Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20251 

redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as 

paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively. 

Subchapter H—Clauses and Forms 

PART 652—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 4. Add § 652.204–70 to read as 

follows: 

652.204–70 Department of State Personal 

Identification Card Issuance Procedures. 

As prescribed in 604.1301–70, insert 

the following clause: 

Department of State Personal 

Identification Card Issuance 

Procedures (MAY 2011) 

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the 

Department of State (DOS) Personal 

Identification Card Issuance Procedures for 

all employees performing under this contract 

who require frequent and continuing access 

to DOS facilities, or information systems. The 

Contractor shall insert this clause in all 

subcontracts when the subcontractor’s 

employees will require frequent and 

continuing access to DOS facilities, or 

information systems. 

(b) The DOS Personal Identification Card 

Issuance Procedures may be accessed at 

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rpt/ 

c21664.htm. 

(End of clause) 

■ 5. Section 652.237–71 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 6. Section 652.237–72 is amended by 

removing ‘‘637.110(c)’’ and adding 

‘‘637.110(b)’’ in its place in the 

introductory text. 

■ 7. Section 652.237–73 is revised by 

removing ‘‘637.110(d)’’ and adding 

‘‘637.110(c)’’ in its place in the 

introductory text. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Corey M. Rindner, 

Procurement Executive, Bureau of 

Administration, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8720 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0026] 

RIN 2127–AK91 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Final Listing of 2012 Light 

Duty Truck Lines Subject to the 

Requirements of This Standard and 

Exempted Vehicle Lines for Model Year 

2012 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule announces 

NHTSA’s determination that there are 

no new model year (MY) 2012 light duty 

truck lines subject to the parts-marking 

requirements of the Federal motor 

vehicle theft prevention standard 

because they have been determined by 

the agency to be high-theft or because 

they have a majority of interchangeable 

parts with those of a passenger motor 

vehicle line. This final rule also 

identifies those vehicle lines that have 

been granted an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements because the 

vehicles are equipped with antitheft 

devices determined to meet certain 

statutory criteria. 

DATES: Effective Date: The amendment 

made by this final rule is effective April 

12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Consumer Standards 

Division, Office of International Policy, 

Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, 

NHTSA, West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., (NVS–131, Room 

W43–302) Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s telephone number is (202) 

366–4931. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

0073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The theft 

prevention standard applies to (1) all 

passenger car lines; (2) all multipurpose 

passenger vehicle (MPV) lines with a 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

6,000 pounds or less; (3) low-theft lightduty truck (LDT) lines with a GVWR of 

6,000 pounds or less that have major 

parts that are interchangeable with a 

majority of the covered major parts of 

passenger car or MPV lines; and (4) 

high-theft light-duty truck lines with a 

GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. 

The purpose of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) is to reduce 

the incidence of motor vehicle theft by 

facilitating the tracing and recovery of 

parts from stolen vehicles. The standard 

seeks to facilitate such tracing by 

requiring that vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs), VIN derivative 

numbers, or other symbols be placed on 

major component vehicle parts. The 

theft prevention standard requires motor 

vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or 

affix VINs onto covered original 

equipment major component parts, and 

to inscribe or affix a symbol identifying 

the manufacturer and a common symbol 

identifying the replacement component 

parts for those original equipment parts, 

on all vehicle lines subject to the 

requirements of the standard. 

Section 33104(d) provides that once a 

line has become subject to the theft 

prevention standard, the line remains 

subject to the requirements of the 

standard unless it is exempted under 

§ 33106. Section 33106 provides that a 

manufacturer may petition annually to 

have one vehicle line exempted from 

the requirements of § 33104, if the line 

is equipped with an antitheft device 

meeting certain conditions as standard 

equipment. The exemption is granted if 

NHTSA determines that the antitheft 

device is likely to be as effective as 

compliance with the theft prevention 

standard in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle thefts. 

The agency annually publishes the 

names of those LDT lines that have been 

determined to be high theft pursuant to 

49 CFR part 541, those LDT lines that 

have been determined to have major 

parts that are interchangeable with a 

majority of the covered major parts of 

passenger car or MPV lines and those 

vehicle lines that are exempted from the 

theft prevention standard under section 

33104. Appendix A to Part 541 

identifies those LDT lines that are or 

will be subject to the theft prevention 

standard beginning in a given model 

year. Appendix A–I to Part 541 

identifies those vehicle lines that are or 

have been exempted from the theft 

prevention standard. 

For MY 2012, there are no new LDT 

lines that will be subject to the theft 

prevention standard in accordance with 

the procedures published in 49 CFR part 

542. Therefore, Appendix A does not 

need to be amended. 

For MY 2012, the list of lines that 

have been exempted by the agency from 

the parts-marking requirements of Part 

541 is amended to include nine vehicle 

lines newly exempted in full. The nine 

exempted vehicle lines are the BMW 

Carline X1, Chrysler Fiat 500, Ford 

Fusion, Chevrolet Sonic, Range Rover 

Evoque, Outlander Sport, Suzuki 

Kizashi, Toyota Corolla and the VW 

Audi A8. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
20252 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996. 

We note that the agency removes from 

the list being published in the Federal 

Register each year certain vehicle lines 

that have been discontinued more than 

5 years ago. Therefore, the Buick 

LeSabre, Buick Park Avenue (1992– 

2005), Buick Regal/Century, Chevrolet 

Cavalier, Chevrolet Classic, Oldsmobile 

Alero, Oldsmobile Aurora, Pontiac 

Bonneville, Pontiac GrandAm, Pontiac 

Sunfire, Acura CL, Acura NSX, Acura 

RL, Isuzu Axiom and the Mazda 

Millennia have been removed from the 

Appendix A–I listing. The agency will 

continue to maintain a comprehensive 

database of all exemptions on our Web 

site. However, we believe that republishing a list containing vehicle 

lines that have not been in production 

for a considerable period of time is 

unnecessary. 

The vehicle lines listed as being 

exempt from the standard have 

previously been exempted in 

accordance with the procedures of 49 

CFR part 543 and 49 U.S.C., 33106. 

Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause 

that notice and opportunity for 

comment on these listings are 

unnecessary. Further, public comment 

on the listing of selections and 

exemptions is not contemplated by 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 331. For the same 

reasons, since this revised listing only 

informs the public of previous agency 

actions and does not impose additional 

obligations on any party, NHTSA finds 

for good cause that the amendment 

made by this notice should be effective 

as soon as it is published in the Federal 

Register. 

Regulatory Impacts 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This final rule was not reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. It is not 

significant within the meaning of the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. It will not impose any new 

burdens on vehicle manufacturers. This 

document informs the public of 

previously granted exemptions. Since 

the only purpose of this final rule is to 

inform the public of previous actions 

taken by the agency no new costs or 

burdens will result. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

rules on small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. I have considered the 

effects of this rulemaking action under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

certify that it would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

noted above, the effect of this final rule 

is only to inform the public of the 

agency’s previous actions. 

C. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. Accordingly, no 

environmental assessment is required. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The agency has analyzed this 

rulemaking in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 and has 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient Federal implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

($120.7 million as adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995). The 

assessment may be combined with other 

assessments, as it is here. 

This final rule will not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments or automobile 

manufacturers and/or their suppliers of 

more than $120.7 million annually. This 

document informs the public of 

previously granted exemptions. Since 

the only purpose of this final rule is to 

inform the public of previous actions 

taken by the agency, no new costs or 

burdens will result. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ 1 the agency has 

considered whether this final rule has 

any retroactive effect. We conclude that 

it would not have such an effect. In 

accordance with § 33118 when the Theft 

Prevention Standard is in effect, a State 

or political subdivision of a State may 

not have a different motor vehicle theft 

prevention standard for a motor vehicle 

or major replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 

33117 provides that judicial review of 

this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 32909. Section 32909 does not 

require submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Department of Transportation has 

not submitted an information collection 

request to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does 

not impose any new information 

collection requirements on 

manufacturers. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 541 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR Part 541 is amended as follows: 

PART 541—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 541 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 

33104, 33105 and 33106; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. In Part 541, Appendix A–I is 

revised to read as follows: 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20253 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER12AP11.002</GPH>
20254 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER12AP11.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20255 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER12AP11.004</GPH>
20256 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER12AP11.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20257 

Issued on: April 7, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8744 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

RIN 0648–AX11 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation 

Activities Within the Naval Sea 

Systems Command Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Keyport Range 

Complex 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, upon application from 

the U.S. Navy (Navy), is issuing 

regulations to govern the unintentional 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

activities conducted at the Naval Sea 

Systems Command (NAVSEA) Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 

Keyport Range Complex for the period 

of April 2011 through April 2016. The 

Navy’s activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (NDAA). These regulations, 

which allow for the issuance of ‘‘Letters 

of Authorization’’ (LOAs) for the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

during the described activities and 

specified timeframes, prescribe the 

permissible methods of taking and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on marine mammal 

species and their habitat, as well as 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

DATES: Effective April 11, 2011 through 

April 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy’s 

application (which contains a list of the 

references used in this document), 

NMFS’ Record of Decision (ROD), and 

other documents cited herein may be 

obtained by writing to Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910–3225 or by telephone 

via the contact listed here (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Additionally, the Navy’s LOA 

application may be obtained by visiting 

the Internet at: http://wwwkeyport.kpt.nuwc.navy.mil/ 

EIS_Home.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 

137. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Extensive 

Supplementary Information was 

provided in the proposed rule for this 

activity, which was published in the 

Federal Register on Tuesday, July 7, 

2009 (74 FR 32264). This information 

will not be reprinted here in its entirety; 

rather, all sections from the proposed 

rule will be represented herein and will 

contain either a summary of the material 

presented in the proposed rule or a note 

referencing the page(s) in the proposed 

rule where the information may be 

found. Any information that has 

changed since the proposed rule was 

published will be addressed herein. 

Additionally, this final rule contains a 

section that responds to the comments 

received during the public comment 

period. 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 

in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) during periods of 

not more than five consecutive years 

each if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and if the permissible methods of taking 

and requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations and amended the definition 

of ‘‘harassment’’ as it applies to a 

‘‘military readiness activity’’ to read as 

follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): 

Any act that injures or has the 

significant potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A Harassment]; or any act 

that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of natural behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering, to a point where such 

behavioral patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On May 15, 2008, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy requesting 

authorization for the take of 5 species of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

RDT&E activities within the NAVSEA 

NUWC Keyport Range Complex 

Extension over the course of 5 years. 

These RDT&E activities are classified as 

military readiness activities. On April 

29, 2009, NMFS received additional 

information and clarification on the 

Navy’s proposed NAVSEA NUWC 

Keyport Range Complex Extension 

RDT&E activities. The Navy states that 

these RDT&E activities may cause 

various impacts to marine mammal 

species in the proposed action area. The 

Navy requests an authorization to take 

individuals of these marine mammals 

by Level B Harassment. Please refer to 

Tables 6–23, 6–24, 6–25, and 6–26 of 

the Navy’s Letter of Authorization 

(LOA) application for detailed 

information of the potential marine 

mammal exposures from the RDT&E 

activities in the Keyport Range Complex 

Extension per year. However, due to the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures and standard range operating 

procedures in place, NMFS estimates 

that the take of marine mammals is 

likely to be lower than the amount 

requested. NMFS does not expect any 

marine mammals to be killed or injured 

as a result of the Navy’s proposed 

activities, and NMFS is not proposing to 

authorize any injury or mortality 

incidental to the Navy’s proposed 

RDT&E activities within the Keyport 

Range Complex Extension. 

Background of Navy Request 

The proposed rule contains a 

description of the Navy’s mission, their 

responsibilities pursuant to Title 10 of 

the United States Code, and the specific 

purpose and need for the activities for 

which they requested incidental take 

authorization. The description 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES