[Federal Register: March 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16053-16060]
[DOCID:fr30mr06-16]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[OAR-2006-0160; FRL-8049-6]
RIN 2060-AN67

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Amendments to
the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to make minor amendments to
the existing Tier 2 motor vehicle regulations (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000, hereinafter referred to as the Tier 2 rule). These minor
amendments are consistent with our intention, under the original Tier 2
rule, to provide interim compliance flexibilities for clean diesels in
the passenger car market. While the automotive industry has made rapid
advancements in light-duty diesel emissions control technologies and
will, as a result, be able to produce diesel vehicles that can comply
with the primary regulatory requirements of the Tier 2 program, diesel
vehicles still face some very limited technological challenges in
meeting the full suite of Tier 2 requirements. This action will provide
two voluntary, interim alternative compliance options for a very
limited set of standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
including only high altitude and high speed/high acceleration
conditions. These temporary alternative compliance options are designed
to be environmentally neutral, as manufacturers choosing them would
then be required to meet more stringent standards in other aspects of
the Tier 2 program. The alternative compliance options will last for
only three model years, during which time advancements in diesel
emissions control technologies will be further developed.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 28, 2006 without
further notice, unless we receive adverse comments by May 1, 2006 or if
we receive a request for a public hearing by April 14, 2006. Should we
receive any adverse comments on this direct final rule, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0160. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Sherwood, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, Assessment and Standards
Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone (734)
214-4405, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior
proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to adopt the provisions in
this Direct Final Rule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be
effective on June 28, 2006 without further notice unless we receive
adverse comment by May 1, 2006 or a request for a public hearing by
April 14, 2006. If we receive adverse comment on one or more distinct
amendments, paragraphs, or sections of this rulemaking, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions
are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We may address all adverse
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Any
distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for
which we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on the
date set out above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other
distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule.

Access to Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet

    Today's action is available electronically on the date of
publication from EPA's Federal Register Internet web site listed below.
Electronic copies of this preamble, regulatory language, and other
documents associated with today's final rule are available from the EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site listed below shortly
after the rule is signed by the Administrator. This service is free of
charge, except any cost that you already incur for connecting to the
Internet.
    EPA Federal Register Web site: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/

(either select a desired date or use the Search feature).
    EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site for Tier 2
Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program Amendments: http://www.epa.gov/tier2/amendments.htm
.

    Please note that changes in format, page length, etc., may occur
due to computer software differences.

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those that
manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United States. The table
below gives some examples of entities that may have to comply with the
regulations. However, since these are only examples, you should
carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 CFR part
80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              NAICS codes
          Category                 a       SIC codes b         Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................       336111         3711  Automobile and light truck manufacturers.
                                  336112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

I. Overview of Voluntary Alternative Compliance Options

    The amendments described below pertain to the Tier 2/Gasoline
Sulfur regulations finalized by EPA on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698),
hereafter referred to as the Tier 2 rule, or the Tier 2 program. The
Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program was designed to significantly reduce the
emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including pickup
trucks, vans, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles. The program is a
comprehensive regulatory initiative that treats vehicles and fuels as a
system, combining requirements for much cleaner vehicles with
requirements for much lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. The program,
which began in model year 2004, phases in a single set of exhaust
emission standards that will, for the first time, apply to all
passenger cars, light trucks, and larger passenger vehicles operated on
any fuel. To enable the very clean Tier 2 vehicle emission control
technology to be introduced and to maintain its effectiveness, the Tier
2 program also requires reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. The
Tier 2 program did not require similar changes for diesel fuel sulfur
levels, but a separate rule mandated the reduction of highway diesel
fuel sulfur levels beginning in September, 2006 (66 FR 5001, January
18, 2001). Although we provide some additional context in the following
discussions, the Tier 2 program is very detailed and will not be
described completely in this direct final rule. Readers are advised to
consult the documents associated with this rulemaking if they are
interested in more information than is provided in this direct final
rule. Information regarding the Tier 2 rule may be found on the EPA Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/tier2.

    A key component of the Tier 2 program has been an emphasis on
consistent emission standards regardless of fuel type. This approach
helps to ensure that our overall air quality goals are met. However,
the Tier 2 program also gives some consideration to the fact that
diesel vehicles must accomplish a much greater emission reduction from
current levels in order to comply with the final Tier 2 program. Under
the Tier 1 emissions control program, diesel-powered vehicles could be
more than twice as high in emissions as gasoline vehicles for
NOX and in practice were almost ten times higher in
emissions of PM. Tier 2 included a number of interim measures that
provide a glide path for vehicles to improve incrementally before
coming into full compliance with the final Tier 2 program.
Manufacturers were given several flexibility options in the Tier 2
regulations to ease their transition into meeting the final Tier 2
standards until late in the phase-in period (as late as model year 2007
for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light light-duty trucks (LLDTs), and
model year 2009 for heavy LDTs (HLDTs)).\1\ These flexibilities were
meant to give manufacturers an adequate amount of leadtime toward
meeting the very stringent Tier 2 standards. Manufacturers were also
permitted to certify vehicle families to less stringent bins during the
phase-in, as long as the manufacturer's total fleet met the appropriate
average NOX level.\2\ There were also provisions for
specific flexibilities for diesel vehicles in the early years of the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Light-duty truck (LDT) means any motor vehicle rated at
8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less which has a
vehicle curb weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic
vehicle frontal area of 45 square feet or less, which is: (1)
Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is
a derivation of such a vehicle; or, (2) designed primarily for
transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12
persons; or, (3) available with special features enabling off-street
or off-highway operation and use (40 CFR 86.1803-01). A light LDT
means any LDT rated up through 6,000 pounds GVWR. A heavy LDT means
any LDT rated greater than 6,000 pounds GVWR.
    \2\ The Tier 2 rule when fully phased in contains eight sets of
emission standards, or ``bins'' (bins 1 through 8). Each bin is a
set of emission standards to which manufacturers can certify their
vehicles, provided that each manufacturer meets a specified fleet
average NOX standard. During the initial years of the
program, there are an additional three bins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As EPA projected, the automotive industry has made rapid
advancements in diesel emissions control technologies for
NOX via NOX adsorber systems, advanced turbo
chargers, and more effective exhaust gas recirculation, and for PM via
particulate filters that control diesel PM to gasoline levels. These
advancements mean that manufacturers will be able to produce diesel
vehicles that can comply with the primary regulatory requirements of
the Tier 2 program. However, diesel vehicles still face some very
limited technological challenges in meeting the full suite of Tier 2
requirements. Some diesel vehicle manufacturers have approached

EPA to express concerns with respect to a very limited set of standards
for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. Specifically, some
manufacturers are concerned with the 4,000 mile standards for high
speed/high acceleration operating conditions (i.e., the US06 cycle and
associated standards) and the NOX standards for high
altitude operating conditions. These two narrow areas of operation are
the most challenging for diesel vehicles due to the relatively high
engine loads of the US06 test cycle and the relative lack of oxygen at
high altitudes. The new technologies that have been applied to broadly
bring these vehicles into Tier 2 compliance will require further fine-
tuning to fully address emissions under these conditions. We are
projecting that, with only a few more interim years of refinement,
these technologies will be able to achieve full compliance under these
narrow conditions as they already demonstrate under typical operating
conditions. We discuss these existing standards, the technical
challenges faced by diesels, and our environmentally neutral interim
voluntary compliance options below.

A. High Speed/High Acceleration (US06 Cycle) Option

1. Background on Existing Tier 2 SFTP Requirements
    In addition to bins of exhaust emission standards for the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), the Tier 2 rule also includes exhaust emission
standards for the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) for which
standards were first established in 1996.\3\ The SFTP procedures are
designed to control emissions that occur during types of driving that
are not well-represented on the FTP. Such ``off-cycle'' driving
includes high speed driving and rapid accelerations and decelerations,
and driving with the air conditioner operating. We have separate test
cycles and associated standards for each of these operating conditions:
High speed/rapid acceleration is covered by the US06 cycle and
standards, and air conditioner operation is covered by the SC03 cycle
and standards. SFTP emission levels are a composite of the emission
levels over these two test cycles and the FTP cycle. SFTP emissions
from each vehicle test group must meet a set of SFTP emission standards
in addition to the FTP standards.\4\ The Tier 2 SFTP standard is
calculated based on the Tier 1 SFTP standards, the Tier 1 FTP
standards, and the standards for the Tier 2 bin to which the vehicle is
being certified according to the equation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 61 FR 54852.
    \4\ SFTP emissions are determined according to the equation
SFTP=0.35x(FTP)+0.28x(US06)+0.37x(SC03).

SFTPTier 2=SFTPTier 1-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(0.35)x(FTPTier 1 - FTPTier 2)]

Standards for NMHC and NOX are added together in the
calculation, and Tier 2 NMOG standards are treated as NMHC in the
calculation.

    Beginning with the 2004 model year (i.e., with the Tier 2 program),
LDVs and LDTs have been required to meet the US06 and SC03 standards at
4,000 miles and the SFTP standard at 120,000 miles.\5\ \6\ These
standards are shown in Table 1 for Tier 2 bins 1 through 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A 120,000 mile useful life is actually a 120,000 mile useful
life or 10 years for LDVs and LLDTs, or 120,000 miles or 11 years
for HLDTs, whichever occurs first. A 150,000 mile useful life is
actually 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first. These
time elements are implied throughout the text wherever we refer to
useful life.
    \6\ Our National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) rulemaking (63 FR
926) required the 4,000 mile standards and 120,000 mile useful life
for manufacturers opting into the NLEV program. The Tier 2 program
made these a requirement for all vehicles.

         Table 1.--Tier 2 SFTP Exhaust Emissions Standards for 2004 and Later Model Years--LDV/LDT1 Only
                                                 [NOX+NMHC g/mi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         4k Mile standards           120k Mile
                                                                 --------------------------------  standards \a\
                               Bin                                                               ---------------
                                                                       US06            SC03            SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.71
7...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.68
6...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.66
5...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.65
4...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.63
3...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.62
2...............................................................            0.14            0.20            0.60
1...............................................................            0.14            0.20           0.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever occurs first.

    Through model year 2006, the Tier 2 program allows diesel LDVs and
diesel LDT1s to comply with an intermediate useful life SFTP standard
in lieu of complying with the 4,000 mile US06 and SC03 standards.\7\ In
the Tier 2 rule preamble, we stated that we were providing this option
because we lacked certainty as to whether diesel vehicles could comply
with the 4,000 mile US06 and SC03 standards that were actually
established based on gasoline vehicles under the California LEV
program.\8\ Manufacturers choosing this option were required to
calculate intermediate useful life SFTP standards using the same
approach described for full useful life standards by substituting the
appropriate intermediate useful life values in the SFTP standard
equation shown above. Table 2 shows the applicable SFTP standards for
diesel LDVs/LDT1s making use of this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This option was also available to all light light-duty
trucks (LDT1 and LDT2), see 40 CFR 86.1811-04(f)(6).
    \8\ 65 FR 6791, section V.C.4.

Table 2.--Existing Optional Tier 2 SFTP Exhaust Emissions Standards Available through the 2006 Model Year Diesel
                                                  LDV/LDT1 Only
                                                 [NOX+NMHC g/mi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         4k Mile standards           50k Mile        120k Mile
                                                 --------------------------------  standards \a\   standards \b\
                       Bin                                                       -------------------------------
                                                       US06            SC03            SFTP            SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.51            0.71
7...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.49            0.68
6...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.48            0.66
5...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.47            0.65
4...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.46            0.63
3...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.45            0.62
2...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.43            0.60
1...............................................             n/a             n/a            0.42           0.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \a\ There are no intermediate useful life FTP standards for bins 1 through 4 so the Tier 2 120,000 mile
  standards were used in their place according to 40 CFR 86.1811-04(f)(6)(ii).
\b\ 120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever occurs first.

2. Voluntary Interim Compliance Option for US06 Standards
    Some diesel vehicle manufacturers have approached EPA to express
concerns with respect to the US06 standard for 2007 and later model
years (Table 1). The concern is that the US06 standard, while generally
feasible, cannot yet be met by some diesel LDVs with a sufficient
compliance margin. Typically, manufacturer certification levels are 20
to 30 percent below the standards to provide some level of compliance
margin. The risk associated with the low compliance margin for some
diesel LDVs is such that some manufacturers may choose not to certify
such vehicles for the U.S. market. These manufacturers have noted that
the SFTP standards were developed based on vehicle weight
classifications (i.e., LDV/LDT1, LDT2, etc.), as shown in Table 3.
While capable today of meeting the LDT2 standard, manufacturers note
that some LDVs need more time to achieve the LDV emissions level. They
note that it makes sense since some LDVs are as heavy as some LDT2s.
Vehicle weight directly impacts engine-out NOX emissions due
to the increased engine load necessary to accelerate a heavier vehicle.
While this issue has largely been addressed over most normal driving
modes by increasing catalyst size with vehicle mass, further
improvements in catalyst management (e.g., regeneration strategies and
system optimization) are needed for the heaviest diesel passenger cars.
Given the rapid improvement in diesel catalyst systems to address the
bulk of NOX emissions, we are confident in projecting that
further system optimization will enable all diesel vehicles to address
this narrow area of control with only a few more years of development.

  Table 3.--Tier 2 US06 Exhaust Emissions Standards for 2004 and Later
                               Model Years
                             [NOX+NMHC g/mi]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           4k Mile US06
                      Weight class                           standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1................................................            0.14
LDT2....................................................            0.25
LDT3....................................................            0.4
LDT4....................................................            0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with providing the optional SFTP standards for diesel
LDVs and diesel LDTs through the 2006 model year in the current Tier 2
rule, this direct final rule provides a temporary voluntary alternative
compliance option for diesel LDVs and LDT1s beginning with the 2007
model year. Manufacturers choosing this option for a given vehicle line
will be allowed to comply with the LDT2 4,000 mile US06 standard of
0.25 g/mi NOX+NMHC in lieu of meeting the current LDV/LDT1
level of 0.14 NOX+NMHC. We believe that this voluntary
compliance option should be environmental neutral, reflecting the full
degree of emission reduction potential achieved by diesel vehicles. To
ensure environmental neutrality, vehicles for which manufacturers
choose this option will be required to meet a more stringent full
useful life SFTP composite standard than the base Tier 2 SFTP standards
shown in Table 1. This more stringent standard will be the optional
50,000 mile standard that had been available for diesels through the
2006 model year (Table 2). For example, a bin 8 diesel vehicle will
have to meet the 0.51 g/mi SFTP composite standard shown in Table 2
rather than the 0.71 g/mi SFTP composite standard shown in Table 1.
Further, these vehicles will be required to meet the SFTP composite
standard for a longer useful life of 150,000 miles rather than the base
Tier 2 useful life of 120,000 miles.
    The resultant standards for diesel LDVs/LDT1s for which
manufacturers choose the alternative compliance option are shown in
Table 4. The alternative compliance option will be available for model
years 2007 through 2009, during which time we expect that manufacturers
will be able to meet the remaining narrow challenges facing diesel
technology to fully comply with the full suite of Tier 2 requirements.

  Table 4.--Optional Tier 2 SFTP Exhaust Emissions Standards Available for Model Years 2007 Through 2009 Diesel
                                                  LDV/LDT1 Only
                                                 [NOX+NMHC g/mi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         4k Mile standards           50k Mile        150k Mile
                                                 --------------------------------    standards     standards \a\
                       Bin                                                       -------------------------------
                                                       US06          SC03 \b\          SFTP            SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.51            0.51

7...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.49            0.49
6...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.48            0.48
5...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.47            0.47
4...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.46            0.46
3...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.45            0.45
2...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.43            0.43
1...............................................            0.25            0.20            0.42           0.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first.
\b\ The SC03 standard shown here is the same as the base Tier 2 SC03 standard. No change is made to this
  standard under the alternative compliance option.

    We are providing this US06 alternative compliance option because
diesel vehicles have developed rapidly, reducing NOX
emissions by more than 80 percent from the Tier 1 level, thereby
demonstrating an ability to meet the Tier 2 FTP standards. We are
projecting that, with only a few more years of development, they will
be able to meet the 4,000 mile US06 provisions. Further, we believe
clean diesel technology can play an important role in the U.S. light-
duty market. This is particularly true given the consumer interest in
the increased fuel efficiency that diesels can provide. While vehicles
using this option will be certified to a less stringent 4,000 mile US06
standard, they will be held to not only a more stringent full useful
life SFTP standard, but also an increased useful life for that
standard.
    As an example, we can consider a bin 8 LDV. Under the base Tier 2
SFTP standards, a bin 8 LDV would meet a 4,000 mile US06 standard of
0.14 g/mi NOX+NMHC. Beyond 4,000 miles, the SFTP standard
would be the 0.71 g/mi value shown in Table 1. That means that the
vehicle could legally emit at the 0.71 g/mi level for miles 4,000
through 120,000. Under the alternative compliance option, while the
4,000 mile US06 standard will be somewhat higher (up to 0.25 g/mi
NOX+NMHC), the vehicle will be required to emit no more than
0.51 g/mi of NOX+NMHC for miles 4,000 through 150,000.

B. High Altitude Option

    Under the Tier 2 program, the emissions standards for each bin
apply regardless of altitude. The significant progress to date has
enabled diesel vehicles to comply with the FTP standards. However,
NOX control from diesel vehicles at high altitude is
particularly challenging due to the relative lack of oxygen, and hence,
a need to reduce exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rates in order to
compensate. Since EGR is a primary engine-out NOX control
measure, engine-out NOX can increase at high altitude. The
NOX catalysts applied to meet the broad Tier 2 emission
standards for 2007 will largely offset these increased emissions under
most but not all conditions. We are projecting that the NOX
catalyst systems will require additional refinement in design and
calibration to fully address NOX emissions under these
conditions. Based on the rapid progress to broadly address
NOX emissions with catalyst technologies, we are confident
in projecting that further system optimization will fully address this
narrow emission issue.
    Some diesel vehicle manufacturers have approached EPA to express
concerns that they do not yet have an adequate compliance margin to
accommodate the expected emissions increase experienced at high
altitude. As with the US06 issue described above, these manufacturers
are concerned about the compliance margin afforded by the stringent
Tier 2 standards. They have stated that, while the Tier 2 standards are
technologically feasible, the risks associated with in-use compliance
are such that they may choose to forego light-duty diesel certification
for the U.S. market.
    During the phase-in period, the Tier 2 program already includes a
provision for higher in-use FTP standards. Our basis for that provision
was that, as with any new technology or even with new calibrations of
existing technology, there are risks of in-use compliance problems that
may not appear in the certification process.\9\ In support of the
provision, we also noted that in-use compliance concerns may discourage
manufacturers from applying new technologies or new calibrations. For
those reasons, we established higher in-use standards for those bins
most likely to require the greatest applications of effort as a means
to provide assurance to manufacturers that they would not face a recall
action if they were to exceed the standards by a specified amount.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 65 FR 6796, section V.I.3.
    \10\ The in-use factors applied for NOX in the Tier 2
rule ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 depending on the bin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with that rationale, and because light-duty diesel
vehicles require the greatest application of effort toward meeting the
Tier 2 standards, this direct final rule provides a temporary
compliance option at high altitude for light-duty diesels. While
operating at high altitude, vehicles using this option will be held to
a standard of 1.2 times the NOX standard to which they were
certified. This option will be available during model years 2007
through 2009 and for bins 7 and 8 only. This option is designed to be
environmentally neutral and to reflect the full degree of emissions
reductions available by light-duty diesel technology. Therefore, one
condition for using this option is the requirement to meet the bin 5
FTP PM standard of 0.01 g/mi. The FTP PM standard is 0.02 g/mi for bins
7 and 8 while it is 0.01 g/mi for bins 6 and below. Therefore, we are
limiting this option to bins 7 and 8. In other words, to use this
option, the vehicle must be certified to a PM standard half the level
of the base Tier 2 standard for their given bin. Further, vehicles for
which manufacturers choose this option will have to be certified to a
useful life of 150,000 miles rather than the base Tier 2 useful life of
120,000 miles. Importantly, vehicles for which manufacturers choose
this option will have the same certification standards (except for PM,
which will be more stringent) as in the base Tier 2 program, and these
two conditions for

using the option--tighter PM standard and longer useful life--will
apply at all altitudes. Table 5 summarizes the base Tier 2 and optional
standards for manufacturers choosing this high altitude option.

 Table 5.--Tier 2 NOX and PM Emissions Standards for Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles Under the Optional High Altitude
                                                Compliance Factor
                                  [Available for model years 2007 through 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     NOX standards (g/mi)        PM standards
                                               --------------------------------     (g/mi)
                                                                               ----------------  Useful life \a\
             Bin                   Program       Certification  In-use at high   Certification       (miles)
                                                 and in-use at     altitude      and In-use at
                                                 low altitude                    all altitudes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................  Base Tier 2....            0.20            0.20            0.02  120k.
                               Option \b\.....            0.20            0.24            0.01  150k.
7............................  Base Tier 2....            0.15            0.15            0.02  120k.
                               Option \b\.....            0.15            0.18            0.01  150k.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever occurs first; 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first.
\b\ An in-use at high altitude multiplicative factor of 1.2 has been applied to the certification NOX standard;
  this would be available to NOX only.

    Note that the optional standards shown in Table 5 carry with them a
requirement to certify to a 150,000 mile useful life. There is a
provision in the Tier 2 program that allows manufacturers to forego
compliance with intermediate useful life standards (only bins 5 through
8 have intermediate useful life standards in the final Tier 2 program)
provided they certify the vehicle to a 150,000 mile useful life.\11\
Bins 5 through 8 vehicles using the option to forego intermediate
useful life standards in favor of a 150,000 mile useful life are not
permitted to generate additional NOX credits toward the
fleet average NOX standard. Similarly, under this option,
manufacturers choosing the option to use the high altitude compliance
factor will not be allowed to generate additional NOX
credits toward the fleet average NOX standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 40 CFR 86.1811-04(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are providing this high altitude alternative compliance option
for the same reason stated above for the US06 option--because diesel
vehicles have rapidly improved, reducing their NOX emissions
by more than 80 percent, and will be able to fully comply with all of
the Tier 2 provisions given only a few more years of development. We
believe this option is environmentally neutral. While vehicles using
the option will be allowed a compliance margin of 20 percent for
NOX at high altitude, that comes with a 50 percent more
stringent PM standard at all altitudes and an increased useful life for
both the NOX and PM standards.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency is required to determine whether this regulatory action would be
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
     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;
     Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
     Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or,
     Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A motor vehicle
manufacturer with fewer than 1000 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This direct final rule will not have any adverse economic impact on
small entities. Today's rule revises certain provisions of the Tier 2
rule (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), such that regulated entities have
more flexibility in complying with the requirements of the Tier 2 rule.
More specifically, today's action provides alternative compliance
options that relax very limited elements of the Tier 2 standards in
return for greater stringency in other, broader elements of the
standards.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for
any single year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative that is
not the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if we provide an explanation in the final rule of why such
an alternative was adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop a small government plan pursuant to
section 203 of the UMRA. Such a plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, and enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of our regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
    This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nothing in the rule will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
    We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in estimated expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. This action has the
net effect of providing alternative compliance options within the Tier
2 rule. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The phrase ``policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or we consult
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless we consult
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt state or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected state and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials
regarding the conflict between state law and federally protected
interests within the Agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule provides alternative
compliance options for complying with existing rules that adopted
national standards to control vehicle emissions and gasoline fuel
sulfur levels. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by the
federal government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of
Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's
rule does not uniquely affect the communities of American Indian tribal
governments since the motor vehicle requirements for private businesses
in today's rule will have national applicability. Furthermore, today's
rule does not impose any direct compliance costs on these communities
and no circumstances specific to such

communities exist that will cause an impact on these communities beyond
those discussed in the other sections of today's document. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and, (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, section 5-501 of the Executive Order directs us to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866. Furthermore, this rule does not concern an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule references technical standards adopted by us through
previous rulemakings. No new technical standards are established in
today's rule. The standards referenced in today's rule involve the
measurement of gasoline fuel parameters and motor vehicle emissions.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United
States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective June 28, 2006.

I. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's final rule is found in the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., in particular, section 202 of the Act,
42 U.S.C. 7521. This rule is being promulgated under the administrative
and procedural provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d), 42 U.S.C.
7607(d).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Motor vehicle pollution.

    Dated: March 21, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart S--[Amended]

0
2. Section 86.1811-04 is amended by adding paragraphs (f)(8) and (p)(5)
to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1811-04  Emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (8)(i) For model year 2007 through 2009 diesel LDVs and diesel
LDT1s only, a manufacturer may optionally comply with the 4000 mile
US06 NMHC+NOX standard shown in Table S04-4 for LDT2s (0.25
g/mile), instead of the standards for LDV/LDT1s (0.14 g/mile). A
manufacturer choosing this option also must comply with intermediate
life SFTP NMHC+NOX standards determined using the
calculation described under paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section. A
manufacturer choosing this option must comply with the SFTP
NMHC+NOX standard determined under paragraph (f)(6)(ii) not
only at intermediate life but also at full useful life and must certify
such vehicles to this SFTP NMHC+NOX standard for a full
useful life of 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) In Part I of its certification application for model years
2007 through 2009, a manufacturer of diesel LDV/LDT1s must declare
which provision it will use (the base Tier 2 provision of paragraphs
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section or the option described in paragraph
(f)(8)(i) of this section).
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (5) For diesel vehicles certified to bin 7 and bin 8 only in model
years 2007 through 2009, a manufacturer may optionally comply with the
bin 5 FTP PM standard shown in Table S04-1. For diesel vehicles
choosing this option, separate in-use NOX standards apply at
high altitude conditions as defined in Sec.  86.1803-01. These
standards are determined by multiplying the applicable NOX
certification standards by a factor of 1.2. The resultant standards
apply only in-use at high altitude conditions and do not apply for
certification or selective enforcement auditing. A manufacturer
choosing this option must certify such vehicles to the applicable FTP
NOX and PM standards for a full useful life of 150,000 miles
or 15 years, whichever occurs first. A manufacturer choosing this
option would not be allowed to generate additional credits as described
under Sec.  86.1860-04 (g).
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-2979 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80251-80253]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33017]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1142]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; On the Waters in Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on
the waters south of Kapoho Point and a nearby channel in Kailua Bay
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This security zone
is necessary to ensure the safety of the President of the United States
and his family members.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. (HST) on December 21, 2011,
through 8 p.m. (HST) on January 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2011-1142 are available online by going to
www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1142 in the ``Keyword'' box,
and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Scott O. Whaley,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (ext. 352), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause, finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The details of the President's
intended travel to Hawaii were not made available to the Coast Guard in
sufficient time to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. Due to the
need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is
necessary to protect the President and his family members; therefore, a
30-day notice period is impracticable. Delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives of
protecting high-ranking officials, mitigating potential terroristic
acts and enhancing public and maritime safety and security. Publishing
a Notice of Public Rule Making (NPRM) and delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the public interest since the occasion would occur
before a notice-and-comment rulemaking could be completed, thereby
jeopardizing the safety of the President of the United States, members
of his family members, and other senior government officials. The COTP
finds that this temporary security zone needs to be effective by
December 21, 2011, to ensure the safety of the President of the United
States and members of his official party visiting the

Kailua Bay area on the eastern coast of Oahu, Hawaii.

Background and Purpose

    From December 21, 2011, through January 7, 2012, the President of
the United States and his family members plan to visit near the Kailua
Bay shoreline on Oahu, Hawaii. This position is located adjacent to
U.S. navigable waters in the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. The
Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to ensure the safety of
the President of the United States and his family members.

Discussion of Temporary Final Rule

    This temporary final rule is effective from 6 a.m. HST on December
21, 2011 through 8 p.m. HST on January 7, 2012. The security zone area
is located within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (See 33 CFR
3.70-10) and covers all U.S. navigable waters in the Kailua Bay on the
west side of a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing
of 222[deg] (true) to Namala Place road; as well as the nearby channel
from its entrance at Kapoho Point to a point 150-yards to the southwest
of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. This zone extends from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor. This zone will include the
navigable waters of the channel beginning at point 21[deg]24'56'' N,
157[deg]44'58'' W, then extending to 21[deg]25'26'' N, 157[deg]44'21''
W (Kapoho Point) including all the waters to the west of a straight
line to 21[deg]24'58'' N, 157[deg]44'35'' W (Namala Place), and then
extending back to the original point 21[deg]24'56'' N, 157[deg]44'58''
W.
    Three (3) yellow buoys will be placed in proximity of the security
zone along the security zone boundary and one (1) yellow buoy will be
placed at the channel boundary southwest of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road
Bridge as visual aids for mariners and the public to approximate the
zone. An illustration of the security zone will be made available on
www.regulations.gov in docket for this rulemaking, USCG-2011-1142.
    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 165,
Subpart D, no person or vessel will be permitted to transit into or
remain in the zone except for authorized support vessels, aircraft and
support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the
Port. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any
other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce
the zone. Vessels, aircraft, or persons in violation of this rule would
be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C.
192.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the
limited geographic area affected by it, and the lack of commercial
vessel traffic affected by the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule will economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
    If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Scott O.
Whaley at<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 352. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this temporary
final rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule will call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it will not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This regulation establishes one
security zone. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a
final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine security, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-215 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-215  Security Zone; On the Waters in Kailua Bay, Oahu,
HI.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Honolulu Captain of
the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor is a temporary security zone: All waters in Kailua Bay
to the west of a line beginning at Kapoho Point and thence
southwestward at a bearing of 222[deg] (true) to the shoreline at
Namala Place road; as well as the nearby channel from its entrance at
Kapoho Point to a point 150-yards to the southwest of the N. Kalaheo
Avenue Road Bridge. This zone extends from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor. This zone will include the navigable waters of the
channel beginning at point 21[deg]24'56'' N, 157[deg]44'58'' W, then
extending to 21[deg]25'26'' N, 157[deg]44'21'' W (Kapoho Point)
including all the waters to the west of a straight line to
21[deg]24'58'' N, 157[deg]44'35'' W (Namala Place), and then extending
back to the original point 21[deg]24'56'' N, 157[deg]44'58'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 6 a.m. HST on
December 21, 2011, through 8 p.m. HST on January 7, 2012.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.33, subpart D, apply to the security zone
created by this temporary final rule.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing security zones found in 33 CFR part 165.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Honolulu.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the security zones identified in
paragraph (a) of this section may contact the Captain of the Port at
Command Center telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(808) 842-2624 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to seek permission to
transit the zones. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Honolulu
or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the zones by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Notice of enforcement. The Captain of the Port Honolulu will
cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this
section to be made by verbal broadcasts and written notice to mariners
and the general public.
    (e) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the Captain of the Port Honolulu to assist in
enforcing the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this
section.

    Dated: December 12, 2011.
J.M. Nunan,
CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2011-33017 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P