Notice of Availability of EPA Tampering Policy and Request for Information Regarding 1986 Catalyst Policy, 80782-80785 [2020-27433]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:51 Dec 12, 2020
Jkt 253001
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for information.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:51 Dec 12, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80783
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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
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’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:51 Dec 12, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Notices
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
Export-Import Bank.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
SUMMARY:
Scott Condren,
Policy Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2020–27371 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690–01–P
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Announcement of Board
Approval Under Delegated Authority
and Submission to OMB
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Board) is
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:51 Dec 12, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80785
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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80782-80785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27433]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email protected].
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;
[email protected].
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
Sec. 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.
[[Page 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 pre-date 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 Sec. Sec. 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-policy-guidance-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/air-enforcement-policy-guidance-and-publications#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,
multiple-application 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
[[Page 80784]]
systems for vehicles and engines. After-treatment 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 on-road 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 emissions-related 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 light-duty 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 light-duty 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 [email protected]. 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
[[Page 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