80782 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices 

Filed Date: 12/8/20. 

Accession Number: 20201208–5063. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/20. 

Docket Numbers: ER21–604–000. 

Applicants: Alabama Power 

Company. 

Description: Tariff Cancellation: 

Charlton Solar Energy Center LGIA 

Termination Filing to be effective 12/8/ 

2020. 

Filed Date: 12/8/20. 

Accession Number: 20201208–5067. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/20. 

Docket Numbers: ER21–605–000. 

Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate 

Transmission, LLC, PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MidAtlantic Interstate Transmission submits 

Revised IA SA No. 4577 to be effective 

2/7/2021. 

Filed Date: 12/8/20. 

Accession Number: 20201208–5072. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/20. 

Docket Numbers: ER21–606–000. 

Applicants: Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate 

Schedule FERC No. 317 between TriState and MCREA to be effective 2/26/ 

2020. 

Filed Date: 12/8/20. 

Accession Number: 20201208–5086. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/20. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric securities 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ES21–11–000; 

ES21–12–000; ES21–13–000; ES21–14– 

000; ES21–15–000; ES21–16–000 

Applicants: Massachusetts Electric 

Company, Nantucket Electric Company, 

The Narragansett Electric Company, 

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 

New England Hydro-Transmission 

Electric Company, Inc., National Grid 

Generation LLC. 

Description: Joint Application Under 

Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for 

Authorization to Issue Securities of 

Massachusetts Electric Company, et al. 

Filed Date: 12/4/20. 

Accession Number: 20201204–5260. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27438 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–10015–93–OECA] 

Notice of Availability of EPA 

Tampering Policy and Request for 

Information Regarding 1986 Catalyst 

Policy 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for information. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance has issued EPA Tampering 

Policy: The EPA Enforcement Policy on 

Vehicle and Engine Tampering and 

Aftermarket Defeat Devices under the 

Clean Air Act. This Policy states how 

the EPA intends to handle certain 

potential civil violations of the Clean 

Air Act’s prohibitions on tampering 

with vehicle and engine emissions 

controls as well as the manufacturing, 

selling, offering to sell, and installation 

of parts and components that defeat 

emissions controls. The EPA Tampering 

Policy creates no obligations on 

regulated parties, and it is not a rule. 

Further, it is principally a restatement of 

currently applicable enforcement 

discretion policies. The EPA Tampering 

Policy supersedes and replaces former 

statements of enforcement policy, as 

specified in the Policy itself. The EPA 

Tampering Policy neither supersedes 

nor replaces a 1986 enforcement policy 

that is specific to replacement catalytic 

converters for light-duty gasoline motor 

vehicles that are beyond their emissions 

warranty. Rather, with this Federal 

Register document, the EPA requests 

information to help the agency make a 

future decision on whether and how to 

update or withdraw the 1986 catalyst 

policy. EPA does not anticipate any 

measurable costs to be incurred by the 

affected entities associated with the 

Tampering Policy or the request for 

information regarding the 1986 catalyst 

policy. 

DATES: The EPA requests information 

relevant to the agency’s ongoing 

evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy 

and potential future enforcement policy 

regarding replacement catalytic 

converters for light-duty gasoline motor 

vehicles that are beyond their emissions 

warranty. Comments must be received 

by February 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified in the subject line by 

‘‘Catalyst Policy,’’ to tampering@

epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Belser, Air Enforcement Division, 

Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, Mail Code 2242A, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, (202) 564–6850; belser.evan@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview of EPA Tampering Policy 

Manufacturers employ various 

systems, technologies, and designs to 

control emissions of air pollution from 

their vehicles, engines, and equipment. 

They do so to comply with Part A of 

Title II of the Clean Air Act (Act or 

CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7521–7554. These 

emissions controls reduce emissions of 

harmful air pollutants and help prevent 

respiratory disease, premature death, 

and environmental harm. The Act 

prohibits tampering with these 

emissions controls, and also prohibits 

making, selling, and installing products 

that defeat emissions controls. CAA 

§ 203(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). 

Violations of these prohibitions can 

severely impact air quality and prevent 

a level playing field in the aftermarket 

parts industry and among those who 

service vehicles and engines. 

The EPA’s enforcement and 

compliance efforts to stop tampering 

and aftermarket defeat devices are the 

subject of an ongoing National 

Compliance Initiative. The agency has 

stepped up its enforcement in this area 

in response to the widespread removal 

of vehicle emissions controls that are 

essential for achieving and maintaining 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. Agency enforcement 

personnel are holding accountable those 

who manufacture and sell aftermarket 

defeat devices, those who tamper with 

commercial fleets of vehicles, and those 

service shops that routinely delete 

emissions control equipment. Such 

conduct is illegal, and undercuts local, 

state, and federal efforts to improve air 

quality. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices 80783 

To complement this enforcement 

effort, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has 

updated the agency’s enforcement 

policy concerning potential violations of 

the Act’s prohibitions on tampering and 

aftermarket defeat devices. The EPA 

Tampering Policy: The EPA 

Enforcement Policy on Vehicle and 

Engine Tampering and Aftermarket 

Defeat Devices under the Clean Air Act 

(EPA Tampering Policy, or Policy) will 

foster consistency in how EPA 

enforcement personnel approach this 

work. This Policy will also provide 

compliance assistance, for example, by 

describing measures that aftermarket 

parts companies, service technicians, 

and others may take to help prevent 

violations. This update is helpful in part 

because prior enforcement policies predate the 1990 amendments to the Clean 

Air Act that added the defeat device 

prohibition alongside the tampering 

prohibition and expanded the 

jurisdiction of the Act to include 

nonroad vehicles and engines. CAA 

§§ 203(a)(3)(B) and 213, 42 U.S.C. 

7522(a)(3)(B) and 7547. Also, this Policy 

speaks in terms of today’s technology, 

which has advanced considerably since 

the time of EPA’s prior enforcement 

policies. 

The EPA Tampering Policy is a 

statement of EPA enforcement policy— 

it is not a regulation—and so it 

establishes no performance standards, 

test methods, reporting requirements, or 

other features more characteristic of a 

regulatory certification program. This 

Policy does not purport to address every 

possible kind of conduct that may be 

subject to the Act’s prohibitions. 

This Policy consolidates and restates 

the principles of the existing 

enforcement policies (as listed in the 

Policy’s Introduction). Most notably, in 

this Policy the EPA reaffirms its 

longstanding practice of using 

enforcement discretion not to pursue 

conduct that could potentially 

constitute a violation of the Clean Air 

Act provided the person performing that 

conduct has a documented, reasonable 

basis to conclude that the conduct does 

not adversely affect emissions. The 

Policy includes six circumstances that 

help to illustrate what the EPA generally 

views to be a reasonable basis deserving 

of enforcement discretion, paraphrased 

here: 

• Reasonable Basis A: Identical to the 

EPA-certified configuration 

• Reasonable Basis B: Replacement 

after-treatment system that is as 

effective as the vehicle’s or engine’s 

original system and is durable enough to 

last for a period of time equal to at least 

half of the vehicle’s or engine’s useful 

life as defined in EPA regulations 

• Reasonable Basis C: Addition of a 

new after-treatment system to 

decrease emissions 

• Reasonable Basis D: Emissions testing 

demonstrates no adverse effect on 

emissions 

• Reasonable Basis E: Aftermarket part 

certified or approved by EPA 

• Reasonable Basis F: Aftermarket part 

exempted by the California Air 

Resources Board 

The EPA Tampering Policy may be 

viewed at the following website: Air 

Enforcement Policy, Guidance and 

Publications, https://www.epa.gov/ 

enforcement/air-enforcement-policyguidance-and-publications#Mobile. 

II. Request for Information Relevant to 

the 1986 Catalyst Policy 

By this publication and as explained 

below, the EPA requests information 

relevant to the agency’s ongoing 

evaluation of a 1986 EPA enforcement 

policy that specifically addresses the 

manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and 

installation of replacement catalytic 

converters (or catalysts) for light-duty 

gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond 

their emissions warranty. Sale and Use 

of Aftermarket Catalytic Converters, 51 

FR 28114 and 51 FR 28132 (Aug. 5, 

1986) (1986 catalyst policy), available at 

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/airenforcement-policy-guidance-andpublications#Mobile. 

A. Background 

A catalyst is a device installed in the 

exhaust system of a vehicle. It treats and 

eliminates harmful pollution produced 

in the vehicle’s engine, and is a type of 

device commonly referred to as an 

‘‘after-treatment system.’’ Automakers 

install catalysts in their new vehicles to 

meet tailpipe emissions standards 

(commonly referred to as ‘‘OEM 

catalysts’’, which stands for original 

equipment manufacturer). The 

manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and 

installation of an OEM catalyst, or an 

identical catalyst, would not be a 

violation of the Act. However, 

manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and 

installation of a less effective catalyst 

may be a violation and, in the absence 

of any applicable EPA enforcement 

policy, subject to investigation and 

potential enforcement action. 

The EPA issued the 1986 catalyst 

policy in response to various challenges 

associated with the early generations of 

vehicles equipped with catalytic 

converters. In the 1986 catalyst policy, 

the EPA stated that the agency would 

generally take no enforcement action for 

the manufacture, sale, or installation of 

a replacement catalyst even if that 

catalyst was less effective than the OEM 

catalyst so long as it met certain criteria. 

The 1986 catalyst policy included 

performance criteria for replacement 

catalysts (e.g., control emissions of NOx 

with 30% effectiveness for at least 

25,000 miles). The criteria reflected the 

anticipated division between those 

situations where the EPA would likely 

investigate further and those situations 

where the EPA would likely take no 

further action. Replacement catalysts 

that met the criteria in the 1986 catalyst 

policy were with few exceptions less 

effective than the catalysts that 

automakers installed in their new 

vehicles in the 1980s. Catalyst 

technology has advanced markedly 

since 1986, and now OEM catalysts are 

far more effective and durable than in 

the 1980s. 

B. Specific Policy Considerations 

The EPA broadly requests information 

that may inform the agency’s ongoing 

evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy 

and potential future enforcement policy 

regarding replacement catalytic 

converters for light-duty gasoline motor 

vehicles that are beyond their emissions 

warranty. This includes information and 

data on: potential costs and air quality 

benefits of withdrawing or changing the 

1986 catalyst policy; the current state of 

the market of replacement catalysts, 

including the cost, volume of sales, 

frequency of installation, the age and 

mileage of vehicles on which 

replacement catalysts are installed; to 

what extent catalyst replacement is 

needed due to failure of the original 

catalyst, or other reason including theft; 

and the effectiveness of replacement 

catalysts at treating air pollution, 

including whether and to what extent 

replacement catalysts in the current 

market conform to the catalysts 

described in the 1986 catalyst policy. 

Further, the EPA specifically requests 

information relevant to the five 

following policy considerations. 

First, the EPA requests information on 

whether the agency has accomplished 

the goals of the 1986 catalyst policy. As 

detailed in that policy, the stated goals 

included: Supporting fledgling state and 

local vehicle inspection programs by 

encouraging them to require their 

citizens to replace catalysts that were 

missing, lead poisoned, or otherwise 

ineffective; and encouraging the 

development of inexpensive, multipleapplication catalysts, and to confirm the 

effectiveness of these products. 

Second, the EPA requests information 

on whether EPA should establish a 

consistent enforcement policy for all 

types replacement after-treatment 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80784 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices 

systems for vehicles and engines. Aftertreatment systems are devices that treat 

exhaust from the engine in order to 

reduce the amount of pollution emitted 

into the ambient air. Vehicle and engine 

manufacturers employ after-treatment 

systems in order to comply with EPA 

emissions standards for a wide range of 

types of vehicles and engines, including 

gasoline and diesel products for the onroad and nonroad sectors. Common 

after-treatment systems include catalytic 

converters, diesel particulate filters, 

selective catalytic reduction systems, 

and diesel oxidation catalysts. These 

systems vary in their applications and 

technologies, but the question of 

whether such parts are legal is the same 

in all cases: do they violate the 

prohibitions on tampering and 

aftermarket defeat devices in section 

203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act? 

Note that the EPA Tampering Policy 

includes provisions that generally 

address replacement after-treatment 

systems. These provisions are primarily 

stated in ‘‘Reasonable Basis B’’ in the 

EPA Tampering Policy (other pertinent 

provisions are stated in Reasonable 

Bases A and F). In the agency’s ongoing 

evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy, 

the agency is considering whether to 

withdraw the 1986 catalyst policy and 

instead apply these general provisions 

from the Tampering Policy to 

replacement catalysts for light-duty 

gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond 

their emissions warranty. As applied, 

Reasonable Basis B would say that the 

EPA would typically find there is a 

reasonable basis where a catalyst is as 

effective as the vehicle’s original 

catalyst (which, for example, controls 

emissions of NOx with more than 90% 

effectiveness in recent model year 

vehicles) and will remain as effective for 

at least half of the vehicle’s ‘‘useful life’’ 

as defined in EPA regulations (e.g., 

60,000 miles for many vehicles on the 

road whose useful life in the regulations 

is 120,000 miles). 

Third, the EPA requests information 

on whether and how the 1986 catalyst 

policy affects the market for aftermarket 

catalysts. Over time, that market has 

seen demand for increasingly effective 

catalysts. This follows the same basic 

progression by vehicle manufacturers 

which have installed increasingly 

effective catalysts in their new motor 

vehicles in order to comply with 

increasingly stringent tailpipe emissions 

standards. Manufacturers have also used 

increasingly advanced on-board 

diagnostic (OBD) systems to monitor the 

performance of a vehicle’s emissionsrelated components and provide owners 

with an early warning of malfunctions 

through the dashboard ‘‘check engine’’ 

light (also known as a Malfunction 

Indicator Light). Catalysts that control 

emissions significantly less effectively 

than OEM catalysts may fail entirely at 

keeping the ‘‘check engine’’ light off, or 

may keep the light off for only a short 

period of time. Note that whether or for 

how long a replacement catalyst 

successfully keeps the ‘‘check engine’’ 

light does not determine whether that 

catalyst is compliant, but state and local 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

programs require the light be off in 

order for the vehicle to qualify for 

registration. Over time, aftermarket 

catalyst manufacturers have supplied 

increasingly effective catalysts to help 

their customers who want to keep the 

‘‘check engine’’ light off and to ensure 

protection of air quality. In meeting this 

demand, aftermarket catalyst 

manufacturers commonly make their 

catalysts more effective than the 

performance criteria set forth in the 

1986 catalyst policy and these more 

effective catalysts may last longer. 

Another market condition relates to 

the fact that the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) requires all aftermarket 

catalysts sold in California to control air 

pollution with an effectiveness that is 

similar to the vehicle’s OEM catalyst. 

Other states including New York and 

Maine have adopted California’s catalyst 

requirements, at least for those motor 

vehicles that were originally certified to 

meet California’s emissions standards 

(which sometimes vary from federal 

emissions standards depending on the 

vehicle application). This has created a 

kind of patchwork where there are 

significant differences among states in 

the effectiveness of catalysts for some 

vehicle applications. The EPA requests 

information on whether this creates 

confusion among vehicle owners or 

challenges for companies that 

manufacture and supply catalysts, and if 

so, how. The EPA further requests 

information on whether and how these 

conditions might change if the EPA 

were to withdraw the 1986 catalyst 

policy and instead employ the EPA 

Tampering Policy for replacement 

catalytic converters for gasoline lightduty motor vehicles that are beyond 

their emissions warranty. 

Fourth, the EPA requests information 

on the effect of EPA enforcement policy 

on catalyst costs. This includes 

information on the effect on the cost of 

catalysts of the 1986 catalyst policy. 

This also includes information on the 

effect on the cost of catalysts that may 

result if the EPA instead applies the 

EPA Tampering Policy to replacement 

catalytic converters for gasoline lightduty motor vehicles that are beyond 

their emissions warranty. Such 

information may include price to the 

ultimate purchaser of catalysts, the 

frequency of the need for catalyst 

replacement for the same vehicle, cost 

considerations for distributors and 

retailers, and cost considerations for 

catalyst manufacturers, as well as any 

non-confidential information on sales 

volume. More effective catalysts cost 

more than less effective catalysts 

because they are manufactured with 

better materials, better design, and 

higher amounts of the expensive 

precious metals that are needed to 

reduce air pollution. Like many 

aftermarket automotive parts, catalyst 

costs vary widely and depend on the 

catalyst manufacturer, distributor, 

retailer, and the application (i.e., make, 

model, and year of the light-duty motor 

vehicle that needs the catalyst). OEM 

catalysts are generally the most 

expensive option for any given 

application. 

Finally, the EPA requests information 

regarding an appropriate timeline for an 

orderly transition to a new enforcement 

policy in the event the EPA replaces the 

1986 catalyst policy. The EPA 

acknowledges that catalyst 

manufacturers, distributors, retailers, 

and installers may require time to 

transition away from catalysts subject to 

the 1986 catalyst policy. The EPA 

requests information on what changes 

may be required for participants in this 

industry. The EPA specifically requests 

information regarding an appropriate 

timeline, or timelines, for 

manufacturers, distributors, and 

retailers to transition in the event that 

the EPA withdraws the 1986 catalyst 

policy and instead applies the EPA 

Tampering Policy (specifically 

Reasonable Bases A, B, and F). 

C. Submit Information 

Submit comments, identified in the 

subject line by ‘‘Catalyst Policy,’’ to 

tampering@epa.gov. Comment must be 

received by February 12, 2021. Once 

submitted, comments cannot be edited 

or removed. The EPA may publish any 

comment received. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices 80785 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Susan Parker Bodine, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27433 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 

Intent to Conduct a Detailed Economic 

Impact Analysis 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Charter of the 

Export-Import Bank of the United 

States, this notice is to inform the public 

that the Export-Import Bank of the 

United States has received an 

application for $8.56 million in 

medium-term loan insurance to support 

the export of approximately $7.4 million 

worth of engineering services, grinding 

technology, steam heating and other 

mechanical equipment. The U.S. 

exports will enable the Brazilian 

company to double production at an 

existing facility, allowing it to produce 

up to 3 million liters a day of ethanol, 

574 thousand metric tons a year of 

Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles 

(DDGS) and 36,500 liters a year of Corn 

Oil. Production of ethanol and corn oil 

will be sold primarily in Brazil. New 

production of DDGS will be sold 

primarily in Brazil, with smaller 

amounts to Europe and Asia 

DATES: Comments are due 14 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments on this transaction 

electronically on www.regulations.gov, 

or by email to economic.impact@

exim.gov. 

Scott Condren, 

Policy Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27371 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Announcement of Board 

Approval Under Delegated Authority 

and Submission to OMB 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (Board) is 

adopting a proposal to extend for three 

years, without revision, the Application 

for Exemption from Prohibited Service 

at Savings and Loan Holding Companies 

(FR LL–12; OMB No. 7100–0338). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Federal Reserve Board Clearance 

Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of 

the Chief Data Officer, Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 

452–3829. Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta 

Ahmed—Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board 

authority under the PRA to approve and 

assign OMB control numbers to 

collections of information conducted or 

sponsored by the Board. Boardapproved collections of information are 

incorporated into the official OMB 

inventory of currently approved 

collections of information. The OMB 

inventory, as well as copies of the PRA 

Submission, supporting statements, and 

approved collection of information 

instrument(s) are available at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

These documents are also available on 

the Federal Reserve Board’s public 

website at https://

www.federalreserve.gov/apps/ 

reportforms/review.aspx or may be 

requested from the agency clearance 

officer, whose name appears above. 

Final Approval Under OMB Delegated 

Authority of the Extension for Three 

Years, Without Revision, of the 

Following Information Collection: 

Report title: Application for 

Exemption from Prohibited Service at 

Savings and Loan Holding Companies. 

Agency form number: FR LL–12. 

OMB control number: 7100–0338. 

Frequency: As needed. 

Respondents: Savings and loan 

holding companies (SLHCs) and 

prohibited persons that seek to 

participate in the affairs of an SLHC. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Individuals: 43; SLHCs: 2. 

Estimated average hours per response: 

Individuals: 16; SLHCs: 16. 

Estimated annual burden hours: 

Individuals: 688; SLHCs: 32; total: 720. 

General description of report: The 

Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act and 

the Board’s Regulation LL (12 CFR part 

238) prohibit individuals who have 

been convicted of certain criminal 

offenses, or who have agreed to enter 

into a pretrial diversion or similar 

program in connection with a 

prosecution for such criminal offenses, 

from participating in the affairs of a 

SLHC or any of its subsidiaries without 

the written consent of the Board. Such 

an individual, or the SLHC with which 

the individual seeks to participate, may 

apply for an exemption from this 

prohibition. 

All prohibited persons and SLHCs 

that seek an exemption are subject to the 

application requirements of subpart I of 

Regulation LL. An applicant must 

provide information regarding the 

position at the SLHC held or to be held 

by the prohibited person, the prohibited 

person’s level of ownership of the 

SLHC, the specific nature of the offense 

involved, evidence of rehabilitation, and 

other relevant factors listed in section 

238.88(b) of Regulation LL (12 CFR 

238.88(b)). An applicant may submit 

this information in a letter or by using 

the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation’s (FDIC) Application 

Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act (OMB No. 3064– 

0018). The SLHC or prohibited person 

may seek an exemption only for a 

designated position (or positions) with 

respect to an SLHC identified in the 

application. 

Legal authorization and 

confidentiality: The FR LL–12 is 

authorized by section 19(e)(2) of the FDI 

Act, under which the ‘‘Board . . . may 

provide exemptions [from the 

prohibition] by regulation or order . . . 

if the exemption is consistent with the 

purposes of this subsection.’’ The FR 

LL–12 is required to obtain a benefit. 

Individual respondents may request 

that information submitted to the Board 

through the FR LL–12 be kept 

confidential. If a respondent requests 

confidential treatment, the Board will 

determine whether the information is 

entitled to confidential treatment on a 

case-by-case basis. Information collected 

through the FR LL–12 may be kept 

confidential under exemption 4 of the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 

which protects commercial or financial 

information that is privileged or 

confidential, or under FOIA exemption 

6, which covers information about 

individuals, the disclosure of which 

‘‘would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.’’ 

Additionally, to the extent the FR LL– 

12 contains information extracted from 

examination reports, it may be withheld 

from disclosure under FOIA exemption 

8, which protects information ‘‘related 

to examination, operating, or condition 

reports.’’ 

Current actions: On August 21, 2020, 

the Board published a notice in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES