Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Notices 181 

the yard (private property) on 

weekends. How is the yard time to be 

recorded? 

Guidance: On-duty (not driving). 

FMCSA also published guidance in 

the guidance portal on February 28, 

2020, that distinguishes between 

movements of the CMV that may be 

considered as off-duty ‘‘personal 

conveyance’’ and movements that are 

on-duty ‘‘yard moves.’’ This guidance is 

available on the Agency’s website in the 

guidance portal at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/ 

when-can-movement-cmv-during-dutyperiod-be-considered-personalconveyance and reads as follows: 

FAQ 12: When can a movement of a 

CMV during an off-duty period be 

considered personal conveyance? 

Answer: A move may be considered as 

personal conveyance if the driver is offduty and the movement is not for the 

motor carrier, shipper or receiver’s 

commercial benefit. Examples include 

moving a CMV from one parking space 

to another at a shipper or port, or 

driving to a truck stop, rest area or any 

other location. In these situations, the 

CMV movement is made in the off-duty 

period. However, the CMV should be 

moved no farther than the nearest 

reasonable and safe location to complete 

the rest period. 

An on-duty yard move, such as 

moving the vehicle a short distance 

while waiting to load, would not qualify 

as personal conveyance. 

III. Proposed Guidance Language 

FMCSA proposes to clarify when a 

driver may record time performing 

‘‘yard moves’’ as on-duty not driving 

time by providing examples of 

properties that qualify as yards. 

Therefore, the movement of a CMV on 

these properties would qualify as a 

‘‘yard move’’ and be recorded as onduty not driving time. 

FMCSA proposes to replace Question 

9 to 49 CFR 395.2 at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hoursservice/ss3952-definitions with the 

following revised Question 9 and seeks 

comments on this proposed guidance. 

This guidance, if finalized, lacks the 

force and effect of law and is not meant 

to bind the public in any way. This 

guidance document is intended only to 

provide clarity to the public regarding 

the Agency’s interpretation of its 

existing regulations. 

Question 9: Under what 

circumstances may a driver classify the 

operation of a commercial motor vehicle 

(CMV) as a yard move and record it as 

on-duty not driving time? 

(a) Guidance: A driver may record 

time operating a CMV for yard moves as 

on-duty not driving under 49 CFR 

395.8(b) only if the movement of the 

CMV occurs in a confined area on 

private property (or intermodal facility 

or briefly on public roads, as described 

below). Examples of properties that may 

qualify as yards include, but are not 

limited to: 

1. An intermodal yard or port facility. 

2. A motor carrier’s place of business. 

3. A shipper’s privately-owned 

parking lot. 

4. A public road, but only if and while 

public access to the road is restricted 

through traffic control measures such as 

lights, gates, flaggers or other means. For 

example, if a driver must operate on a 

public road briefly to reach different 

parts of a private property, the 

movement may be considered a yard 

move if public access is restricted 

during the move. 

(b) Examples of properties that do not 

qualify as yards, include, but are not 

limited to: 

1. A public road without the traffic 

control measures in paragraph (a)(4) 

above. 

2. Public rest areas. 

IV. Expiration Date of the Proposed 

Regulatory Guidance 

In accordance with section 

5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act, Public Law 114–94, 129 

Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), 49 CFR 

part 5, subpart C, and Executive Order 

13891, the proposed regulatory 

guidance will be posted on FMCSA’s 

website in the guidance portal, https:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/guidance, if 

finalized. It would be reviewed by the 

Agency no later than 5 years after it is 

finalized. The Agency would consider at 

that time whether the guidance should 

be withdrawn, reissued for another 

period up to 5 years, or incorporated 

into the safety regulations. 

V. Request for Comments 

Refer to the ADDRESSES section above 

for instructions on submitting 

comments to the public docket 

concerning this regulatory guidance. 

FMCSA will consider comments 

received by the closing date of the 

comment period to determine whether 

any further clarification of these 

regulatory provisions is necessary. In 

addition to general comments 

concerning the guidance, the Agency 

requests responses to the following 

questions: 

1. Would defining ‘‘yard moves’’ in 

the Agency’s regulations provide 

necessary clarification and therefore 

benefit carriers and drivers? 

2. Are there other properties or 

situations where drivers may be in a 

‘‘yard move’’ status that should be 

included as examples in this guidance? 

3. Would adding examples of ‘‘yard 

moves’’ be beneficial for this guidance 

(e.g., moving a CMV for maintenance)? 

If so, please provide examples for 

consideration. 

4. How should ‘‘yard’’ be defined for 

the purposes of this guidance? 

James W. Deck, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–29062 Filed 12–31–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0011; Notice 1] 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Goodyear Tire & Rubber 

Company (Goodyear) has determined 

that certain Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 tires 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. Goodyear filed a 

noncompliance report dated December 

10, 2019, and petitioned NHTSA on 

December 10, 2019, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

receipt of Goodyear’s petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

February 3, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Notices 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petitions are granted or 

denied, notice of the decisions will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Goodyear has determined 

that certain Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 tires 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, New 

Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light 

Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). 

Goodyear filed a noncompliance 

report dated December 10, 2019, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on December 10, 2019, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 

49 CFR part 556, Exemption for 

Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

This notice of receipt of Goodyear’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any Agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Tires Involved: Approximately 550 

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 tires, 

size 255/40R20 (the subject tires), 

manufactured between November 17, 

2019, and November 30, 2019, are 

potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Goodyear 

explains that the noncompliance is due 

to a mold labeling error in that the 

number of plies indicated on the 

sidewall of the subject tires do not 

match the actual number of plies in the 

tire construction, and therefore, do not 

meet the requirements of paragraph 

S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, 

the sidewall of the subject tires was 

marked with the number of plies as ‘‘1’’ 

when it should have been marked with 

the number of plies as ‘‘2.’’ 

IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 

S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

Each tire must be marked on one 

sidewall with the actual number of plies 

in the sidewall, and the actual number 

of plies in the tread area, if different. 

V. Summary of Goodyear’s Petition: 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section are the views 

and arguments provided by Goodyear. 

They have not been evaluated by the 

Agency and do not reflect the views of 

the Agency. The petitioner described 

the subject noncompliance and stated 

the belief that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

In support of the petition, Goodyear 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. Goodyear believes this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because these tires 

were manufactured as designed and 

meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS. 

All of the sidewall markings related to 

tire service (load capacity, 

corresponding inflation pressure, etc.) 

are correct. Goodyear believes the 

mislabeling of these tires is not a safety 

concern and has no impact on the use 

of the tires or on the repair and 

recycling industries. Goodyear states 

that the affected tire mold has already 

been corrected and all future production 

will have the correct number of plies 

shown on the tire sidewalls. 

2. Goodyear states that NHTSA has 

previously granted petitions for the 

same noncompliance related to tire 

construction information on tires 

because of surveys that show most 

consumers do not base tire purchases on 

tire construction information found on 

the tire related to the number of plies in 

the sidewall. 

Goodyear 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. 

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 allow 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, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject tires that Goodyear no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on 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 Goodyear 

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. 2020–29094 Filed 12–31–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P