at
the addresses specified in the Federal
Register.’’)
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing a comment
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
A subject matter index of hazardous
materials preemption cases, including a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
listing of all inconsistency rulings and
preemption determinations, is available
through PHMSA’s home page at https://
phmsa.dot.gov. From the home page,
click on ‘‘Regulations and Compliance,’’
then on ‘‘Standards & Rulemaking,’’
then on ‘‘Hazardous Materials Standards
and Rulemaking,’’ then on ‘‘Preemption
Determinations’’ located on the left side
of the page. A paper copy of the index
will be provided at no cost upon request
to Mr. Lopez, at the address and
telephone number set forth in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief Counsel,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone No. 202–366–4400;
Facsimile No. 202–366–7041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State
of North Dakota and the State of
Montana have applied to PHMSA for a
determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law,
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts the
State of Washington’s Engrossed
Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil
By Rail—Vapor Pressure. Specifically,
North Dakota and Montana allege the
law, which purports to regulate the
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
40129
volatility of crude oil transported in
Washington state for loading and
unloading, amounts to a de facto ban on
Bakken 1 crude.
PHMSA published a notice of the
State of North Dakota and the State of
Montana’s application in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2019 (84 FR
35707).2 On July 29, 2019, the State of
Washington asked us for an extension of
time in which to file comments. The
State of Washington believes the
original 30-day comment period is an
inadequate amount of time for it and
other interested parties to thoroughly
and properly comment on the
application.
After review of the State of
Washington’s request, we have granted
its request.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7,
2019.
Paul J. Roberti,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019–17255 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
1 According to the applicants, North Dakota and
Montana are home to the Bakken Shale Formation,
a subsurface formation within the Williston Basin.
It is one of the top oil-producing regions in the
country and one of the largest oil producers in the
world.
2 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201907-24/pdf/2019-15675.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40128-40129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0149; PDA-40(R)]
Hazardous Materials: The State of Washington Crude Oil By Rail--
Vapor Pressure Requirements
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice, and extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is extending the period for comments on the State of
North Dakota and the State of Montana's application for an
administrative determination as to whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law preempts the State of Washington's rules relating to
the volatility of crude oil received in the state.
DATES: Comments received on or before September 23, 2019, and rebuttal
comments received on or before October 23, 2019, will be considered
before an administrative determination is issued by PHMSA's Chief
Counsel. Rebuttal comments may discuss only those issues raised by
comments received during the initial comment period and may not discuss
new issues.
ADDRESSES: All documents in this proceeding, including North Dakota and
Montana's application and all comments received, may be reviewed in the
Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. All documents in this proceeding are also
available on the U.S. Government Regulations.gov website: https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments must refer to Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0149 and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.,
[[Page 40129]]
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
A copy of each comment must also be sent to (1) Wayne Stenehjem,
Attorney General, The State of North Dakota, Office of the Attorney
General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 125, Bismarck, ND 58505-
0040, and (2) Tim Fox, Attorney General, The State of Montana, Office
of the Attorney General, Justice Building, Third Floor, 215 North
Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-1401. A certification that a copy has been
sent to these persons must also be included with the comment. (The
following format is suggested: I certify that copies of this comment
have been sent to Mr. Stenehjem and Mr. Fox at the addresses specified
in the Federal Register.'')
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing a comment submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit https://www.regulations.gov.
A subject matter index of hazardous materials preemption cases,
including a listing of all inconsistency rulings and preemption
determinations, is available through PHMSA's home page at https://phmsa.dot.gov. From the home page, click on ``Regulations and
Compliance,'' then on ``Standards & Rulemaking,'' then on ``Hazardous
Materials Standards and Rulemaking,'' then on ``Preemption
Determinations'' located on the left side of the page. A paper copy of
the index will be provided at no cost upon request to Mr. Lopez, at the
address and telephone number set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief
Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590; Telephone No. 202-366-4400; Facsimile No. 202-366-7041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State of North Dakota and the State of
Montana have applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts
the State of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude
Oil By Rail--Vapor Pressure. Specifically, North Dakota and Montana
allege the law, which purports to regulate the volatility of crude oil
transported in Washington state for loading and unloading, amounts to a
de facto ban on Bakken \1\ crude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the applicants, North Dakota and Montana are
home to the Bakken Shale Formation, a subsurface formation within
the Williston Basin. It is one of the top oil-producing regions in
the country and one of the largest oil producers in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA published a notice of the State of North Dakota and the State
of Montana's application in the Federal Register on July 24, 2019 (84
FR 35707).\2\ On July 29, 2019, the State of Washington asked us for an
extension of time in which to file comments. The State of Washington
believes the original 30-day comment period is an inadequate amount of
time for it and other interested parties to thoroughly and properly
comment on the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-24/pdf/2019-15675.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After review of the State of Washington's request, we have granted
its request.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2019.
Paul J. Roberti,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-17255 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
