Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 15051 

was published on October 22, 1986 and 

revised on March 16, 1988. 

DATES: The deadline for comments is 

Monday, April 13, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Smita Deshpande; 3347 Michelson 

Drive, Suite 100; Irvine, CA 92612; (949) 

724–2245; D12.NOP241.91@dot.ca.gov; 

Chief, Division of Environmental 

Analysis. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) assigned, and 

the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, 

environmental responsibilities for this 

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

Caltrans as the assigned National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

agency, in cooperation with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service and 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 

will prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS 

on a proposal for a median-to-median 

connector between State Route 241 (SR– 

241) and the State Route 91 (SR–91) 

Express Lanes, project in Orange County 

and Riverside County, California. 

The proposed median-to-median 

connector project encompasses 12– 

ORA–241 (PM 36.1/39.1), 12–ORA–91 

(PM 14.7/18.9), and 08–RIV–91 (PM 0.0/ 

1.5) for a length of approximately 8.7 

miles. Anticipated federal approvals 

include an FHWA Air Quality 

Conformity Determination, Biological 

Opinion Amendment and permits under 

Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water 

Act. 

Caltrans District 12, in cooperation 

with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation 

Corridor Agency (F/ETCA), proposes to 

construct the median-to-median 

connector from State Route 241 (SR– 

241) to the State Route 91 (SR–91) 

Express Lanes. The proposed median-tomedian connector is phase 2 of the 

Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) 

project previously approved in 1994. It 

will provide improved access between 

SR–241 and SR–91 and is proposed to 

be a tolled facility. Caltrans will be the 

lead agency for the project. The United 

States Army Corps of Engineers and the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

were identified as cooperating agencies 

in the corresponding 1991 ETC Draft EIS 

and 1994 ETC Final EIS. 

The SR–241/SR–91 Express Lane 

Connector was originally evaluated as a 

SR–241/SR–91 high-occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) direct connector in the 1991 ETC 

Draft EIS and 1994 ETC Final EIS (both 

of which studied a broader project area 

with improvements on SR–133, SR–241 

and SR–261). The Systems Management 

Concept (SMC) for the ETC project 

proposed that the project would be 

staged, incorporating general purpose 

traffic and eventually HOV lanes, to 

meet the forecasted demand. Under the 

SMC, ETC construction would be 

completed in one stage with three or 

more phases. 

To implement Phase 2 of the ETC 

project, a Supplemental Draft EIS is 

being prepared to focus on the eastern 

portion of the original project and to 

address changes to environmental 

conditions and regulatory requirements. 

Various alternatives were studied in the 

1991 ETC Draft EIS and 1994 ETC Final 

EIS; however, the Supplemental Draft 

EIS will include a No Build and one 

Build Alternative for the median-tomedian connector only. 

Letters describing the proposed action 

and soliciting comments will be sent to 

appropriate Federal, State, cooperating 

agencies, participating agencies, local 

agencies, and to private organizations 

and citizens who have previously 

expressed or are known to have interest 

in this proposal. Environmental Review 

of the project is anticipated to occur 

from 2015 through 2017. A public 

scoping meeting is not scheduled at this 

time; should you be interested, please 

let us know in writing. A public hearing 

will be held in 2016. Public notice will 

be given of the time and place of the 

hearing. The Supplemental Draft EIS 

will be available for public and agency 

review and comment prior to the public 

hearing. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments, and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the Supplemental 

Draft EIS should be directed to Caltrans 

at the address provided above. 

(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.) 

Issued on: March 16, 2015. 

Shawn Oliver, 

Team Leader, Right of Way and Environment, 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06415 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; BMW of North America, LLC 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 

petition for an exemption of the X1 

multi-purpose vehicle line (MPV) in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from the Theft Prevention 

Standard. This petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

line as standard equipment is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of 49 

CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Theft Prevention Standard (Theft 

Prevention Standard). BMW requested 

confidential treatment for specific 

information in its petition that the 

agency will address by separate letter. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2016 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43– 

439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s telephone number is (202) 

366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated November 21, 2014, 

BMW requested an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard for the X1 MPV 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. 

The petition requested an exemption 

from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. 

Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a 

manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 

grant an exemption for one vehicle line 

per model year. BMW stated that its X1 

MPV line will be replacing its X1 

passenger car line beginning with MY 

2016. In its petition, BMW provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

its X1 MPV line. BMW stated that the 

X1 MPV line will be installed with an 

engine immobilizer device as standard 

equipment. Key features of the antitheft 

device will include a key with a 

transponder, loop antenna (coil), engine 

control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded 

start release input, an electronically 

coded vehicle immobilizer/car access 

system (EWS/CAS) control unit and a 

passive immobilizer. BMW will not 

offer an audible or visible alarm feature 

on the proposed device. 

BMW stated that the antitheft device 

is a passive vehicle immobilizer system. 

BMW further stated that the EWS 

immobilizer device prevents the vehicle 

from being driven away under its own 

engine power. BMW further stated that 

the EWS immobilizer device also fulfills 

the requirements of the European 

vehicle insurance companies. 

BMW stated that activation of its 

immobilizer device occurs 

automatically when the engine is shut 

off and the vehicle key is removed from 

the ignition lock cylinder. Deactivation 

of the device occurs when the Start/Stop 

button is pressed and the vehicle 

starting process begins. BMW stated that 

deactivation cannot be carried out with 

a mechanical key, but must occur 

electronically. Specifically, BMW stated 

that its transponder sends key data to 

the EWS/CAS control unit. The correct 

key data must be recognized by the 

EWS/CAS control unit in order for the 

vehicle to start. The transponder 

contains a chip which is integrated in 

the key and powered by a battery. The 

transponder also consists of a 

transmitter/receiver which 

communicates with the EWS/CAS 

control unit. The EWS/CAS control unit 

provides the interface to the loop 

antenna (coil), engine control unit and 

starter. The ignition and fuel supply are 

only released when a correct coded 

release signal has been sent by the EWS/ 

CAS control unit to deactivate the 

device and allow the vehicle to start. 

When the EWS/CAS control unit has 

sent a correct release signal, and after 

the initial starting value, the release 

signal becomes a rolling, ever-changing, 

random code that is stored in the 

DME/DDE and EWS/CAS control units. 

The DME/DDE must identify the release 

signal and only then will the ignition 

signal and fuel supply be released. 

BMW stated that the vehicle is also 

equipped with a central-locking system 

that can be operated to lock and unlock 

all doors or to unlock only the driver’s 

door, thereby preventing forced entry 

into the vehicle through the passenger 

doors. The vehicle can be further 

secured by locking the doors and hood 

using either the key lock cylinder on the 

driver’s door or the remote frequency 

remote control. BMW stated that the 

frequency for the remote control 

constantly changes to prevent an 

unauthorized person from opening the 

vehicle by intercepting the signals of its 

remote control. 

BMW further stated that all of its 

vehicles are currently equipped with 

antitheft devices as standard equipment, 

including the BMW X1 MPV line. BMW 

compared the effectiveness of its 

antitheft device with devices which 

NHTSA has previously determined to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as would 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. BMW stated 

that the antitheft device that it intends 

to install on its X1 MPV line for MY 

2016 has been sufficient to grant 

exemptions for other vehicle lines. 

Specifically, BMW has installed its 

antitheft device on its X1 (passenger 

car), X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as 

well as its Carline 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, 

and MINI vehicle lines, all which have 

been granted parts-marking exemptions 

by the agency. BMW asserts that theft 

data have indicated a decline in theft 

rates for vehicle lines that have been 

equipped with antitheft devices similar 

to that which it proposes to install on 

the X1 MPV line. BMW also stated that 

for MY/CY 2011, the agency’s data show 

that theft rates for its lines are: 0.69 (1- 

series), 0.62 (3-series), 0.63 (5-series), 

1.08 (7-series), 0.26 (X3), 0.00 (X5), 0.00 

(X6), 0.55 (Z4/M), and 0.35 (MINI). 

Using an average of 3 MYs data (2010– 

2012), NHTSA’s theft rates for BMW’s 1 

series, 3 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 

series, X3, X5, X6, Z4/M and MINI 

vehicle lines are 0.5503, 07177, 0.7314, 

0.0000, 1.7952, 0.2055, 0.5501, 2.5840, 

0.4696 and 0.3770 respectively. Theft 

data for BMW’s X1 (passenger car), X4, 

and Carline 4 is not available. 

BMW’s submission is considered a 

complete petition as required by 49 CFR 

543.7, in that it meets the general 

requirements contained in § 543.5 and 

the specific content requirements of 

§ 543.6. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of Part 543.6, BMW 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its device. To ensure 

reliability and durability of the device, 

BMW conducted tests and believes that 

the device is reliable and durable 

because it complied with its own 

specific standards and the antitheft 

device is installed on other vehicle lines 

for which the agency has granted a 

parts-marking exemption. Further 

assuring the reliability and durability of 

the X1 antitheft device, BMW notes that 

the mechanical keys for the X1 MPV 

line are unique. Specifically, a special 

key blank, a special key cutting machine 

and the vehicle’s unique code are 

needed to duplicate a key. BMW stated 

that new keys will only be issued to 

authorized persons, and the guide-ways 

that are milled in the mechanical keys 

make the locks almost impossible to 

pick and the keys impossible to 

duplicate on the open market. 

BMW’s proposed device lacks an 

audible or visible alarm, therefore, this 

device cannot perform one of the 

functions listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3), 

that is, to call attention to unauthorized 

attempts to enter or move the vehicle. 

However, in its November 2014 petition, 

BMW asserted that in a previous 

Federal Register notice published by 

the agency (58 FR 44872, dated August 

25, 1993), NHTSA’s review of the theft 

data for 10 General Motors’ (GM) 

vehicle lines that had been granted 

partial exemptions concluded that the 

lack of an audible and visible alarm had 

not prevented the antitheft device from 

being effective and that despite the 

absence of an audible or visible alarm, 

when placed on vehicle lines as 

standard equipment, the GM antitheft 

devices ‘‘continue to be as effective in 

deterring and reducing motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with parts-marking 

requirements.’’ Therefore, BMW expects 

that the X1’s antitheft device will be just 

as effective as parts-marking. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by BMW, the agency believes 

that the antitheft device for the BMW X1 

MPV line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide four of the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; preventing defeat 

or circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon supporting evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. The agency 

finds that BMW has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the X1 MPV line is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 15053 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541). This conclusion is based on the 

information BMW provided about its 

device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full BMW’s petition for 

exemption for the MY 2016 X1 MPV 

line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The 

agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, 

Appendix A–1, identifies those lines 

that are exempted from the Theft 

Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 

CFR 543.7(f) contains publication 

requirements incident to the disposition 

of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced 

listing, including the release of future 

product nameplates, the beginning 

model year for which the petition is 

granted and a general description of the 

antitheft device is necessary in order to 

notify law enforcement agencies of new 

vehicle lines exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If BMW decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency. If such a decision is 

made, the line must be fully marked as 

required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. 

Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 

exemption applies only to vehicles that 

belong to a line exempted under this 

part and equipped with the anti-theft 

device on which the line’s exemption is 

based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for 

the submission of petitions ‘‘to modify 

an exemption to permit the use of an 

antitheft device similar to but differing 

from the one specified in that 

exemption.’’ 

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that Part 

543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend Part 543 to 

require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the 

components or design of an antitheft 

device. The significance of many such 

changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if the 

manufacturer contemplates making any 

changes the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.95. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06384 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Funding Availability and 

Solicitation of Applications for 

Magnetic Levitation Projects 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice of funding 

availability (NOFA or Notice) details the 

grant application requirements and 

submission procedures for obtaining up 

to $27.8 million in Federal funding, as 

authorized by sections 1101(a)(18) and 

1307 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, Public 

Law 109–59 (August 10, 2005)), as 

amended by section 102 of the 

SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act of 2008, Public Law 110–244 (June 

6, 2008), for existing magnetic levitation 

(maglev) projects located east of the 

Mississippi River. Pursuant to the Joint 

Committee statement accompanying the 

SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act, three projects are eligible for 

funding under this Notice: The 

‘‘Pittsburgh project’’, the ‘‘BaltimoreWashington project’’, and the ‘‘AtlantaChattanooga project’’. FRA previously 

announced the availability of funds for 

maglev projects located east of the 

Mississippi River pursuant to a NOFA 

issued on October 16, 2008, but one of 

the selected applicants has decided not 

to pursue the project for which the 

funds were allocated resulting in the 

availability of the funds for this Notice. 

Funds awarded under this Notice can be 

used for preconstruction planning 

activities and capital costs of a viable 

maglev project. 

DATES: Applications for funding under 

this NOFA are due no later than 5:00 

p.m. EST, April 20, 2015. Applications 

for funding received after 5:00 p.m. EST 

on April 20, 2015, will not be 

considered. See Section 4 of this Notice 

for additional information regarding the 

application process. 

ADDRESSES: Applications must be 

submitted via Grants.gov. For any 

required or supporting application 

materials that an applicant is unable to 

submit via Grants.gov (such as oversized 

engineering drawings), an applicant 

may submit an original and two (2) 

copies to Renee Cooper, Office of 

Program Delivery, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, 

DC 20590. However, due to delays 

caused by enhanced screening of mail 

delivered via the U.S. Postal Service, 

applicants are advised to use other 

means of conveyance (such as courier 

service) to assure timely receipt of 

materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding this 

Notice, please contact Renee Cooper, 

Office of Program Delivery, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, 

Washington, DC 20590; Email: FRAGrants@dot.gov; Phone: (202) 493–0491; 

Fax: (202) 493–6333. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA 

strongly suggests that applicants read 

this Notice in its entirety prior to 

preparing application materials. There 

are programmatic prerequisites and 

administrative requirements described 

herein that applicants must comply 

with in order to submit an application 

and be considered for funding. 

Table of Contents 

1. Funding Opportunity Description 

2. Award Information 

3. Eligibility and Review Criteria 

4. Application and Submission Information 

5. Application Review Information 

6. Award Administration Information 

7. Agency Contact 

Section 1: Funding Opportunity 

Description 

Section 102 of the SAFETEA–LU 

Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 

110–244, June 6, 2008) (the 2008 Act), 

amended sections 1101(a)(18) and 1307 

of SAFETEA–LU and provided $45 

million in contract authority for maglev 

projects located east of the Mississippi 

River. Of the funding available for 

projects east of the Mississippi River 

($45 million), approximately $27.8 

million in funding is available for award 

under this NOFA. 

In the Joint Explanatory Statement of 

the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee and the Senate 

Environmental and Public Works, 

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 

and Commerce, Science and 

Transportation Committees 

accompanying the 2008 Act (the Joint 

Explanatory Statement), Congress 

explained that in amending SAFETEA– 

LU to allow FRA discretion to award 

funds to ‘‘projects’’ located east of the 

Mississippi River, ‘‘the intent is to limit 

the eligible projects to three existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES