[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81219-81221]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27592]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79282; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-156]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4702 and Rule 4703 To Add a ``Trade Now'' Instruction to
Certain Order Types

November 10, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 8, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4702 (Order Types) and Rule
4703 (Order Attributes) to add a ``Trade Now'' instruction to certain
order types.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to amend Rules [sic] 4702 (Order Types) and Rule
4703 (Order Attributes) to add a ``Trade Now'' instruction to certain
order types. Nasdaq will offer this functionality through its OUCH,
RASH, FLITE, and FIX protocols. This instruction will provide resting
orders with a greater ability to receive an execution when that resting
order is locked, e.g., the price of a resting non-display buy order
equals the price of a resting displayed sell order on the Nasdaq book.
The Trade Now instruction will allow participants to enter an
instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against
the locking sell (buy) order. Depending on the protocol used by the
participant to access the Nasdaq system, the participant may either
specify that the order execute against locking interest automatically,
or the participant may be required to send a Trade Now instruction to
the Exchange once the order has become locked. As discussed in greater
detail below, Nasdaq is offering the Trade Now instruction for all
orders that may be sent to the continuous Nasdaq book, and will not
offer the instruction for orders that do not execute on the continuous
book.
    When a Trade Now instruction is applied to a resting buy (sell)
order, the order will execute against the available size of the locking
sell (buy) order at the locked price. The following example illustrates
this scenario:
     Participant A enters a Non-Display buy order for 200
shares at $10, and specifies the Trade Now instruction;
     Participant B enters a Post Only sell order for 100 shares
at $10; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange recently submitted a proposal to amend Nasdaq
Rules 4702 and 4703 to change the way in which Post Only Orders
interact with resting Non-Display orders and preventing the
execution of midpoint pegged orders during a crossed market. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78908 (September 22, 2016), 81
FR 66702 (September 28, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Post Only order is posted at $10 and locks the Non-
Display order;
     The buy order will execute for 100 shares at $10 as the
remover of liquidity.
    If a buy (sell) order with the Trade Now instruction is only
partially executed, the unexecuted portion of that order remains on the
Nasdaq book and maintains its priority. When a Trade Now instruction is
entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocol for a resting buy (sell)
order and there is no locking

order on the opposite side of the market, the Trade Now instruction
will be ignored and the buy (sell) order will remain on the Nasdaq
book, retaining its priority.
    As noted above, Nasdaq is proposing to offer the Trade Now
instruction for all orders that may be sent to the continuous Nasdaq
book (as opposed to the opening and closing book), and will not offer
the instruction for orders that do not execute on the continuous book.
Accordingly, the Trade Now instruction shall not be available for
Supplemental Orders (Rule 4702(b)(6)), Market On Open Orders (Rule
4702(b)(8)), Limit On Open Orders (Rule 4702(b)(9)), Opening Imbalance
Only Orders (Rule 4702(b)(10)), Market On Close Orders (Rule
4702(b)(11)), Limit on Close Orders (Rule 4702(b)(12)), and Imbalance
Only Orders (Rule 4702(b)(13)). These order types are subject to other
Nasdaq rules regarding the display and execution of those orders, and
the use of the Trade Now instruction would be inconsistent with those
other Nasdaq rules.\4\ Accordingly, Nasdaq is not offering the Trade
Now instruction for those order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, a Supplemental Order is an order type with a
Non-Display Order attribute that is held on the Nasdaq Book in order
to provide liquidity at the NBBO through a special execution process
described in Rule 4757(a)(1)(D). Rule 4757(a)(1)(D) provides that a
Supplemental Order will be matched against an order only at the
National Best Bid or Offer, and only if the size of the order is
less than or equal to the aggregate size of Supplemental Order
interest available at the price of the order. In addition, a
Supplemental Order will not execute if the NBBO is locked or
crossed. See Rule 4757(a)(1)(D). To the extent that a Supplemental
Order will only be matched at the National Best Bid or Offer, and
the Trade-Now instruction allows a locked resting order to execute
at a price that is potentially better than the NBBO, the function of
the Trade-Now instruction is inconsistent with the function of the
Supplemental Order. Similarly, the purpose of the various Cross
mechanisms is to establish a price that maximizes the number of
applicable quotes and orders that may be executed. See, e.g., Rule
4752(d)(2). Allowing an order to automatically execute against
locking interest without regard to the price of other same-side
interest is inconsistent with a process that establishes a price at
which the maximum number of shares may be paired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Depending on the interface being used by the participant, the Trade
Now attribute may either allow the order to execute against locking
interest automatically (``Reactive Trade Now''), or the participant may
be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the
order has become locked (``Non-Reactive Trade Now''). All orders that
are entered through the RASH and FIX protocols with a Trade Now order
attribute will be Reactive Trade Now, and those orders shall execute
against locking interest automatically.
    The Reactive Trade Now instruction will be available on an order-
by-order basis, and will also be available as an optional port level
setting. If the Reactive Trade Now setting is enabled on a specific
port, all orders entered via the specific port will, by default, be
designated with the Reactive Trade Now instruction. If the Reactive
Trade Now setting is enabled on a specific port, participants will have
the ability to designate on an order-by-order basis that a particular
order entered via the specific port will not be designated with the
Reactive Trade Now instruction, thereby overriding the port level
setting for the order. If the Reactive Trade Now instruction is
specified for an order for which the Trade Now instruction does not
apply, e.g., a Supplemental Order or a Market On Open Order, the system
will not invoke the Trade Now instruction for that order.
    In contrast, orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols
will use the Non-Reactive Trade Now functionality, and participants
must send the Trade Now instruction after the order becomes locked. If
a participant enters a Non-Reactive Trade Now instruction when there is
no locking interest, the instruction will be ignored by the system and
the order will remain on the Nasdaq Book with the same priority.
    The Non-Reactive Trade Now instruction will be available to
participants on order-by-order basis. If the Non-Reactive Trade Now
instruction is entered for an order for which the Trade Now instruction
does not apply, the system will not invoke the Trade Now instruction
for that order.
    Nasdaq is offering two different variations of the Trade Now
instruction to reflect the differences in behavior among participants
who use the different Nasdaq protocols. For example, Nasdaq typically
assumes a more active role in managing the order flow submitted by
users of the RASH and FIX protocols. Allowing these participants to use
the Reactive Trade Now instruction at the time of order entry will
allow for the automatic execution of orders, and reflects the order
flow management practices of these participants. In contrast, users of
the OUCH and FLITE protocols generally assume a more active role in
managing their order flow. Offering the Non-Reactive Trade Now
instruction for these protocols, and its requirement that the
instruction must be sent after the order becomes locked, reflects the
order flow management practices of these participants.
    Nasdaq notes that a similar functionality currently exists on NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), which NYSE Arca refers to as a ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier.'' As set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 7.31, a Limit
Non-Displayed Order may be designated with a Non-Display Remove
Modifier. If so designated, a Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell)
will trade as the liquidity-taking order with an incoming Adding
Liquidity Only Order (``ALO Order'') to sell (buy) that has a working
price equal to the working price of the Limit Non-Displayed Order.\5\
NYSE Arca also provides this functionality for other orders, such as
Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders'') designated Day and
MPL-ALO Orders \6\ and Arca Only Orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(d)(2)(B).
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(d)(3)(G).
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C). To the extent that the
Trade-Now functionality will be made available for Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only
Orders, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders, and Market Maker Peg Orders,
Nasdaq notes that the Trade-Now functionality will apply to
different order types than the NYSE Arca Non-Display Remove Modifier
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by offering participants an additional functionality that will
facilitate the execution of locked orders, thereby increasing the
efficient functioning of the Nasdaq market. The Trade Now functionality
is an optional feature that is being offered at no additional charge,
and is designed to reflect both the objectives of the Nasdaq market,
and the order flow management practices of various market participants.
For these reasons, the Trade Now functionality will only be made
available for orders that are entered in the continuous Nasdaq book,
and, depending on the protocol, will be offered as either the Reactive
Trade Now or Non-Reactive Trade Now functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This is an optional
functionality that is being

offered at no charge, and which may be used equally by similarly-
situated participants. Although the functionality of the Trade Now
instruction will differ depending upon the protocol that is being used
to access Nasdaq, Nasdaq believes that the difference in functionality
reflects the different ways in which participants enter and manage
their order flow.
    As noted above, Nasdaq will offer the Trade Now functionality
through the OUCH, RASH, FLITE, and FIX protocols. Nasdaq will not offer
the Trade Now functionality through the QIX protocol.\10\ Nasdaq notes
that, although the QIX protocol can support the removing of liquidity,
QIX is designed to provide two-sided quote messages to the trading
system, unlike the OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols, which are
designed to facilitate order submission. Nasdaq also notes that QIX is
an infrequently-used protocol,\11\ and that this protocol cannot
support the expansion of fields that adopting the Trade Now instruction
would require. Nasdaq therefore believes that its decision to offer the
Trade Now instruction through the OUCH, RASH, FLITE, and FIX protocols
will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Although participants may use other protocols, such as
DROP, those protocols are not related to order entry, and so the
Trade Now functionality is not being offered for those protocols.
    \11\ As of September 15, 2016, of the 5,090 customer ports for
the various Nasdaq protocols, only 124 of those ports are QIX
protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that the Trade Now functionality is complementary to its recent
proposal to change the way in which Post Only Orders interact with
resting Non-Display orders.\15\ The Exchange believes that releasing
both complementary functionalities at the same time will be easier for
market participants to manage and implement. The Exchange further
believes that the Trade Now functionality will facilitate the execution
of locked orders, thereby increasing the efficient functioning of the
Nasdaq market, and that waiver of the operative delay will allow this
functionality to be made available at an earlier date. Finally, the
Exchange notes that NYSE Arca currently utilizes a similar
functionality in the form of its Non-Display Remove Modifier. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See supra note 3.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-156 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-156. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-156, and should
be submitted on or before December 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-27592 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6540-6544]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01259]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181; FRL-9958-63-OAR]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Off-Highway
Recreational Vehicles (OHRVs); Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is granting the
California Air Resources Board (``CARB'') its request for an
authorization of its amendments to its Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle
regulation (``OHRV Amendments''). The OHRV Amendments establish new
evaporative emission standards and test procedures for 2018 and
subsequent model year OHRVs. The California OHRV category encompasses a
wide variety of vehicles, including off-road motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles (``ATVs''), off-road sport and utility vehicles, sand cars,
and golf carts. This decision is issued under the authority of the
Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'').

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by March 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all
federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally,
it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic
version of the public docket is available through the federal
government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may
access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are
links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited
in today's notice. The page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor,
Transportation Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background

    CARB first adopted exhaust emission standards and test procedures
applicable to OHRVs and the engines used in OHRVs in 1994, and EPA
authorized California to enforce such standards and test procedures in
1996.\1\ CARB subsequently adopted amendments to the OHRV regulation in
1996, 1999, 2003, and 2007, and EPA determined those amendments either
fell within the scope of previously granted authorizations or met the
criteria for a new authorization.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 61 FR 69093 (December 3, 1996).
    \2\ 65 FR 69673 (November 20, 2000) [1996 amendments]; 79 FR
6584 (February 14, 2014) [1999, 2003, and 2007 amendments].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, EPA adopted regulations that established both exhaust and
evaporative emission standards for nonroad recreational vehicles and
engines, including off-road motorcycles and ATVs.\3\ EPA's evaporative
emission standards applied to 2008 and subsequent model year nonroad
recreational vehicles, and established a fuel tank permeation limit of
1.5 grams per square meter per day (g/m2/day) and a fuel hose
permeation limit of 15 g/m2/day. Correspondingly, CARB's 2007
amendments to their OHRV regulation set forth, among other provisions,
evaporative emission standards for new 2008 and subsequent model year
OHRVs that are identical to the federal evaporative emission standards
for 2008 and subsequent model year nonroad vehicles. In 2014, CARB
adopted the OHRV Amendments that establish a new test procedure and
evaporative emission standard of 1.0 gram per day (g/day) of total
organic gas (TOG) for a 3-day diurnal period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 67 FR 68242 (November 8, 2002). The terms ``off-road'' and
``nonroad'' are used interchangeably, generally CARB uses the term
off-road and EPA uses the term nonroad.
    \4\ CARB's regulatory text enacted by the OHRV Amendments (which
EPA is authorizing by this action), is set forth in California Code
of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2419.1,
2419.2, 3419.3, and 2419.4. A full description of the OHVR
Amendments is found in CARB's Authorization Request Support
Document, 2014 Amendments to Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Off Highway Recreational Vehicles, dated February
26, 2016 (``Authorization Request Support Document'') at EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0181-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. CARB's Authorization Request

    In a letter dated February 26, 2016, CARB submitted to EPA its
request pursuant to section 209(e) of the CAA, regarding authorization
of its OHRV Amendments.\5\ The CARB Board approved the OHRV Amendments
on July 25, 2013 (by Resolution 13-33).\6\ The OHRV Amendments were
approved by California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December
17, 2014 and became operative state law on April 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Authorization Request Support Document.
    \6\ CARB Resolution 13-33, July 25, 2013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181-
0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OHRV Amendments differ from preexisting OHRV requirements
because they impose a 1.0 g/day evaporative emissions standard for the
complete OHRV fuel system. Previously the OHRV regulation only required
fuel tanks and fuel hoses to meet specific permeation standards. The
OHRV Amendments comprehensively address all potential sources of
evaporative emissions, including running losses (evaporative emissions
generated during vehicle operation), hot soak (evaporative emission
generated directly after vehicle operation), and diurnal losses
(evaporative emissions generated during long term storage). The OHRV

Amendments establish diurnal and fuel system leakage standards and
associated test procedures for new 2018 and subsequent model year
OHRVs. In addition, the OHRV Amendments establish durability test
procedures and other test procedure provisions for preconditioning
evaporative emission control systems and components, running loss and
hot soak preconditioning tests, and test procedures for the 72-hour and
steady-state diurnal tests. Finally, the OHRV Amendments include many
of CARB's general compliance provisions, including among other
provisions: Annual certification of the evaporative emission control
systems, the applicability of the in-use recall provisions that CARB
previously adopted for OHRVs in 1994, and emissions warranty
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Authorization Request Support Document at 8-10 for a
complete list of provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any state, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.\8\ For all other nonroad
engines, states generally are preempted from adopting and enforcing
standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions.
Section 209(e)(2), however, requires the Administrator, after notice
and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt
and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of
emissions from such vehicles or engines if California determines that
California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. However,
EPA shall not grant such authorization if it finds that (1) the
determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California
does not need such California standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with [CAA section 209].\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ States are expressly preempted from adopting or attempting
to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad engines which are used in construction
equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and
which are smaller than 175 horsepower. Such express preemption under
section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives. CAA Sec.  209(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.
7543(e)(1)(A).
    \9\ EPA's review of California regulations under section 209 is
not a broad review of the reasonableness of the regulations or its
compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the
Clean Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny California requests for
waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As
a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's
requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA
decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not
found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA's
determination. See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v.
Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir.1998), Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20
(D.C. Cir. 1979). See also 78 FR 58090, 58120 (September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule interpreting the three
criteria set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A) that EPA must consider
before granting any California authorization request for nonroad engine
or vehicle emission standards.\10\ EPA revised these regulations in
1997.\11\ As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA historically
has interpreted the consistency inquiry under the third criterion,
outlined above and set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii), to require,
at minimum, that California standards and enforcement procedures be
consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section
209(b)(1)(C) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State Regulation
for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Standards,'' 59 FR 36969 (July 20,
1994).
    \11\ See ``Control of Air Pollution: Emission Standards for New
Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts;
Preemption of State Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle
Standards; Amendments to Rules,'' 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997).
The applicable regulations are now found in 40 CFR part 1074,
subpart B, section 1074.105.
    \12\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). EPA has interpreted
209(b)(1)(C) in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests under section 209(b)(1)(C). That provision
provides that the Administrator shall not grant California a motor
vehicle waiver if she finds that California ``standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
202(a)'' of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and
authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement
procedures will be found to be inconsistent with section 202(a) if (1)
there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the
necessary technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that time,\13\ or (2) the federal and state testing
procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ H. Rep. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 21 (1967).
    \14\ S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 32 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the similar language in sections 209(b) and
209(e)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed California's requests for authorization
of nonroad vehicle or engine standards under section 209(e)(2)(A) using
the same principles that it has historically applied in reviewing
requests for waivers of preemption for new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine standards under section 209(b).\15\ These principles
include, among other things, that EPA should limit its inquiry to the
three specific authorization criteria identified in section
209(e)(2)(A),\16\ and that EPA should give substantial deference to the
policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In
previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended EPA's
review of California's decision-making be narrow. EPA has rejected
arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying
a waiver:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Engine Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075,
1087 (D.C. Cir. 1996): ``. . . EPA was within the bounds of
permissible construction in analogizing Sec.  209(e) on nonroad
sources to Sec.  209(a) on motor vehicles.''
    \16\ See EPA's Final 209(e) rulemaking at 59 FR 36969, 36983
(July 20, 1994).

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied
unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly
be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is
likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air
quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably
unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my
decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is
consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further
reduction in air pollution in California.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California
State Standards,'' 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more
stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the
1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California
must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. In the 1990 amendments to section 209, Congress
established section 209(e) and similar language in section
209(e)(1)(i) pertaining to California's nonroad emission standards
which California must determine to be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.

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

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\18\ Thus, EPA's
consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning an authorization
decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may
be considered under section 209(e)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d
1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (``MEMA I''), Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 606 F.2d
1293, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deference to California

    In previous waiver and authorization decisions, EPA has recognized
that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on the
section 209(b)(1) criteria was to ensure that the federal government
did not second-guess state policy choices. As the agency explained in
one prior waiver decision:

    It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a
California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to
adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. The
whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force the development of
new types of emission control technology where that is needed by
compelling the industry to ``catch up'' to some degree with newly
promulgated standards. Such an approach . . . may be attended with
costs, in the shape of reduced product offering, or price or fuel
economy penalties, and by risks that a wider number of vehicle
classes may not be able to complete their development work in time.
Since a balancing of these risks and costs against the potential
benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any
regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I
believe I am required to give very substantial deference to
California's judgments on this score.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 FR 23102, 23103-23104 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of
the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional
intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on
``ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy'' to
California's judgment.\20\ This interpretation is supported by relevant
discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the
Clean Air Act.\21\ Congress had the opportunity through the 1977
amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected
instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program
of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the
amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting
California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that
provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible
discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its
citizens and the public welfare.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 23104; 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).
    \21\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 301-302 (1977)).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in
MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of
showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have
been met:

    [T]he language of the statute and its legislative history
indicate that California's regulations, and California's
determinations that they must comply with the statute, when
presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver
requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever
attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings
at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver
request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the
waiver request should be denied.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ MEMA I, supra note 17, at 1121.

    The same logic applies to authorization requests. The
Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable
evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver
decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \24\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 1126.
    \25\ Id. at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained
that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    [. . .] consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of
materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence
against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties
favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual
circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the
waiver.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 1122.

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the
Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be ``clear
and compelling evidence'' to show that proposed enforcement procedures
undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.\27\ The court
noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional
intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in
setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and
welfare.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven
in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this
legislation--the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions
and whether the standards are technologically feasible--Congress
intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a
narrow one.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., ``California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,'' 40 FR 23102 (May
28, 1975), at 23103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's
Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations

    Upon review of CARB's request, EPA offered an opportunity for a
public hearing, and requested written comment on issues relevant to a
section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization analysis, by publication of a
Federal Register notice on August 9, 2016.\30\ Specifically, we
requested comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and
capricious, (b) whether California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) whether California's
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with
section 209 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 81 FR 52684 (August 9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive a request for hearing and therefore no hearing
was held. EPA did not receive any written comments. EPA's evaluation is
based on the record, which includes CARB's authorization request and
accompanying documents.

II. Discussion

A. California's Protectiveness Determination

    Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that CARB was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness
determination in Resolution 13-33, declaring that ``the Amendments
approved for adoption herein will not cause California emission
standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and
welfare than applicable federal standards.'' \31\ CARB asserts that EPA
has no basis to find that the CARB Board's determination is arbitrary
or capricious.\32\ CARB notes that EPA's existing evaporative emission
standards for 2008 and subsequent model year nonroad recreational
vehicles and engines solely consist of permeation evaporative emission
standards applicable to fuel tanks and fuel hoses. Conversely, CARB
notes that the OHRV Amendments provide for more comprehensive control
of the evaporative emission system. CARB projects the OHRV Amendments
will reduce OHRV evaporative emissions by over 70 percent as compared
to current model-year vehicles, and are therefore clearly, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Authorization Request Support Document at 11.
    \32\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating the materials submitted by CARB, and since EPA has
not adopted any comparable standards or requirements for OHRVs, and
based on the lack of any comments submitted to the record, I cannot
find that CARB's protectiveness determination is arbitrary and
capricious and thus I cannot deny CARB's authorization request based on
this criterion.

B. Need for California Standards To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions

    Section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant
an authorization if the agency finds that California ``does not need
such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions.'' EPA's inquiry under this second criterion (found both in
paragraph 209(b)(1)(B) and 209(e)(2)(A)(ii)) has been to determine
whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program (i.e.
set of standards) for the relevant class or category of vehicles or
engines (e.g., on-highway mobile source or nonroad mobile source) to
meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether the
specific standards that are the subject of the authorization or waiver
request are necessary to meet such conditions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887-18890
(May 3, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has asserted its longstanding position that the State
continues to need its own nonroad engine program to meet serious air
pollution problems.\34\ CARB notes that ``California, and particularly
the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, continue to
experience some of the worst air quality in the nation and continue to
be in non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards for
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') and ozone. The unique
geographical and climatic conditions, and the tremendous growth in on
and off-road vehicle population and use that moved Congress to
authorize California to establish separate on-road motor vehicle
standards in 1967 and off-road engine standards in 1990 still exists
today.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Authorization Request Support Document at p. 12,
referencing CARB Board Resolution 13-33.
    \35\ Id. See 74 FR 32744, 32762-32763 (July 8, 2009); 79 FR
6584, 6588-6590 (February 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There has been no evidence submitted to indicate that California's
compelling and extraordinary conditions do not continue to exist.
California, including the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley air
basins, continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the
nation and continues to be in non-attainment with national ambient air
quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone.\36\ In addition, EPA
is not aware of any other information that would suggest that
California no longer needs its nonroad emission program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 74 FR 32744, 32762-63 (July 8, 2009), 76 FR 77515, 77518
(December 13, 2011), 81 FR 95982 (December 29, 2016). EPA
continually evaluates the air quality conditions in the United
States, including California. California continues to experience
some of the worst air quality in the country and continues to be in
nonattainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine
particulate matter and ozone, see ``Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS)'' at EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0751.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the record of this request and absence of
comments or other information to the contrary, I cannot find that
California does not continue to need such state standards, including
the OHRV Amendments, to address the ``compelling and extraordinary
conditions'' underlying the state's air pollution problems. I have
determined that I cannot deny California authorization for its OHRV
Amendments based on the section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii) criterion.

C. Consistency With Section 209 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot
grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement
procedures are not consistent with ``this section.'' As described
above, EPA's section 209(e) rule states that the Administrator shall
not grant authorization to California if she finds (among other tests)
that the ``California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209.'' EPA has interpreted this
requirement to mean that California standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures must be consistent with at least sections
209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted this last
subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers. Thus, this can be
viewed as a three-pronged test.
1. Consistency With Section 209(a) and 209(e)(1)
    To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act,
California's OHRV Amendments (and CARB's underlying OHRV regulation)
must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.
California's OHRV regulation applies to a wide variety of vehicles,
including off-road motorcycles, ATVs, off-road sport and utility
vehicles, sand cars, and golf carts. CARB states that the OHRV
Amendments, much like the previously authorized OHRV regulation, do not
apply to the categories of preempted mobile sources. No commenter
presented otherwise, and EPA is not otherwise aware of any contrary
evidence; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis
that California's OHRV regulation (including the OHRV Amendments) is
not consistent with section 209(a).
    To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
California's OHRV regulation must not affect new farming or
construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new
locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that OHRV engines are not
used in locomotives and are not primarily used in farm and construction
equipment or vehicles. No commenter presented otherwise, and EPA is not
otherwise aware of any contrary evidence; therefore, I cannot deny
California's request on the basis that California's OHRV regulation

(including the OHRV Amendments) is not consistent with section
209(e)(1).
2. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)
    The requirement that California's standards be consistent with
section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are
inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate
lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet
those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement
procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the
federal and California test procedures were not consistent. The scope
of EPA's review of whether California's action is consistent with
section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those
opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their burden of
establishing that California's standards are technologically
infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements
inconsistent with the federal test procedure.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological feasibility.\38\ Section 202(a)(2)
states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority
``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.'' Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to
first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario
also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of
developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.
Previous EPA waivers are in accord with this position.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
    \39\ See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 FR 32182,
32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 44213 (October 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB states that its Staff Report explains the technology needed to
comply with the primary diurnal evaporative emission standards and that
such technology clearly exists as it is being used by manufacturers of
on-road mobile sources.\40\ In addition, CARB states that it received
no comments indicating that the requirements to comply with the new
evaporative emission standards was technically infeasible.\41\ As
described in the Staff Report, CARB identified (but did not prescribe)
technologies that have been successfully employed in the automotive
sector and that are expected to be utilized in OHRVs. These
technologies include: Low permeation materials to be utilized in fuel
tanks and fuel lines, activated carbon canisters to control diurnal
emissions by capturing hydrocarbons that would otherwise be vented when
the fuel system heats up during engine operation or storage, pressure
relief valves on the vent of the fuel tank, strategic placement or
insulation of the fuel tank so the tank is not affected by large
temperature increases, and improvements in connectors, carburetors and
fuel injectors.\42\ CARB also identifies roll-over values presently
used in on-road motorcycles to meet the fuel system leakage test and
notes that the ATV fuel filler neck compatibility requirement presents
no issue since the fuel pipe sealing specification is identical to on-
road motor vehicles.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Authorization Request Support Document at 14, citing ``CARB
Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed
Regulation,'' dated June 5, 2013. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0181-0004.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id. at 14-15.
    \43\ Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to test procedure consistency, CARB states that the
OHRV Amendments present no issue of incompatibility between California
and federal test procedures since there are no analogous federal
standards or associated test procedures applicable to 2018 and
subsequent model year nonroad recreational vehicles and engines.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive any comments that suggests California's OHRV
Amendments regulations are technologically infeasible. In addition, EPA
believes that CARB has reasonably identified, within the lead time
provided, the types of technologies that can be used to meet the OHRV
Amendments. EPA is not otherwise aware of any evidence to suggest such
technologies cannot be employed in the manner CARB has identified. In
addition, EPA finds no basis to determine that CARB's test procedures
are incompatible with federal test procedures given the lack of
applicable federal evaporative emission standards and test procedures.
    Therefore, based on the record before us, I cannot find that the
OHRV Amendments are technologically infeasible or otherwise
inconsistent with section 202(a). Therefore, I cannot deny CARB's
authorization based on the section 202(a) criterion.

III. Decision

    After evaluating California's OHRV Amendments and CARB's
submissions for EPA review as described above, I am granting an
authorization for the OHRV Amendments.
    This decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with
California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt
California's standards for which a section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization
has been granted if certain criteria are met, this decision would also
affect those states and those persons in such states. See CAA section
209(e)(2)(B). For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is
a final action of national applicability, and also a final action of
nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be
filed by March 20, 2017. Judicial review of this final action may not
be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: January 11, 2017.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-01259 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 55503]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17601]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: August 17, 2023, 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 941 2440 0273,
to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAsde2srjsoHddwTVO9_cjAqaWzd2qmQQ0o.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Education and Training Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will
continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
[rtarr8] Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on
agenda

IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Minutes From the May 18, 2023
Subcommittee Meeting--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    Draft minutes from the May 18, 2023--Subcommittee meeting will be
reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action to approve.

V. Project Development--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will discuss the development of key projects
to include NRS module development, establishing educational audit
taskforce, and creation of a UCR purpose and value video.

VI. Other Business--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items Subcommittee
members would like to discuss.

VII. Adjournment--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
August 10, 2023 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-17601 Filed 8-11-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 20, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Hybrid 60

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on January 19, 2011 between Hybrid 60 and EPA and included the following individuals:

      Hybrid 60: Jeff Zyburt, Jesse Baker, Lauren Gillis              EPA: Angela Cullen

The discussion focused primarily on the following elements of the proposal:    * Advanced technology credits    * Hybrid OBD