Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65053 

1Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan 

(Mazda) is the manufacturer of the subject vehicles 

and Mazda North American Operations (MNAO) is 

the importer of the vehicles as well as the registered 

agent for Mazda. 

California. Those actions grant licenses, 

permits, and approvals for the project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on 

behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public 

of final agency actions subject to 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking 

judicial review of the Federal agency 

actions on the highway project will be 

barred unless the claim is filed on or 

before April 19, 2011. If the Federal law 

that authorizes judicial review of a 

claim provides a time period of less 

than 180 days for filing such claim, then 

the shorter time period still applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Hovey, Senior Environmental 

Planner, Division of Environmental 

Analysis, California Department of 

Transportation, 4050 Taylor Street, San 

Diego, CA 92110, Regular Office Hours 

7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Telephone number 

619–688–0240, e-mail 

Kevin.Hovey@dot.ca.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and 

the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, 

environmental responsibilities for this 

project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. 

Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has 

taken final agency actions subject to 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, 

permits, and approvals for the following 

project in the State of California: The 

project is located in the Mission Valley 

Community of the City of San Diego 

along SR–163. The proposed project 

will: Construct new at grade lanes on 

the west-side of southbound SR–163 

approaching Friars Road with 

connection to westbound Interstate 8/ 

Hotel Circle North; modify the existing 

SR–163/Friars Road interchange partial 

cloverleaf, including the addition of a 

flyover bridge from Ulric Street to 

southbound SR–163; widen Friars Road 

bridge from 6 lanes to 10 lanes with 

added sidewalks on both sides of the 

bridge; widen the eastern portion of 

Friars Road past the northbound SR–163 

on-ramp; widen the western portion of 

Frazee Road immediately north and 

south of Friars Road; remove the median 

on Avenida de las Tiendas (south of 

Friars Road) and restripe the roadway to 

provide three southbound and three 

northbound lanes; install or upgrade 

traffic signals at Friars Road/Ulric 

Street, Ulric Street/southbound SR–163 

on-ramp; Friars Road/northbound SR– 

163 on-ramp; and Frazee Road/Murray 

Canyon Road; and construct 15 

retaining walls and 9 noise attenuation 

barriers along SR–163 and Friars Road. 

The project will be constructed in three 

phases. The actions by the Federal 

agencies, and the laws under which 

such actions were taken, are described 

in the project files. The Categorical 

Exclusion, approved on 09/30/2010, and 

other project records are available by 

contacting Caltrans at the addresses 

provided above. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations; 

2. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA); 

3. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU); 

4. Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966; 

5. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970; 

6. Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990; 

7. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987; 

8. Endangered Species Act of 1973; 

9. Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

10. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964; 

11. Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Act of 

1970; 

12. National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966; 

13. Executive Order 11990, Protection 

of Wetlands; 

14. Executive Order 13112, Invasive 

Species; and 

15. Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). 

Issued on: October 13th, 2010. 

Karen Bobo, 

Director, Local Programs, Federal Highway 

Administration, Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26662 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0141; Notice 1] 

Mazda North American Operations, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Mazda North American Operations 

(MNAO),1 on behalf of Mazda Motor 

Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan 

(Mazda), has determined the lens of the 

headlamps equipped on certain 2004 

through 2009 Mazda RX–8 model 

passenger cars, manufactured from 

April 1, 2003, to May 29, 2009, and 

certain 2006 through 2008 MX–5 model 

passenger cars, built from May 17, 2005, 

to November 27, 2008, failed to meet the 

requirements of paragraph S7.2(b) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Mazda has filed an appropriate report 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, dated December 18, 2009. 

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

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Mazda 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 Mazda’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. 

Mazda estimates approximately 

123,000 2004 through 2009 Mazda RX– 

8 model passenger cars, manufactured 

from April 1, 2003 to May 29, 2009, and 

2006 through 2008 MX–5 model 

passenger cars, built from May 17, 2005 

to November 27, 2008, are affected. All 

of the affected vehicles were built at 

Mazda’s plant in Hiroshima Japan. 

Paragraph 7.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108 

requires: 

S7.2(b) The lens of each headlamp and of 

each beam contributor manufactured on or 

after December 1, 1989, to which paragraph 

(a) of this section applies shall be marked 

with the name and/or trademark registered 

with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of 

the manufacturer of such headlamp or beam 

contributor, or its importer, or any 

manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with 

such headlamp or beam contributor. Nothing 

in this paragraph shall be construed to 

authorize the marking of any such name and/ 

or trademark by one who is not the owner, 

unless the owner has consented to it. 

Mazda states that the noncompliance 

is that the lenses of the headlamps on 

the affected vehicles are not marked 

with the name or trademark of the 

manufacturer of the headlamp, the 

manufacturer of the vehicle, or the 

importer of the vehicle. 

Mazda was notified by its headlamp 

manufacturer, Koito Manufacturing 

Company, Ltd. (Koito) of the apparent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

1 General Motors, LLC (GM) is a Michigan 

corporation that manufactures motor vehicles. 2 GM’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR 

part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt GM 

from the notification and recall responsibilities of 

49 CFR part 573 for as many as 462,227 of the 

affected vehicles. However, the agency cannot 

relieve GM’s distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or 

introduction or delivery for introduction into 

interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles 

under their control after GM recognized that the 

subject noncompliance existed. Those vehicles 

must be brought into conformance, exported, or 

destroyed. 

noncompliance. Mazda then concluded 

that the vehicles equipped with the 

affected headlamps failed to comply 

with paragraph S7.2(b) of FMVSS No. 

108. 

Mazda stated the following reasons 

why they believe the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to vehicle safety and 

does not present a risk to motor vehicle 

safety: 

The affected headlamps fulfill all the 

relevant performance requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108, except that trade name and/ 

or trademark of the manufacturer or importer 

is missing on the lens. However, the affected 

headlamps have the trademark of the 

headlamp manufacturer on the rim of the 

headlamp housing. Thus, Mazda contends 

that this marking on the rim is visible with 

the vehicle’s front hood open and states that 

it believes that the rim marking could assist 

the easy identification of the headlamp 

manufacturer by the users of the vehicles. 

Mazda has not received any complaints or 

claims related to the noncompliance nor is it 

aware of any known reports of accidents or 

injuries attributed to the noncompliance. 

In summary, Mazda states that it 

believes the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

because the affected headlamps fulfill 

all other relevant requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108. 

The company also states that it has 

taken steps to correct the 

noncompliance in future production. 

Supported by the above stated 

reasons, Mazda believes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety, and that its 

petition, to exempt it 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, 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 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. The Docket Section is open 

on weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except 

Federal Holidays. 

c. Electronically: By logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be faxed to 1–202– 

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 your comments were 

received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. 

Note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Documents submitted to a docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the Internet at http: 

//www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

The petition, supporting materials, 

and all comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated below will be filed and will be 

considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the extent possible. 

When the petition is granted or denied, 

notice of the decision will be published 

in the Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

Comment Closing Date: November 22, 

2010. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: October 15, 2010. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26425 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0137; Notice 1] 

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

General Motors, LLC (GM),1 has 

determined that certain 2008 through 

2010 Model Year Chevrolet Malibu 

passenger cars equipped with automatic 

transmissions and manufactured 

between May 2007 through March 2010 

do not fully meet the requirements of 

paragraph S3.1.4.1 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

102, Transmission Shift Position 

Sequence, Starter Interlock, and 

Transmission Braking Effect. GM filed 

an appropriate report pursuant to 49 

CFR part 573 Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, dated March 30, 2010. 

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

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), GM 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 GM’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. 

A total of 462,227 2 model year 2008, 

2009 and 2010 Chevrolet Malibu 

passenger cars manufactured during the 

period May 2007 through March 2010 

are potentially affected by the subject 

noncompliance. 

Paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102 

requires: 

Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the 

transmission shift position sequence includes 

a park position, identification of shift 

positions, including the positions in relation 

to each other and the position selected, shall 

be displayed in view of the driver whenever 

any of the following conditions exist: 

(a) The ignition is in a position where the 

transmission can be shifted; or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES