Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices 36471 

the normal process and submit work 

plans to the appropriate FHWA division 

office. For more information on the 

SEP–14 process, please see: http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/ 

contracts/sep_a.cfm. 

In particular, with respect to projects 

involving activities that otherwise meet 

the requirements for the use of FHWA 

and HUD funds, States may experiment 

under SEP–14 with combining these 

funding sources for single, integrated 

projects that are procured and bid under 

a single contract while complying with 

training, employment, and contracting 

requirements of HUD’s Section 3, to the 

greatest extent feasible. The purpose of 

the experiment is to gauge the extent to 

which HUD funding may be used for 

highway projects, the effects on 

competition whenever HUD’s economic 

opportunity requirements are used on a 

joint FHWA/HUD project, and the 

extent to which the alignment of FHWA 

and HUD requirements further 

livability. 

The FHWA will only consider the 

possible use of HUD’s economic 

opportunity requirements under SEP–14 

in the context of a joint FHWA/HUD 

project and only to the extent necessary 

to comply with applicable HUD statutes. 

The FHWA will not consider the use of 

such preferences unless necessary to 

meet the requirements of a Federal 

grant-in-aid program. 

In developing their work plans, States 

should address, at a minimum, the 

following points: 

1. Competition 

a. States should describe how they 

will evaluate the effects of HUD’s 

economic opportunity requirements on 

competitive bidding. In doing so, the 

States may wish to compare the bids 

received for the proposed project to 

prior projects of similar size and scope 

and in the same geographic area. 

b. States should quantify and report 

on the expected economic benefits from 

advancing the joint FHWA/HUD project 

under a single contract. 

c. States wishing to utilize SEP–14 to 

permit the use of HUD-required hiring 

preferences on joint FHWA/HUD 

projects should identify the amount of 

HUD and FHWA funding involved in 

the project as well as the estimated total 

project cost. In order to qualify for a 

SEP–14 approval to use a geographic 

preference for a joint FHWA/HUD 

project, the amount of HUD funding 

involved with the project must be at 

least 10 percent of the amount of Title 

23 eligible work, or with respect to 

projects financed with $100,000,000 or 

more in Federal funding in the 

aggregate, 5 percent of such eligible 

work. In any event, the FHWA may 

reject SEP–14 work plans for projects 

with only de minimis amount of HUD 

funding. 

d. States should address whether the 

HUD provision at issue conflicts with 

FHWA regulations and is necessary to 

meet HUD program requirements. 

e. The work plan should address the 

degree to which the project enhances 

livability and sustainability. 

2. Livability 

Livability investments are projects 

that not only deliver transportation 

benefits, but are also designed and 

planned in such a way that they have 

a positive impact on qualitative 

measures of community life. This 

element of long-term outcomes delivers 

benefits that are inherently difficult to 

measure. However, it is implicit to 

livability that its benefits are shared and 

therefore magnified by the number of 

potential users in the affected 

community. 

The workplan should provide a 

description of the affected community 

and the scale of the project’s impact. 

Factors relevant to whether a project 

improves the quality of the living and 

working environment of a community 

include: 

a. Will the project significantly 

enhance user mobility through the 

creation of more convenient 

transportation options for travelers? 

b. Will the project improve existing 

transportation choices by enhancing 

points of modal connectivity or by 

reducing congestion on existing modal 

assets? 

c. Will the project improve 

accessibility and transport services for 

economically disadvantaged 

populations, non-drivers, senior 

citizens, and persons with disabilities, 

or to make goods, commodities, and 

services more readily available to these 

groups? 

d. Is the project the result of a 

planning process which coordinated 

transportation and land-use planning 

decisions and encouraged community 

participation in the process? 

3. Sustainability 

Sustainability refers to whether a 

project promotes a more 

environmentally sustainable 

transportation system. The workplan 

should address the following issues 

relevant to sustainability: 

a. Does the project improve energy 

efficiency, reduce dependence on oil 

and/or reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions? Applicants are encouraged 

to provide quantitative information 

regarding expected reductions in 

emissions of CO2 or fuel consumption 

as a result of the project, or expected use 

of clean or alternative sources of energy. 

Projects that demonstrate a projected 

decrease in the movement of people or 

goods by less energy-efficient vehicles 

or systems will be given priority under 

this factor. 

b. Does the project maintain, protect 

or enhance the environment, as 

evidenced by its avoidance of adverse 

environmental impacts (for example, 

adverse impacts related to air quality, 

wetlands, and endangered species) and/ 

or by its environmental benefits (for 

example, improved air quality, wetlands 

creation or improved habitat 

connectivity)? 

c. Does the project further the goals of 

the DOT, HUD, and EPA Sustainable 

Communities Partnership discussed 

above? 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315. 

Issued on: June 21, 2010. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15438 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Seventh Meeting—RTCA Special 

Committee 220: Automatic Flight 

Guidance and Control 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special 

Committee 220: Automatic Flight 

Guidance and Control meeting. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public of a meeting of 

RTCA Special Committee 220: 

Automatic Flight Guidance and Control. 

DATES: The meeting will be held July 

13–15, 2010. July 13th and 14th from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. and July 15th from 9 a.m. 

to 2 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, 717 Orleans 

Street, New Orleans, LA 70116, Phone: 

504–571–4687, Fax: 504–525–8166, EMail: http://www.bourbonorleans.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) 

RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 

Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; 

telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 

833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is 

hereby given for a Special Committee 

220: Automatic Flight Guidance and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

36472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices 

1 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), 

a replacement equipment manufacturer, is 

incorporated in the state of Ohio. 

2 Goodyear’s petition, which was filed under 49 

CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to 

exempt Goodyear as a replacement equipment 

manufacturer from the notification and recall 

responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 14,826 of the 

affected tires. However, the agency cannot relieve 

Goodyear distributors 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 recognized that the subject 

noncompliance existed. Those tires must be brought 

into conformance, exported, or destroyed. 

Control meeting. The agenda will 

include: 

• Welcome/Agenda Overview. 

• Consider for Approval—New 

Document—Minimum Operational 

Performance Standards (MOPS) for 

Automatic Flight Guidance and Control 

Systems and Equipment, RTCA Paper 

No. 088–10/SC220–042. 

• Continue Development of 

Installation Guidance White Papers. 

• Wrap-up and Review of Action 

Items. 

• Establish Dates, Location, Agenda 

for Next Meeting, Other Business. 

Attendance is open to the interested 

public but limited to space availability. 

With the approval of the chairmen, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements at the meeting. Persons 

wishing to present statements or obtain 

information should contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Members of the public 

may present a written statement to the 

committee at any time. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 

2010. 

Meredith Gibbs, 

RTCA Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15430 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0080; Notice 1] 

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 

(Goodyear),1 has determined that 

approximately 14,826 passenger car 

tires manufactured between August of 

2007 and May of 2009, do not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic 

Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. 

Goodyear has filed an appropriate report 

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Goodyear has petitioned 

for an exemption from the notification 

and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

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. 

Affected are approximately 14,826 

sizes P195/55R15 84V and P225/60R16 

97H Goodyear brand Arizonian Silver 

Edition Plus model passenger car tires 

manufactured between August of 2007 

and May of 2009 at Goodyear’s plant 

located in Otrokovice, Czech Republic. 

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, 

these provisions only apply to the 

14,826 2 tires that have already passed 

from the manufacturer to an owner, 

purchaser, or dealer. 

Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 

require in pertinent part: 

S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire 

must be marked on each sidewall with the 

information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) 

and on one sidewall with the information 

specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 

the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this 

standard. The markings must be placed 

between the maximum section width and the 

bead on at least one sidewall, unless the 

maximum section width of the tire is located 

in an area that is not more than one-fourth 

of the distance from the bead to the shoulder 

of the tire. If the maximum section width 

falls within that area, those markings must 

appear between the bead and a point one-half 

the distance from the bead to the shoulder of 

the tire, on at least one sidewall. The 

markings must be in letters and numerals not 

less than 0.078 inches high and raised above 

or sunk below the tire surface not less than 

0.015 inches * * * 

(f) The actual number of plies in the 

sidewall, and the actual number of plies in 

the tread area, if different * * * 

Goodyear explains that the 

noncompliance is that, due to a mold 

labeling error, the sidewall marking on 

the reference side of the tires incorrectly 

describes the actual number of plies in 

the tread area of the tires as required by 

paragraph S5.5(f). Specifically, the tires 

in question were inadvertently 

manufactured with ‘‘Tread Plies: 2 

Polyester + 2 steel.’’ The labeling should 

have been ‘‘Tread Plies: 2 Polyester + 1 

polyamide + 2 steel.’’ 

Goodyear also explains that while the 

noncompliant tires are mislabeled ‘‘the 

tires meet or exceed all applicable 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards.’’ 

Goodyear reported that this 

noncompliance was brought to their 

attention during an audit of sidewall 

labeling. 

Goodyear argues that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because the 

noncompliant sidewall marking does 

not create an unsafe condition and all 

other labeling requirements have been 

met. 

Goodyear points out that NHTSA has 

previously granted similar petitions for 

non-compliances in sidewall marking. 

Goodyear additionally states that it 

has corrected the affected tire molds and 

all future production will have the 

correct material shown on the sidewall. 

In summation, Goodyear believes that 

the described noncompliance of its tires 

to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 

139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety, and that its petition, to exempt 

from providing recall notification of 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and remedying the recall 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30120, and 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. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on this petition. Comments 

must refer to the docket and notice 

number cited at the beginning of this 

notice and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

a. By mail addressed to: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

b. By hand delivery to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES