Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production and Import, 2020-2029; and Other Updates

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 84 › 84 FR 41510

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0271; FRL-9997-57-OAR] RIN 2060-AU26 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production and Import, 2020-2029; and Other Updates AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The EPA is proposing to allocate production and consumption allowances for specific hydrochlorofluorocarbons, a type of ozone-depleting substance, for the years 2020 through 2029. These hydrochlorofluorocarbons may be used to service certain equipment manufactured before 2020. The EPA is also proposing to update other requirements under the program for controlling production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, as well as proposing edits to the regulatory text for improved readability and clarity. These updates include revising the labeling requirements for containers of specific hydrochlorofluorocarbons; prohibiting the conversion of hydrochlorofluorocarbon allowances allocated through this rulemaking into allowances for hydrochlorofluorocarbons that have already been phased out; requiring the use of an electronic reporting system for producers, importers, exporters, transformers, and destroyers of class I and class II ozone-depleting substances; revising and removing recordkeeping and reporting requirements; improving the process for petitioning to import used substances for reuse; creating a certification process for importing used and virgin substances for destruction; and restricting the sale of known illegally imported substances. This notice further includes proposed clarifications to the certification requirements for methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment uses. The EPA is also proposing to add polyurethane foam systems containing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons to the list of nonessential products

importing used and virgin substances for destruction; and restricting the sale of known illegally imported substances. This notice further includes proposed clarifications to the certification requirements for methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment uses. The EPA is also proposing to add polyurethane foam systems containing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons to the list of nonessential products. Lastly, the agency is proposing to update the definition of “destruction” as used in the context of the production and consumption phaseout and remove obsolete provisions.

DATES:

Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking must be received on or before September 30, 2019. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on August 19, 2019. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on August 29, 2019. The hearing will be held in Washington, DC. More details concerning the hearing, including whether a hearing has been requested, will be available at https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/phaseout-class-ii-ozone-depleting-substances.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0271, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 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 ( e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system)

closure 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 ( e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Sleasman, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 564-7716; email address sleasman.katherine@epa.gov. You may also visit the Ozone Protection website of the EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division at https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout for further information about reporting and recordkeeping, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

ACE/ITDS—Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System ARFF—Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting CAA—Clean Air Act CBP—Customs and Border Protection CDC—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDX—Central Data Exchange CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon CFR—Code of Federal Regulations CROMERR—Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation DOT—Department of Transportation EPA—Environmental Protection Agency FAA—Federal Aviation Administration FR—Federal Register GPEA—Government Paperwork Elimination Act HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HTSA—Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated MMWR—Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Montreal Protocol—Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete th

Electronic Reporting Regulation DOT—Department of Transportation EPA—Environmental Protection Agency FAA—Federal Aviation Administration FR—Federal Register GPEA—Government Paperwork Elimination Act HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HTSA—Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated MMWR—Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Montreal Protocol—Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer MOP—Meeting of the Parties MT—Metric Ton NFPA—National Fire Protection Association ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential ODS—Ozone-Depleting Substance Parties to the Montreal Protocol or Party—Nations and regional economic integration organizations that have consented to be bound by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer RACA—Request for Additional Consumption Allowances SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy TEAP—Technology and Economic Assessment Panel UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme Table of Contents

I. General Information A. Does this Proposed Action apply to me? B. What action is the Agency proposing? C. What is the Agency's authority for this Proposed Action? D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this Proposed Action? II. Background III. Allocation of HCFC Allowances for the Years 2020 Through 2029 A. Allocation of HCFC-123 Production and Consumption Allowances B. De minimis Exemption C. Addition of Fire Suppression Servicing Uses to the HCFC Phaseout Schedule D. Revisions to Labeling Requirements E. Allocation of HCFC-124 Production and Consumption Allowances F. Changes to Transfer of Allowance Provisions in § 82.23 IV. Updates to Other Provisions of the Production and Consumption Control Program A. Electronic Reporting B. Changes to Reporting Requirements in §§ 82.13, 82.23, and 82.24 C. Changes to Methyl Bromide Provisions in §§ 82.4 and 82.13 D. Changes to Provisions for the Import of ODS in § 82.3, 82.4, 82.13, 82.15, and 82.24 E. Prohibiting the Sale of Illegally Imported Controlled Substances V

§ 82.23 IV. Updates to Other Provisions of the Production and Consumption Control Program A. Electronic Reporting B. Changes to Reporting Requirements in §§ 82.13, 82.23, and 82.24 C. Changes to Methyl Bromide Provisions in §§ 82.4 and 82.13 D. Changes to Provisions for the Import of ODS in § 82.3, 82.4, 82.13, 82.15, and 82.24 E. Prohibiting the Sale of Illegally Imported Controlled Substances V. Addition of Polyurethane Foam Systems Containing CFCs to the Nonessential Product Ban VI. Updates to §§ 82.3, 82.104, and 82.270 Related to Destruction VII. Removing Obsolete Provisions in §§ 82.3, 82.4, 82.9, 82.10, 82.12, 82.13, 82.15, 82.16, and 82.24 VIII. Economic Analysis IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information

A. Does this Proposed Action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by any final action on this proposal if you manufacture, process, import, or distribute into commerce certain ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and mixtures

ement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information

A. Does this Proposed Action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by any final action on this proposal if you manufacture, process, import, or distribute into commerce certain ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and mixtures. Potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to:

• Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing entities (NAICS 333415)

• Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 423620)

• Basic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 3251)

• Chlorofluorocarbon Gas Manufacturing and Import (NAICS 325120)

• Farm Product Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493130)

• Farm Supplies and Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424910)

• Flour Milling (NAICS 311211)

• Fire Extinguisher Chemical Preparations Manufacturing (NAICS 325998)

• Fruit and Nut Tree Farming (NAICS 1113)

• General Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493130)

• Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production (NAICS 1114)

• Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Cement Manufacturing, Clinker (NAICS 327310)

• Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Incinerator, Hazardous Waste (NAICS 562211)

• Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120)

• Materials Recovery Facilities (NAICS 562920)

• Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336413)

• Other Chemical and Allied Production Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424690)

• Other Crop Farming (NAICS 1119)

• Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325320)

• Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors (NAICS 238220)

• Portable Fire Extinguishers Manufacturing (NAICS 339999)

• Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) (NAICS 115114)

• Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710)

• Rice Milling (NAICS 311212)

• Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325320)

• Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors (NAICS 238220)

• Portable Fire Extinguishers Manufacturing (NAICS 339999)

• Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) (NAICS 115114)

• Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710)

• Rice Milling (NAICS 311212)

• Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating (NAICS 115112)

• Vegetable and Melon Farming (NAICS 1112)

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this section could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

B. What action is the Agency proposing?

The EPA is proposing a number of revisions to the production and consumption control program for ODS 1 in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, which are divided into “class I” and “class II” substances. Section 602 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contains initial lists of class I and class II substances and addresses additions to those lists. The current lists appear in appendices A and B in subpart A. The list of class I substances includes chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and methyl bromide. The list of class II substances consists entirely of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). This action proposes specific revisions to the production and consumption control program including:

1 Generally speaking, when the EPA refers to ODS in this preamble, it is referring to class I and/or class II controlled substances

s (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and methyl bromide. The list of class II substances consists entirely of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). This action proposes specific revisions to the production and consumption control program including:

1 Generally speaking, when the EPA refers to ODS in this preamble, it is referring to class I and/or class II controlled substances. The terms “controlled substance” and “ODS” are used interchangeably, as are the terms “HCFC” and “class II substance.”

• The allocation of production and consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 to service certain equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020;

• Requiring the use of an electronic reporting system for producers, importers, exporters, transformers, and destroyers of ODS;

• Revisions and removal of certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements;

• Clarifications to the certification requirements for methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment uses;

• Improvements to the process for petitioning to import used substances for reuse;

• Creation of a certification process for importing used and virgin substances for destruction; and

• Restrictions on the sale of known illegally imported ODS.

In addition, this action proposes changes to other subparts supporting the ODS phaseout, specifically:

• Changes to the subpart E requirements for labeling of products containing HCFC-123 to clarify permitted uses;

• Adding to the subpart C ban on sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution in interstate commerce of certain products that contain class I ODS; and

• Changes to subpart H for reducing halon emissions.

nges to subpart H for reducing halon emissions.

As summarized below, the proposed changes outlined are grouped by relevance and thus may not be grouped by subparts as described above. The EPA is proposing to allocate annual production and consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 for the years 2020 through 2029 to be used for servicing certain equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. Section 605 of the CAA addresses the production, consumption, use, and introduction into interstate commerce of class II substances (listed HCFCs) within the United States. Sections 605 and 606 taken together constitute the primary source of authority for the domestic implementation of United States' obligations to phase out HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The EPA regulations issued under sections 605 and 606 appear at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. Those regulations reflect the agreed Montreal Protocol HCFC phaseout schedule. An element of that schedule is to phase out HCFC production and consumption by January 1, 2020, other than production and consumption for certain narrowly 2 In November 2018, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted another adjustment that, among other things, added “the servicing of fire suppression and fire protection equipment” existing on January 1, 2020 as a permissible use. 3 Consistent with this adjustment and a continuing servicing demand in fire suppression equipment using HCFCs in the United States, the EPA is proposing to revise subpart A to add servicing of existing “fire suppression equipment” to the authorized uses of newly produced or imported quantities of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 during the years 2020 through 2029. To facilitate compliance, the EPA is proposing to revise labeling requirements for containers of fire suppression agent containing HCFC-123 that is imported during the years 2020 through 2029 in subpart E

se subpart A to add servicing of existing “fire suppression equipment” to the authorized uses of newly produced or imported quantities of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 during the years 2020 through 2029. To facilitate compliance, the EPA is proposing to revise labeling requirements for containers of fire suppression agent containing HCFC-123 that is imported during the years 2020 through 2029 in subpart E. To align with existing regulations that prohibit the production and import of phased out HCFCs, in particular HCFC-22, the agency is proposing to modify the inter-pollutant allowance transfer provisions authorized by CAA section 607 to prohibit transfers into ODS that are already phased out.

2 Section 605(a)(3) of the CAA refers to equipment “manufactured” prior to January 1, 2020. The EPA interprets this to mean that an appliance “existing on” January 1, 2020 is one that is “manufactured” by that date. The definition of “manufactured” can be found at 40 CFR 82.3. See also 74 FR 66439.

3 Decision XXX/2 and Annex I of the “Compilation of decisions adopted by the parties,” adjust Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol.

In addition, the EPA is proposing to update the requirements under other provisions of 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. To increase the accuracy of reported data and to reduce burden associated with reporting ODS data, the EPA is proposing to require that certain reports, import petitions, and certifications of intent to import for destruction be submitted electronically through the agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). Each entity must establish an account in CDX in order to prepare, transmit, certify, and submit reports and submissions. The EPA is also proposing to amend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements by harmonizing requirements for class I and class II substances and removing reporting elements that would be made unnecessary by moving to electronic reporting. Required electronic reporting and reducing the number of reporting elements reduce the reporting burden

transmit, certify, and submit reports and submissions. The EPA is also proposing to amend the recordkeeping and reporting requirements by harmonizing requirements for class I and class II substances and removing reporting elements that would be made unnecessary by moving to electronic reporting. Required electronic reporting and reducing the number of reporting elements reduce the reporting burden.

The EPA is proposing two changes to provisions related to the sale of quarantine and preshipment (QPS) methyl bromide, a fumigant used to control pests in agriculture and shipping, in response to the misapplication of this ODS in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. First, the EPA is proposing to extend to all distributors of QPS methyl bromide a certification requirement that currently applies only to certain distributors and end users. This proposed change would help ensure that all distributors and applicators are aware of the restrictions on the use and sale of QPS methyl bromide. Second, the EPA is proposing to explicitly prohibit the use of methyl bromide produced under the QPS exemption for any use other than a quarantine use or a preshipment use. Additionally, the EPA is proposing revisions in §§ 82.4, 82.8, and 82.13 for readability, including changes to the naming convention for methyl bromide.

The EPA is also proposing to revise provisions related to the import of ODS. The agency is proposing to modify the import petition process by clarifying that failure to provide additional information requested by the EPA during the process is grounds for objection, and by allowing for information from the government of the exporting country to be submitted in lieu of certain currently required information for petitions to import recovered class I ODS held in ODS banks. The agency would modify the petition process to import used class I substances for reuse and provide a new certification process for the import of ODS (used and virgin) for destruction in the United States

ng for information from the government of the exporting country to be submitted in lieu of certain currently required information for petitions to import recovered class I ODS held in ODS banks. The agency would modify the petition process to import used class I substances for reuse and provide a new certification process for the import of ODS (used and virgin) for destruction in the United States. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to exempt halon 1211, a potent ODS used as a fire suppression streaming agent, in extinguishers used onboard aircraft from the import petition process to make it easier for companies to service fire suppression equipment, promoting proper maintenance of these bottles and preventing the emission of halon 1211.

The EPA is also proposing two changes to reduce the likelihood that phased out ODS will be sold and distributed in the United States, and thus reduce the potential for emissions of those substances in this country. First, the agency is proposing to prohibit the sale or offer for sale or distribution of any ODS that the seller knows, or has reason to know, has been imported into the United States without consumption allowances or is otherwise not subject to an exemption. Second, the EPA is proposing to add polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs to the list of class I nonessential products under 40 CFR part 82, subpart C to prohibit them from being sold or distributed in the United States.

The agency is proposing to revise the definition of “destruction” to include additional technologies such as chemical conversion processes, all of which have been approved in decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol which is found or otherwise discussed in subparts A, E, and H. Lastly, the EPA proposes to remove outdated provisions related to the allocation and transfer of class I ODS credits and allowances that are no longer in use in subpart A.

n” to include additional technologies such as chemical conversion processes, all of which have been approved in decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol which is found or otherwise discussed in subparts A, E, and H. Lastly, the EPA proposes to remove outdated provisions related to the allocation and transfer of class I ODS credits and allowances that are no longer in use in subpart A.

C. What is the Agency's authority for this Proposed Action?

Several sections of the CAA 4 provide authority for the actions proposed by the EPA in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 603 provides authority to establish monitoring and reporting requirements for ODS. Sections 604 and 605 provide authority to phase out production and consumption of class I and class II substances, respectively, and to restrict the use of class II ODS. Section 606 provides the EPA authority to establish a more stringent phaseout schedule 5 than that set out in sections 604 and 605 based on: (1) Current scientific information that a more stringent schedule may be necessary to protect human health and the environment, (2) the availability of substitutes, or (3) to conform to any acceleration under the Montreal Protocol. Section 607 provides the EPA with authority to issue production and consumption allowances and to authorize allowance transfers, including inter-pollutant and inter-company transfers. Section 610, in relevant part, directs the EPA to issue regulations that identify nonessential products that release class I substances into the environment (including any release during manufacture, use, storage, or disposal) and prohibit any person from selling or distributing any such product, or offering any such products for sale or distribution, in interstate commerce. Section 611 requires the EPA to establish and implement labeling requirements for containers of, and products containing or manufactured with, class I or class II ODS

environment (including any release during manufacture, use, storage, or disposal) and prohibit any person from selling or distributing any such product, or offering any such products for sale or distribution, in interstate commerce. Section 611 requires the EPA to establish and implement labeling requirements for containers of, and products containing or manufactured with, class I or class II ODS.

4 The Clean Air Act provisions addressing stratospheric ozone protection are codified at 42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q.

5 The following documents are available in the docket: “EPA. 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010,” and “EPA. 2018. Overview of CFC and HCFC Phaseout.”

The EPA's authority for this rulemaking is supplemented by section 114, which authorizes the EPA Administrator to require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out any provision of the CAA (with certain exceptions that do not apply here). Section 301 further provides authority for the EPA to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [the EPA Administrator's] functions” under the CAA. Additional authority for electronic reporting comes from the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504), which provides “(1) for the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper; and (2) for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable.”

Additional information on the EPA's authority to establish and manage an allocation system for the phaseout of class I and class II substances can be found at 58 FR 65018 (December 10, 1993) and 68 FR 2820 (January 21, 2003) respectively.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this Proposed Action?

The EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking which stem from proposed changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements

cation system for the phaseout of class I and class II substances can be found at 58 FR 65018 (December 10, 1993) and 68 FR 2820 (January 21, 2003) respectively.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this Proposed Action?

The EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking which stem from proposed changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The revisions proposed here would require electronic submissions through CDX, create a streamlined Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction, exempt halon 1211 in aircraft bottles from the import petitions process, and add recordkeeping certification requirement for methyl bromide QPS. The agency has analyzed the impact on the regulated community associated with the proposed regulatory changes, and the EPA estimates changes to reporting and recordkeeping would result in a cost of approximately $5,000 per year. However, the EPA estimates the annual costs savings to reporters as a result of reductions in reporting elements, streamlining forms, and added efficiencies to be approximately $13,000 per year. The one-time redesign labeling costs for containers of fire suppression agents are estimated to cost between $1,000 to $3,000. In addition, the EPA analyzed the impact on small businesses and found there would be no additional costs imposed on small business, see the docket for the screening analysis on small businesses. A description of the results of the analysis and the methods used can be found in Section VIII of this notice.

II. Background

is and the methods used can be found in Section VIII of this notice.

II. Background

The United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and ratified it on April 12, 1988. After ratification, Congress enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the CAA Amendments of 1990, which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its obligations under the Montreal Protocol, in addition to establishing complementary measures such as the national recycling and emission reduction programs under section 608 and the labeling requirements under section 611.

The 1992 Copenhagen Amendment 6 to the Montreal Protocol created the stepwise reduction schedule, subsequently revised, and the eventual phaseout of HCFC consumption. 7 The next milestone is a commitment to reduce HCFC consumption by 99.5% below the baseline by January 1, 2020, with consumption for the years 2020 through 2029 restricted to the servicing of refrigeration, air-conditioning, and fire suppression equipment existing on January 1, 2020. 8 This is referred to as the “servicing tail.” In November 2018, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to add fire suppression equipment existing on January 1, 2020 to the list of permissible servicing tail uses.

6 Further information on the Copenhagen Amendment is available at https://ozone.unep.org/en/handbook-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer/2199.

7 Consumption is defined in § 82.3 as production plus imports minus exports of a controlled substance (other than transshipments or used controlled substances)

ment existing on January 1, 2020 to the list of permissible servicing tail uses.

6 Further information on the Copenhagen Amendment is available at https://ozone.unep.org/en/handbook-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer/2199.

7 Consumption is defined in § 82.3 as production plus imports minus exports of a controlled substance (other than transshipments or used controlled substances). Production is defined in § 82.3 as the manufacture of a controlled substance from any raw material or feedstock chemical, but does not include: (1) The manufacture of a controlled substance that is subsequently transformed; (2) the reuse or recycling of a controlled substance; (3) amounts that are destroyed by the approved technologies; or (4) amounts that are spilled or vented unintentionally.

8 See Montreal Protocol Article 2F, paragraph 6.

The United States has chosen to implement the Montreal Protocol phaseout schedule of HCFCs on a chemical-by-chemical basis that employs a “worst-first” approach focusing on the phaseout of certain chemicals with higher ozone depletion potential (ODP) earlier than others. In 1993, the EPA established a phaseout schedule to eliminate HCFC-141b first, to greatly restrict HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 next, and to subsequently place restrictions on all other HCFCs ultimately leading to a complete phaseout of all HCFCs by 2030 (58 FR 15014, March 18, 1993; 58 FR 65018, December 10, 1993).

The EPA designed the allowance program to implement the production and consumption controls of the CAA and to facilitate an orderly phaseout. To control production, the EPA allocated baseline production allowances to producers of specific ODS. To control consumption, 9 the EPA allocated baseline consumption allowances to producers and importers of specific ODS. In the allowance program, the EPA allocates “calendar-year” or “annual” allowances to companies who expend them when they produce or import ODS

to facilitate an orderly phaseout. To control production, the EPA allocated baseline production allowances to producers of specific ODS. To control consumption, 9 the EPA allocated baseline consumption allowances to producers and importers of specific ODS. In the allowance program, the EPA allocates “calendar-year” or “annual” allowances to companies who expend them when they produce or import ODS. The allowances can be traded among companies both domestically and internationally (between countries that are Parties to the Protocol), with certain restrictions. Allocation of production and consumption allowances for most class I substances (CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and halons) ended in 1996, and in 2005 for methyl bromide. Production and consumption allowances for class II substances (HCFCs) will be reduced to zero in 2030. 10

9 See CAA section 601(6), 42 U.S.C. 7671(6); 40 CFR 82.3.

10 See CAA section 605 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7671(d) and Montreal Protocol Article 2F, paragraph 6.

Since the EPA is implementing the HCFC phaseout on a chemical-by-chemical basis, it allocates and tracks production and consumption allowances on an absolute kilogram basis for each chemical. An allowance is the unit of measure that controls production and consumption of ODS. The EPA allocates allowances for specific years; they are valid between January 1 and December 31 of a given control period ( i.e., calendar year). In previous rulemakings, the EPA has allocated calendar-year allowances equal to a percentage of the baseline for specified control periods. A calendar-year allowance represents the privilege granted to a company to produce or import one kilogram (not ODP-weighted) of the specific substance. The EPA allocates two types of calendar-year allowances—production allowances and consumption allowances. To produce an HCFC, an allowance holder must expend both production and consumption allowances. To import an HCFC, an allowance holder must expend only consumption allowances

ents the privilege granted to a company to produce or import one kilogram (not ODP-weighted) of the specific substance. The EPA allocates two types of calendar-year allowances—production allowances and consumption allowances. To produce an HCFC, an allowance holder must expend both production and consumption allowances. To import an HCFC, an allowance holder must expend only consumption allowances. An allowance holder exporting HCFCs for which it has expended consumption allowances may obtain a refund of those consumption allowances upon submittal of proper documentation to the EPA. Production and import of

Under the chemical-by-chemical phaseout schedule for HCFCs, the EPA stopped allocating production and consumption allowances for HCFC-141b as of 2003; there will be no more production and consumption allowances for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of 2020; and beginning in 2020 the use of newly produced or imported quantities of the remaining HCFCs will be limited to servicing refrigeration, air-conditioning, and fire suppression equipment existing at that date.

The EPA notes that absent specific use restrictions, HCFCs can continue to be used after their production and import has ceased, for example, to service existing equipment such as refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The EPA's intent has always been to facilitate a smooth transition to alternatives, which means avoiding stranding equipment that has not yet reached the end of its useful life. For example, used HCFC-22 that is recovered and reclaimed, or virgin material produced before the 2020 phaseout may continue to be used for as long as it is available to service existing HCFC-22 systems.

material produced before the 2020 phaseout may continue to be used for as long as it is available to service existing HCFC-22 systems.

The allowance system for production and import that reduces the number of allowances over time is a central component of the ODS phaseout in the United States. The EPA limits how much ODS enters the market to meet the CAA and Montreal Protocol phaseout milestones. To smooth the phaseout steps, the EPA also takes complementary actions that reduce the demand for ODS, encourage recovery and recycling or reclamation of used ODS, allow for continued servicing to avoid stranding existing equipment, and encourage transition to alternatives that “reduce overall risks to human health and the environment.” 11

11 CAA section 612, 42 U.S.C. 7671(k).

The EPA's most recent action related to the phaseout of HCFCs was a 2014 rule that allocated production and consumption allowances for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HCFC-123, and HCFC-124 for 2015-2019 (79 FR 64254, October 28, 2014). In that action, the EPA also implemented the provisions in CAA section 605(a) that limit production and consumption to servicing refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances and for use in fire suppression applications. That notice provides additional discussion of the history of the phaseout of HCFCs.

III. Allocation of HCFC Allowances for the Years 2020 Through 2029

This section presents the EPA's proposed approach for issuing HCFC allowances for the next regulatory period that extends from 2020 through 2029, as well as complementary changes to implement a recent adjustment to the Montreal Protocol. The EPA is proposing to issue consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and consumption and production allowances for HCFC-124 consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and obligations of the United States under the Montreal Protocol. These are the two HCFCs not already slated for phaseout in the United States by 2020 under existing regulations

to implement a recent adjustment to the Montreal Protocol. The EPA is proposing to issue consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and consumption and production allowances for HCFC-124 consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and obligations of the United States under the Montreal Protocol. These are the two HCFCs not already slated for phaseout in the United States by 2020 under existing regulations. These HCFCs are currently used in the refrigeration, air-conditioning, and fire suppression sectors. The EPA is also proposing to add servicing of fire suppression equipment to the authorized uses of newly produced or imported quantities of these HCFCs during the years 2020 through 2029. In addition, the EPA is proposing changes to the current labeling requirements for containers of fire suppression agent using HCFC-123.

In this proposed action, the EPA is relying on its authority under CAA section 605(c) to promulgate regulations phasing out the production and restricting the use of class II substances in accordance with section 605, subject to previous accelerations under section 606 (See 58 FR 65018, December 19, 1993 and 74 FR 66411, December 15, 2009). The EPA is proposing limited changes to the existing regulations on production, consumption, and use of class II ODS to provide flexibility for the years 2020 through 2029 consistent with the requirements of section 605 and obligations of the United States under the Montreal Protocol

o previous accelerations under section 606 (See 58 FR 65018, December 19, 1993 and 74 FR 66411, December 15, 2009). The EPA is proposing limited changes to the existing regulations on production, consumption, and use of class II ODS to provide flexibility for the years 2020 through 2029 consistent with the requirements of section 605 and obligations of the United States under the Montreal Protocol.

In developing the proposed allocations for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 for the years 2020 through 2029, the EPA considered a number of factors, including existing company-specific consumption baselines listed in § 82.19; the uses of HCFCs that are permissible for the years 2020 through 2029 under CAA section 605(a) and the availability of alternatives for those uses; the types of HCFCs that may be produced and consumed consistent with existing obligations and regulations; the quantity needed to meet the estimated demand for each permissible use; the estimated quantity of HCFCs that will be available from recycling and reclamation, as well as from the potential stockpiling of virgin HCFCs in advance of the 2020 phaseout step; 12 and the transition that must occur by 2030 when HCFC production and consumption will be phased out completely. For each HCFC that will be allocated, the EPA identifies a total number of allowances to be allocated and then sets calendar-year allowances equal to a percentage of each company's baseline. 13 The following discussion describes how the EPA considered each of these factors broadly in developing the proposed allocations.

12 EPA. 2019. The U.S. Phaseout of HCFCs: Projected Servicing Demands in the U.S. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sector (2020-2030).

019. The U.S. Phaseout of HCFCs: Projected Servicing Demands in the U.S. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sector (2020-2030).

13 The percentage of baseline allowances to be allocated for each HCFC is determined as follows: First, all the company-specific consumption baselines (listed in the table at § 82.19) are added to determine the aggregate amount of consumption baseline. The total number of allowances to be allocated in a given year are then divided by the aggregate amount of baseline allowances.

The first factor the EPA considered when developing this proposal was the existing limitation on permissible uses of HCFCs and the availability of alternatives for those uses. Section 605(a) of the CAA limited the use of newly-produced ( i.e., virgin) HCFCs beginning January 1, 2015. The statute provides that starting on that date, it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce into interstate commerce or use any class II substance unless such substance: (1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other chemicals; (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured before January 1, 2020; or (4) is listed as acceptable under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program for use as a fire suppression agent for nonresidential applications. As detailed in the draft report in the docket titled The U.S. Phaseout of HCFCs: Projected Servicing Demands in the U.S. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sector (2020-2030), hereafter referred to as the Draft Servicing Tail Report, the EPA considered the availability of alternatives for the latter two uses, with the understanding that it is typically best to service equipment with the same refrigerant or fire suppression agent it was designed to use. The SNAP program continues to review and list alternatives for applications that use HCFCs, including refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression applications that use HCFC-123

sidered the availability of alternatives for the latter two uses, with the understanding that it is typically best to service equipment with the same refrigerant or fire suppression agent it was designed to use. The SNAP program continues to review and list alternatives for applications that use HCFCs, including refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression applications that use HCFC-123. Substitutes are listed under that regulatory program as acceptable, unacceptable, or acceptable subject to use restrictions for specific uses. Any future use of substitutes listed as acceptable subject to use restrictions

In addition to the statutory provisions in CAA section 605, the EPA established a “worst-first approach” in 1993 which addressed which HCFCs may be produced and consumed and prioritized the phaseout of HCFCs based on their ODPs (58 FR 15014 and 58 FR 65018). These regulations can be found in § 82.16. HCFC-141b was phased out in 2003, except for certain exempted uses. HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b will be fully phased out of production and consumption starting in 2020, with exceptions for destruction and transformation. Consistent with that approach, the EPA is proposing to issue allowances for production and consumption of only HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, as these are the remaining HCFCs that have not been phased out domestically.

Under the Montreal Protocol, the United States has committed to phase out HCFC production and consumption by January 1, 2020, other than production and consumption for certain narrowly defined uses in an amount up to 0.5% of baseline annually. Under a previous Montreal Protocol adjustment in 1995, production and consumption during the years 2020 through 2029 were restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on January 1, 2020. In the spring of 2018, the United States proposed adjusting the Montreal Protocol to allow for new production and import of HCFCs within the 0.5% cap for servicing fire suppression equipment existing on January 1, 2020

in 1995, production and consumption during the years 2020 through 2029 were restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on January 1, 2020. In the spring of 2018, the United States proposed adjusting the Montreal Protocol to allow for new production and import of HCFCs within the 0.5% cap for servicing fire suppression equipment existing on January 1, 2020. This proposal was based on extensive stakeholder consultation on HCFC needs during the years 2020 through 2029 and the EPA's analysis of available information, including the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report. In November 2018, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol decided to adopt an adjustment that, among other things, 14 added to Article 2F “the servicing of fire suppression and fire protection equipment” existing on January 1, 2020 as a permissible use for newly produced or imported HCFCs. 15 While the term “fire protection” can be understood in some contexts to refer broadly to all measures taken to protect persons or property from harm, the terms “fire protection” and “fire suppression” have been used interchangeably in the Montreal Protocol context to refer to suppressing or putting out fires through the use of chemical substances. Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act uses the term “fire suppression.” In addition, the EPA views this term as the more precise term in the context of regulating ozone-depleting substances. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add servicing of “fire suppression equipment” to the authorized uses of newly produced or imported quantities of these HCFCs during the years 2020 through 2029. The adjustment adopted in November 2018 will enter into force on June 21, 2019. The final meeting report from the 30th Meeting of the Parties and Decision XXX/2 adopting the adjustment are included in the docket for this rulemaking

sing to add servicing of “fire suppression equipment” to the authorized uses of newly produced or imported quantities of these HCFCs during the years 2020 through 2029. The adjustment adopted in November 2018 will enter into force on June 21, 2019. The final meeting report from the 30th Meeting of the Parties and Decision XXX/2 adopting the adjustment are included in the docket for this rulemaking.

14 The adjustment adopted at the Meeting of the Parties in November 2018 included an essential use provision as well as the addition of two niche applications under the 0.5% cap. In this proposed rule, the EPA is only proposing to address the addition of fire suppression. We are not proposing to take any action with regard to other elements of the adjustment at this time.

15 Decision XXX/2 and Annex I of the “Compilation of decisions adopted by the parties,” adjust Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol.

In developing the proposed allocations, the EPA considered the quantities needed to satisfy estimated demand for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 to service certain equipment manufactured before 2020. These estimates are discussed in more detail in an updated 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report, which is available in the docket. This report and the proposed allocation are based on demand projections contained in the EPA's Vintaging Model, 16 recent market research, discussions with industry on current HCFC uses and trends, and the expected availability of recovered, recycled/reclaimed, and reused material. The agency made the April 2018 draft report available on its website and in the docket along with a Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19757) and requested comment on the data and assumptions in the report. The EPA did not receive any substantive comments on the report but continues to welcome further input on all aspects of the revised report, including but not limited to the underlying assumptions and sensitivity analyses

the docket along with a Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19757) and requested comment on the data and assumptions in the report. The EPA did not receive any substantive comments on the report but continues to welcome further input on all aspects of the revised report, including but not limited to the underlying assumptions and sensitivity analyses. As a result of the adjustment to Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol, the EPA has since revised the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report to reflect the demand for servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. The EPA seeks comment on the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report specifically related to the fire suppression sector. Since the EPA will use the report to support the final rule, the agency requests any relevant data and market information that would improve the accuracy of the agency's projections. These data may be used in determining the final allocation.

16 The EPA's Vintaging Model estimates the annual chemical emissions from industry sectors that historically used ODS, including Ref/AC and fire suppression. The model uses information on the market size and growth for each end-use, as well as a history and projections of the market transition from ODS to alternatives. The model tracks emissions of annual “vintages” of new equipment that enter into operation by incorporating information on estimates of the quantity of equipment or products sold, serviced, and retired or converted each year, and the quantity of the compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or maintain the equipment.

facture, charge, and/or maintain the equipment.

The last overarching factor the EPA considered is the 2030 phaseout date for HCFC production and import, with limited exceptions, under CAA section 605(b)(2) and (c). As for prior HCFC phaseout steps, the agency's intent is to accomplish the 2030 phaseout step in a manner that achieves a smooth transition to alternatives without stranding equipment. The goal is to allow equipment owners to continue servicing their HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 equipment that is still within its expected lifetime. Experience with prior HCFC-22 phaseout steps indicates that gradually decreasing allocation levels is better than an abrupt increase or decrease to foster recovery, recycling, and reclamation of HCFCs and an orderly transition to approved alternatives.

A. Allocation of HCFC-123 Production and Consumption Allowances

This section presents the EPA's proposed approach for determining the amount of HCFC-123 production and consumption allowances to be issued and takes comment on two alternatives.

The agency is proposing to not provide any HCFC-123 production allowances for the years 2020 through 2029. In 2009, the EPA issued zero production baseline allowances for HCFC-123 because no companies produced HCFC-123 production in the baseline years of 2005 through 2007. As such, the EPA has not issued production allowances for HCFC-123 in subsequent years (74 FR 66431). Under section 605(b)(1) of the CAA, it is unlawful for any person to produce any class II substance in an annual quantity greater than the quantity of such substance produced by such person during the baseline year. The EPA does not propose to issue any production allowances for HCFC-123 for the years 2020 through 2029.

In 2020, the consumption baseline of the United States for all HCFCs will be 0.5% which equates to 76.2 ODP-weighted metric tons that could be available for servicing

substance in an annual quantity greater than the quantity of such substance produced by such person during the baseline year. The EPA does not propose to issue any production allowances for HCFC-123 for the years 2020 through 2029.

In 2020, the consumption baseline of the United States for all HCFCs will be 0.5% which equates to 76.2 ODP-weighted metric tons that could be available for servicing. 17 Under section 605(c) of the CAA, the consumption of HCFCs by any person is also to be limited to the quantity consumed by that person during the baseline year. The EPA has implemented this requirement by limiting the number of annual allowances allocated for each chemical in § 82.16. Consumption of HCFC-123 during the baseline year equates to 2,014 MT (40 ODP-weighted MT).

17 76.2 ODP-weighted metric tons is the equivalent of 3,810 MT of HCFC-123.

Table 1 shows the number of HCFC-123 consumption allowances that would be allocated each year from 2020 to 2030 under the EPA's proposed approach and under the two alternatives on which the EPA is also taking comment. The proposed and alternative approaches are discussed in greater detail below.

Table 1—Comparison of HCFC-123 Consumption Allowance Allocation Approaches Between 2020-2030 (MT) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total Proposal 650 650 650 570 490 410 330 250 170 90 0 4,260 Alternative 1 520 480 450 420 380 350 310 280 250 210 0 3,650 Alternative 2 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 2,014 0 20,140 (1) Proposal

2,014 0 20,140 (1) Proposal

The agency proposes to issue consumption allowances equal to the 2020 estimated HCFC-123 demand for servicing existing refrigeration and air-conditioning and fire suppression equipment for years 2020 through 2022 and to then decrease the number of allowances issued in each subsequent year by an equal amount each year such that there are zero allowances issued in 2030. In effect, this proposal would meet the estimated, full servicing demand in 2020 with newly imported HCFC-123 and the estimated, full servicing demand in 2030 with reclaimed HCFC-123. Under this proposal, the EPA would allocate 650 MT 18 for the years 2020 through 2022 to ensure adequate supply for servicing both existing air-conditioning and fire suppression equipment. Currently the reclamation market primarily services the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. The EPA believes that initially providing three years of flat allocations would allow time for the reclamation market to enter the fire suppression sector. This is the maximum estimated HCFC-123 demand for servicing refrigeration, air-conditioning, and fire suppression equipment in 2020 as discussed in the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report.

18 13 ODP-weighted MT.

The EPA could use an equal yearly decrease approach beginning in 2023 but start at a higher or lower allocation. Specifically, the EPA could use a starting allocation in the years 2020 through 2022 of up to 1,200 MT (24 ODP-weighted MT), which is the current average annual consumption of HCFC-123 in 2012 through 2017 (83 FR 19757). The agency could also use a lower starting allocation for years 2020 through 2022 of between 650 MT (the proposed starting allocation) and 520 MT (the starting allocation in the first alternative discussed below). The agency requests comment on the full range of possible starting allocations for this option.

The EPA proposes to reduce the allocation annually beginning in 2023 by an equal amount each year to bring allocations down to zero by 2030

on for years 2020 through 2022 of between 650 MT (the proposed starting allocation) and 520 MT (the starting allocation in the first alternative discussed below). The agency requests comment on the full range of possible starting allocations for this option.

The EPA proposes to reduce the allocation annually beginning in 2023 by an equal amount each year to bring allocations down to zero by 2030. This approach balances the various near and longer term needs by fostering a stable supply of HCFCs to be used for servicing throughout the allocation period and past the phaseout date. Gradually reducing HCFC allowances fosters transition and recycling/reclamation and is consistent with the EPA's approach in previous HCFC allocation rules (see 74 FR 66412, December 15, 2009; 76 FR 47451, August 5, 2011; 78 FR 20004, April 3, 2013; and 79 FR 64254, October 28, 2014). During previous ODS phaseouts, decreasing the allocation has provided equipment owners with the proper market signal to foster transition to alternatives and to increase the incentive for recovery and reclamation.

Consistent with our obligations as a party to the Montreal Protocol, and the use limitation in CAA section 605(a) regarding refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, the EPA is not proposing to issue HCFC-123 allowances for use in fire suppression or refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2020. The EPA notes that new fire suppression and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment may be manufactured with recovered and recycled/reclaimed HCFCs in 2020 and beyond. Section 605(a) of the CAA does not restrict the use of recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123. For instance, as explained in the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report available in the docket, the fire suppression sector has a long history of using recovered and recycled/reclaimed ODS for both servicing and new equipment

equipment may be manufactured with recovered and recycled/reclaimed HCFCs in 2020 and beyond. Section 605(a) of the CAA does not restrict the use of recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123. For instance, as explained in the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report available in the docket, the fire suppression sector has a long history of using recovered and recycled/reclaimed ODS for both servicing and new equipment. For example, there has been continuing demand for halons in newly-manufactured fire suppression equipment since the 1994 halon phaseout in the United States. This demand for halons has been satisfied with recycled/reclaimed halons. Any demand for HCFC-123 for charging and servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2020 must also be met by recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 or HCFC-123 that was stockpiled prior to 2020.

Following the November 2018 Montreal Protocol adjustment, the EPA revised the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report to disaggregate estimated demand for fire suppression to show estimated demand for servicing compared to demand for new equipment. The EPA consulted with industry on the estimate of future market demand for HCFC-123 fire suppression applications. Over the past several years, total demand (the manufacture of new equipment and the servicing of existing equipment) has varied, but the average has been approximately 260 MT per year. The EPA expects the servicing demand for fire suppression servicing to be between 35 to 90 MT based on projections 19 from the Vintaging Model and feedback from industry.

19 EPA. 2019. The U.S. Phaseout of HCFCs: Projected Servicing Demands in the U.S. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sector (2020-2030), Table 5.

ing Demands in the U.S. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Fire Suppression Sector (2020-2030), Table 5.

Starting the allocation levels below the estimated demand for servicing both fire suppression and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, even though the amount reclaimed is expected to be significant, could lead to insufficient quantities of recycled/ 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report. As such, the EPA does not think it would be prudent to reduce the allocation further to account for the complete amount of expected reclamation in the early years. Conversely, if the EPA allocated a higher amount than demand, more virgin HCFC-123 may be imported, reducing the need for recovered and reclaimed HCFC-123. As a point of comparison, the EPA allocated 100% of the HCFC-123 baseline (2,014 MT, Alternative 2 in Table 1) for the years 2015 through 2019. In those years HCFC-123 could be used to manufacture new equipment as well as service existing equipment. Allowance holders did not use their full allocation for HCFC-123 during those years and often used the inter-pollutant transfer mechanism to convert their HCFC-123 allowances into HCFC-22 allowances. After January 1, 2020, there is no other market for transfers.

The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of this proposed allocation including the proposed number of allowances to be issued for 2020. The agency requests comment on the rationale explained above for its proposal to allocate 650 MT HCFC-123 consumption allowances for 2020 through 2022; whether the starting allocation in 2020 should be higher or lower; the proposal to decrease this allocation by a constant amount each year after 2022; and whether this proposal would meet demand for HCFC-123 during the years 2020 through 2029. The EPA also requests comment on the expected servicing demand for fire suppression equipment, which is based on projections from the Vintaging Model and feedback from industry

allocation in 2020 should be higher or lower; the proposal to decrease this allocation by a constant amount each year after 2022; and whether this proposal would meet demand for HCFC-123 during the years 2020 through 2029. The EPA also requests comment on the expected servicing demand for fire suppression equipment, which is based on projections from the Vintaging Model and feedback from industry. The EPA is taking comment on whether the proposed allocation would strand any equipment in 2020 through 2029, and what the potential cost impacts may be for any stranded equipment. The agency also requests comment on whether there is a significant cost difference to users between reclaimed and virgin HCFC-123. Commenters should provide as much detail, with as much quantitative reasoning ( e.g., benefits, market effects, etc.), as possible. When developing a final rule, the EPA will consider any comments received on the starting allocation number and the proposal to decrease the allocation by a constant amount each year.

(2) Alternatives

The EPA is also seeking comment on two alternative approaches the EPA considered for determining how many HCFC-123 consumption allowances to issue. The first alternative approach would be to issue allowances equal to the total modeled demand each year from 2020 through 2029 (which includes servicing of existing equipment and the manufacture of new equipment using reclaimed HCFC-123) minus the low end of the projection for reclamation each year from 2020 through 2029. This contrasts with the proposed approach which, as explained above, would neither consider demand for the manufacture of new equipment using reclaimed HCFC-123 nor directly decrease allocations based on projections for reclamation. The EPA's low-end estimate for reclamation is 300 MT in 2020, rising by 10 MT per year to 390 MT in 2029. See Table 8 of the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report for more discussion of estimated reclaim

d approach which, as explained above, would neither consider demand for the manufacture of new equipment using reclaimed HCFC-123 nor directly decrease allocations based on projections for reclamation. The EPA's low-end estimate for reclamation is 300 MT in 2020, rising by 10 MT per year to 390 MT in 2029. See Table 8 of the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report for more discussion of estimated reclaim. In Table 1, above, the first alternative presents the allocations that would result from applying this approach.

Setting the initial allocation at total estimated demand in 2020 minus the low-end projections for reclamation would reflect current total HCFC-123 market conditions and allow companies to continue consuming HCFC-123 at a rate consistent with demand to ensure adequate supply. Decreasing the allocations gradually over time would potentially guard against consumption levels that are significantly higher than demand. This approach would also account for continued manufacture of fire suppression equipment using HCFC-based fire suppression agent to the extent recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 is available. While this approach would start at a lower allocation in 2020 than the proposed approach and would allocate less HCFC-123 overall in 2020 through 2029, it would give more time for industry to transition given the slower decrease in the allocation level over time, it would also result in a larger drop between 2029 and 2030 compared to the proposed approach. This could result in a situation where HCFC-123 equipment owners wait until the end of the regulatory period to transition or are unprepared for the 2030 phaseout.

nd of the regulatory period to transition or are unprepared for the 2030 phaseout.

While the EPA estimates that the level of reclaimed HCFC-123, at 300 MT per year, will be higher than the estimated demand for new fire suppression equipment, the agency expects that much of this reclaimed material will be sold into the refrigeration and air-conditioning market given current business relationships. Based on industry feedback, the EPA has tentatively concluded that reclaimed HCFC-123 is currently sold exclusively into the refrigeration and air-conditioning market. Thus, it might not be immediately available for fire suppression. More availability of virgin HCFC-123 would allow time for the market for recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 to shift towards new fire suppression equipment, as consumption of HCFC-123 under the Montreal Protocol is only for servicing equipment.

The EPA seeks comment on this first alternate approach. The EPA requests comment on accounting for the anticipated continued manufacture of fire suppression equipment using reclaimed HCFC-123. The EPA also requests comment on using the low end or the high end of the estimate for reclamation, or a point in between. Using the current high end of the expected reclamation estimate would equate to an allocation of approximately 470 MT in 2020, 220 MT in 2025, and 20 MT in 2029. The EPA also seeks comment on whether it should start at a higher amount in 2020 (up to 1,200 MT) consistent with current average consumption of HCFC-123, or a lower amount consistent with the high end of the expected reclamation estimate provided in Table 9 of the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report. Commenters should provide as much detail, with as much quantitative reasoning ( e.g., benefits, market effects, etc.), as possible.

Table 9 of the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report. Commenters should provide as much detail, with as much quantitative reasoning ( e.g., benefits, market effects, etc.), as possible.

Lastly, the EPA is seeking comment on a second alternative approach under which, as shown in Table 1 above, the EPA would issue 2,014 MT of HCFC-123 consumption allowances for each year for the years 2020 through 2029. This is equal to 100 percent of the aggregate consumption baseline allowances for HCFC-123 and is the maximum allocation allowed under section 605(c) of the CAA. This approach would allocate approximately half of the annual consumption cap allowed under the Montreal Protocol. Specifically, this allocation would equal 40.3 ODP-weighted MT compared to 76.2 ODP-weighted MT allowed during each year between 2020 through 2029. This approach could be warranted given the relatively low ODP of HCFC-123 (0.02) and the long lifetime of equipment using HCFC-123.

The agency believes this approach would provide significantly more allowances than are needed to meet demand for HCFC-123. The existing regulatory prohibition on producing or importing HCFC-123 for most uses, including in the manufacture of refrigeration and air-conditioning and fire suppression equipment as of January 1, 2020 will significantly reduce the demand for HCFC-123. However, this approach would be consistent with e.g., benefits, market effects, etc.), as possible.

B. De Minimis Exemption

The EPA is proposing to create a de minimis exemption from the use prohibition in CAA section 605(a) to allow virgin HCFC-123 to be used for the manufacture of chillers that meet specific criteria through December 31, 2020. This proposal aims to address a unique situation that has arisen because certain construction projects that ordered HCFC-123 chillers for installation in 2019 are behind schedule and the chillers may not be installed by the end of 2019

the use prohibition in CAA section 605(a) to allow virgin HCFC-123 to be used for the manufacture of chillers that meet specific criteria through December 31, 2020. This proposal aims to address a unique situation that has arisen because certain construction projects that ordered HCFC-123 chillers for installation in 2019 are behind schedule and the chillers may not be installed by the end of 2019. The EPA understands that many of the chillers and the virgin HCFC-123 to charge them are already on site at these construction projects and that companies purchased virgin HCFC-123 for charging these chillers given the expectation that they would be installed in 2019. However, due to construction delays, the final steps in the manufacture of these chillers (including charging with refrigerant) may not occur until after January 1, 2020. CAA section 605(a) prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce or use of any class II substance as a refrigerant unless such substance is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured before January 1, 2020. To address this unique circumstance, the EPA is proposing to create a de minimis exemption to allow virgin HCFC-123 to be used for the manufacture of chillers that meet specific criteria through December 31, 2020. This exemption would only apply if the HCFC-123 chiller unit and other components were ready for shipment to a construction location and the components were specified for installation under a building permit or contract dated on or before the date of signature of the proposed rule, the HCFC-123 was imported prior to 2020 and is in the possession of the entity that will complete the manufacture of the appliance, and all refrigerant added to that appliance after December 31, 2020 is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed. This proposal is based on the information currently available to the agency

permit or contract dated on or before the date of signature of the proposed rule, the HCFC-123 was imported prior to 2020 and is in the possession of the entity that will complete the manufacture of the appliance, and all refrigerant added to that appliance after December 31, 2020 is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed. This proposal is based on the information currently available to the agency. We will consider all comments on the merits of this proposal and its potential impacts before deciding whether to take final action to create such a de minimis exemption.

(1) Background

As described in Section III of this notice, the CAA restricts introduction into interstate commerce and use of HCFCs over time with limited exceptions. The CAA prohibits the use of HCFCs to manufacture new appliances effective January 1, 2020, unless the HCFCs are used, recovered, and recycled. The CAA also phases out production and consumption of HCFCs, with an interim milestone in 2015 and the full phaseout in 2030. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol phases out the production and consumption of HCFCs as of January 1, 2020, while allowing a limited amount of new production and consumption for servicing existing refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances, as well as other uses described in Section III. The EPA codified the CAA use and interstate commerce restrictions related to refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A in prior rulemakings.

As defined in the regulations, the term manufactured 20 “for an appliance, means the date upon which the appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete, the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes; . . .” Appliances used in commercial refrigeration, such as large chillers, and industrial process refrigeration typically involve more complex installation processes, which may require custom-built parts, and typically are manufactured on-site

rcuit is complete, the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes; . . .” Appliances used in commercial refrigeration, such as large chillers, and industrial process refrigeration typically involve more complex installation processes, which may require custom-built parts, and typically are manufactured on-site. Appliances, such as these, that are field charged or have the refrigerant circuit completed on-site, regardless of whether additional refrigerant is added or not, are manufactured at the point when installation of all the components and other parts are completed, and the appliance is fully charged with refrigerant and able to operate.

20 The definition of “manufactured” can be found at § 82.3. See also 74 FR 66439.

Recently, the EPA learned that a limited number of HCFC-123 chillers specified for installation in 2019 may not be fully manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. The key uncharged components, in particular the chiller units themselves, were ready for shipment to the construction location in the first half of 2019. The agency understands that chiller manufacturers ceased factory operations for making new HCFC-123 chiller units at the end of April 2019. However, for some delayed projects, even though the units and refrigerant may already be on-site, the final steps to manufacture the appliance, in particular charging the chiller with refrigerant, may not occur until 2020. Thus, if no regulatory relief is provided, the virgin HCFC-123 could not be used to charge these chillers even if it has already been purchased and is on site.

d of April 2019. However, for some delayed projects, even though the units and refrigerant may already be on-site, the final steps to manufacture the appliance, in particular charging the chiller with refrigerant, may not occur until 2020. Thus, if no regulatory relief is provided, the virgin HCFC-123 could not be used to charge these chillers even if it has already been purchased and is on site.

(2) Proposed De Minimis Exemption

To provide flexibility to complete the manufacture of HCFC-123 chillers from components that are ready for shipment to a construction location, the EPA is proposing to create a de minimis exemption to the use prohibition in 605(a). This exemption would allow HCFC-123 to be used for the initial charging of certain chillers manufactured between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 provided they meet specific conditions. The proposed exemption would only apply if the HCFC-123 chiller unit and components are ready for shipment to a construction location and the components were specified for installation under a building permit or contract dated on or before the date of signature of the proposed rule, the HCFC-123 was imported prior to 2020 and is in the possession of an entity involved in the manufacture of the appliance, and all refrigerant added to that appliance after December 31, 2020 is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed.

The EPA has implied authority to propose a de minimis exemption from the section 605(a) use restriction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized that “[u]nless Congress has been extraordinarily rigid, there is likely a basis for an implication of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.” Alabama Power Co. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

In Alabama Power, the Court held that “[c]ategorical exemptions from statutory commands may . .

Circuit has recognized that “[u]nless Congress has been extraordinarily rigid, there is likely a basis for an implication of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.” Alabama Power Co. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

In Alabama Power, the Court held that “[c]ategorical exemptions from statutory commands may . . . be permissible as an exercise of agency power, inherent in most statutory schemes, to overlook circumstances that in context may fairly be considered de minimis. It is commonplace, of course, that the law does not concern itself with trifling matters, and this principle has often found application in the administrative context. Courts should be reluctant to apply the literal terms of a statute to mandate pointless expenditures of effort.” Id. (internal citations omitted). In an earlier case cited by the court in Alabama Power, the court described the doctrine as follows: “The `de minimis' doctrine that was developed to prevent trivial items from draining the time of the courts has room for sound application to administration by the Government of its regulatory programs . . . The ability, which we describe here, to exempt de minimis situations from a statutory command is not an ability to depart from the statute, but rather a tool to be used in implementing the legislative design.” District of Columbia v. Orleans, 406 F.2d 957, 959 (1968).

In this respect, the Alabama Power opinion observed in a footnote that the de minimis principle “is a cousin of the doctrine that, notwithstanding the `plain meaning' of a statute, a court must look beyond the words to the purpose of the act where its literal terms lead to `absurd or futile' results.” Alabama Power at 360 n. 89 (citations omitted). To apply an exclusion based on the de minimis doctrine, “the agency will bear the burden of making the required showing” that a matter is truly de minimis which naturally will turn on the assessment of particular circumstances. Id

a court must look beyond the words to the purpose of the act where its literal terms lead to `absurd or futile' results.” Alabama Power at 360 n. 89 (citations omitted). To apply an exclusion based on the de minimis doctrine, “the agency will bear the burden of making the required showing” that a matter is truly de minimis which naturally will turn on the assessment of particular circumstances. Id. The Alabama Power opinion concluded that “most regulatory statutes, including the CAA, permit such agency showings in appropriate cases.” Id.

A notable limitation on the de minimis doctrine is that it does not authorize the agency to exclude something based on a cost-benefit analysis. As the court explained, this “implied authority is not available for a situation where the regulatory function does provide benefits, in the sense of furthering the regulatory objectives, but the agency concludes that the acknowledged benefits are exceeded by the costs.” Id. The court held that any “implied authority to make cost-benefit decisions must be based not on a general doctrine but on a fair reading of the specific statute, its aims and legislative history.” Id.

Courts have continued to recognize that authority to create de minimis exemptions may be implied where “the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.” Envtl. Def. Fund Inc. v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) see also e.g., Ass'n of Admin Law Judges v. FLRA, 397 F.3d 957, 961-62 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The EPA believes it has authority to provide flexibility by creating a de minimis exemption to the 605(a) use prohibition. Section 605(a) is not extraordinarily rigid and is ambiguous as it does not speak directly to the circumstance presented here. In addition, providing flexibility is consistent with the statutory intent

Ass'n of Admin Law Judges v. FLRA, 397 F.3d 957, 961-62 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The EPA does not view section 605(a) as “extraordinarily rigid.” Title VI of the CAA can generally be summarized into three principal areas: The phaseout of the production and import of ODS (section 602-607); the reduction of emissions of ODS via various means such as required servicing practices, restrictions on sale and distribution of products, and consumer education (section 608-611); and the transition to alternatives that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment (section 612). Section 605 specifically addresses the phase-out of production and consumption of class II substances. For class II substances, section 605 established specific restrictions beginning in 2015 on use, introduction into interstate commerce and production, while establishing a complete phaseout of HCFCs in 2030. Congress' overall approach to the class II phaseout was generally less rigid than its approach to the class I phaseout, given the longer timeframes and the presence of only one intermediate reduction step (see section 605(b)). Given this context, the EPA does not view section 605(a) as “extraordinarily rigid.”

dinarily rigid.”

The EPA finds that section 605(a) is ambiguous as it does not speak directly to the circumstance presented here. Section 605(a) does not explicitly address whether virgin HCFC-123 may be used in a chiller where all the chiller components were ready for shipment to a construction site before January 1, 2020 but where the initial charge is not completed until after January 1, 2020. Because the statute does not specify when manufacture is complete, it does not unambiguously prohibit the use of virgin HCFC-123 for the initial charge of chillers where all the chiller components were ready for shipment before January 1. 2020. Thus, the EPA has authority to resolve the ambiguity through regulation and determine whether the use prohibition should apply in this circumstance.

The EPA views the proposed de minimis exemption as consistent with statutory intent. The proposed flexibility would ensure the orderly phaseout of ODS and be consistent with the past practice of preventing the stranding of existing appliances without being counter to the three principle areas of Title VI described previously. First, it would not contribute to additional production and consumption of HCFCs and thus would not inhibit the United States from reaching the CAA phaseout date of 2030 or complying with the Montreal Protocol. Second, these chillers would continue to be subject to the servicing practices and labeling requirements applicable to all ODS appliances. Third, it would not slow the transition to alternatives. As discussed below, the components to assemble these chillers have already been made ready for shipment and they have been purchased for installation. While these chillers may one day be retrofitted to an alternative, such as R-514A, Title VI does not require the retrofitting of existing equipment.

ment and they have been purchased for installation. While these chillers may one day be retrofitted to an alternative, such as R-514A, Title VI does not require the retrofitting of existing equipment.

In addition, rigid application of CAA section 605(a) in the unique circumstances presented here would “yield a gain of trivial or no value.” Envtl. Def. Fund Inc. v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The EPA believes that there would be no environmental benefit associated with rigidly applying 605(a). First, because the HCFC-123 used to initially charge these chillers must have been imported prior to 2020, existing allowances would have to have been expended. There would therefore not be any increase in U.S. consumption compared to the current allowed level of consumption for 2019. Second, this exemption would not encourage the manufacture of additional HCFC-123 chiller units because factory operations for making them have already ceased and the exemption would not permit such operations for additional units.

The number of chillers is also anticipated to be small. Based on consultations with industry, the EPA understands that the manufacture of up to five percent of the chillers expected to be installed in 2019 could be delayed beyond January 1, 2020. The EPA expects the number of HCFC-123 chillers to be affected is 33. As detailed in the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report, the EPA assumes an average charge size for an HCFC-123 commercial chiller is approximately 445 kg. Thus, the EPA

Because the EPA has implemented the HCFC phaseout under the CAA using a “worst first” approach, this final step in the phaseout means that the HCFCs that remain, like HCFC-123, have the lowest ozone-depleting potential of all HCFCs. Specifically, the ODP of HCFC-123 is 0.02. Thus, the 15 MT of HCFC-123 anticipated to be used to initially charge these chillers equates to only 0.3 ODP-weighted metric tons

e the EPA has implemented the HCFC phaseout under the CAA using a “worst first” approach, this final step in the phaseout means that the HCFCs that remain, like HCFC-123, have the lowest ozone-depleting potential of all HCFCs. Specifically, the ODP of HCFC-123 is 0.02. Thus, the 15 MT of HCFC-123 anticipated to be used to initially charge these chillers equates to only 0.3 ODP-weighted metric tons. Comparing again to the consumption allowances allocated for 2019, this time on an ODP-weighted basis, this use would be only 0.02 percent of what was allocated in 2019.

Beyond the HCFC-123 needed for the initial charge, the EPA has also analyzed whether this proposed exemption could increase the servicing demand for HCFC-123 in the years 2020 through 2029 compared to not providing this proposed flexibility. As an initial matter, the modeled servicing demand described in the 2019 Draft Servicing Tail Report includes the demand from the appliances affected by this exemption. The report assumes that chillers expected to be manufactured in 2019 are manufactured in that year. Because the chillers that would be affected by this proposed exemption were anticipated to be manufactured in 2019, they would not increase expected demand. This exemption would not alter the requirement that used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 be used for all subsequent servicing events on these chillers. Further, HCFC-123 chillers have very low leak rates, and thus the amount of replacement refrigerant would be low. Therefore, the EPA does not anticipate that future servicing demand will affect the market for reclaimed HCFC-123 in a manner that the EPA has not already considered when proposing allowance allocation amounts for 2020-2029.

laimed HCFC-123 in a manner that the EPA has not already considered when proposing allowance allocation amounts for 2020-2029.

The proposed exemption also contains numerous constraints that limit its potential impact. The proposed exemption from the 605(a) prohibition on use in appliances manufactured before January 1, 2020 would apply only for one year and only in a limited set of circumstances. It would apply only if the refrigerant used to manufacture the appliance was in the possession of an entity involved in the manufacture of the appliance and imported prior to January 1, 2020. In addition, any servicing of the equipment after December 31, 2020 would need to be done with HCFC-123 that is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed. Further, the exemption would not allow for the manufacture of additional chillers beyond those for which the components had already been made ready for shipment to a construction location and the components were specified for installation under a building permit or contract dated on or before the date of signature of the proposed rule.

The proposed de minimis exemption is also consistent with past EPA practice in this program. The EPA, on past occasions, has provided limited flexibility around use restrictions and phaseout dates. Existing regulations have typically prevented the stranding of appliances and past investments while phasing out controlled substances. For example, a concern similar to the one at issue here came to the EPA's attention in 2009 when commenters requested a limited waiver from a regulatory prohibition on manufacturing HCFC-22 appliances that was to begin in 2010 (74 FR 66412, 66440-41, December 15, 2009). Commenters identified scenarios in which HCFC-22 appliances had been scheduled for use in projects, such as construction projects, prior to January 1, 2010 but for a variety of reasons their manufacture could not be completed prior to January 1, 2010

imited waiver from a regulatory prohibition on manufacturing HCFC-22 appliances that was to begin in 2010 (74 FR 66412, 66440-41, December 15, 2009). Commenters identified scenarios in which HCFC-22 appliances had been scheduled for use in projects, such as construction projects, prior to January 1, 2010 but for a variety of reasons their manufacture could not be completed prior to January 1, 2010. The EPA agreed to grant flexibility by providing an exemption from the regulatory deadline to allow HCFC-22 to be used as refrigerant in appliances manufactured between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 if their components were manufactured prior to January 1, 2010 and were specified in a building permit or contract dated before January 1, 2010 for use on a project. The EPA explained that providing flexibility would not result in additional consumption of HCFCs, because companies had previously produced or imported the HCFCs for use in the manufacture of appliances, and it did not affect long-term projections on servicing needs because this equipment was already planned to be installed in the previous year (74 FR 66441).

The EPA also previously created a de minimis exemption from the statutory prohibition on the use of previously-imported virgin HCFCs. In a 2014 rule, the EPA created an exemption from the 605(a) use prohibition to provide limited flexibility regarding the use of HCFCs for sectors other than refrigeration and air-conditioning and fire suppression. For example, the EPA allowed continued use of a small amount of material that was previously produced and/or imported using the appropriate allowances and in inventory prior to the CAA's 2015 use restriction for solvents. The EPA determined that the continued use of previously produced/imported material was consistent with past practices, that production and consumption would not be higher than that already allowed for and that the environmental effect would be limited. (79 FR 64254, October 28, 2014)

or imported using the appropriate allowances and in inventory prior to the CAA's 2015 use restriction for solvents. The EPA determined that the continued use of previously produced/imported material was consistent with past practices, that production and consumption would not be higher than that already allowed for and that the environmental effect would be limited. (79 FR 64254, October 28, 2014).

The EPA also recognizes that in the circumstances presented here, there could be negative impacts if the agency did not provide flexibility. Without the proposed flexibility, chiller manufacturers would not be able to use virgin HCFC-123 to initially charge and install new equipment even though that virgin HCFC-123 may already be on-site. Granting flexibility would allow the installation to continue using the HCFC-123 available and prevent further delay of the installation.

For the reasons described above, the EPA is proposing to create a de minimis exemption to the 605(a) use restriction and to revise 40 CFR 82.15(g)(5)(iii) to allow virgin HCFC-123 to be used for the initial charging of certain chillers manufactured between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 provided they meet specific conditions. The proposed exemption would only apply if the HCFC-123 chiller unit was ready for shipment to a construction location and the components were specified for installation under a building permit or contract dated on or before the date of signature of the proposed rule, the HCFC-123 was imported prior to 2020 and is in the possession of an entity that will complete the manufacture of the appliance, and any service on the appliance after December 31, 2020 is done using refrigerant that is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed. In sum, the proposed exemption would apply only in limited instances where projects have begun but due to delays have not yet been completed prior to January 1, 2020

rior to 2020 and is in the possession of an entity that will complete the manufacture of the appliance, and any service on the appliance after December 31, 2020 is done using refrigerant that is used, recovered, or recycled/reclaimed. In sum, the proposed exemption would apply only in limited instances where projects have begun but due to delays have not yet been completed prior to January 1, 2020. The EPA believes this would address concerns that were expressed by stakeholders, would not result in an environmental effect, and is consistent with statutory intent.

The EPA is taking comment on this proposal to establish an exemption to allow limited flexibility for the manufacture of chillers with HCFCs past January 1, 2020. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on several aspects of the proposal, including:

• Whether there is enough availability of reclaimed material for the initial charge of chillers whose manufacture is delayed until 2020 and whether rushed installations would

• Whether the EPA has appropriately assessed the environmental effects of providing or not providing flexibility, such as whether up to five percent of chiller installations may be delayed;

• Whether factory operations for making uncharged HCFC-123 chiller equipment have ceased in the United States as of May 1, 2019;

• Whether HCFC-123 chillers will in fact be stranded in the absence of this proposed exemption;

• Whether any additional conditions would be appropriate to further narrow the scope of the exemption; and

• Whether the agency has authority to establish a de minimis exemption in this situation.

C. Addition of Fire Suppression Servicing Uses to the HCFC Phaseout Schedule

uation.

C. Addition of Fire Suppression Servicing Uses to the HCFC Phaseout Schedule

The EPA is proposing to modify the regulations in 40 CFR part 82 consistent with CAA section 605 and the November 2018 adjustment to Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol that allows for the continued production and consumption of HCFCs for servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to modify §§ 82.16(e) and 82.15(g) to allow for HCFC-123 to be produced and imported, as well as introduced into interstate commerce and used, during the years 2020 through 2029, to service fire suppression equipment existing on January 1, 2020, 21 so long as it is being used as a streaming agent listed as acceptable for use or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for nonresidential applications in accordance with the SNAP regulations.

21 This proposal would expand the permitted uses under §§ 82.15 and 82.16 which also allow for use and introduction into interstate commerce, as well as production and consumption, of HCFCs for use as a refrigerant in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020.

The EPA is proposing to modify § 82.16(e)(2) to permit the production and import of HCFC-123 for servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. While the agency is proposing to include the term “production” in this regulatory change, as stated above, this action does not propose to allocate production allowances for HCFC-123 given the lack of production in the United States. Section 82.16(e) establishes limits on the production and import of HCFC-123 starting on January 1, 2020. It provides that HCFC-123 may not be produced or imported for any purposes other than the listed permissible uses. The proposed revision would add to the list of permissible uses the following: Use as a fire suppression streaming agent listed under the SNAP program as acceptable for use or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for nonresidential applications

FC-123 starting on January 1, 2020. It provides that HCFC-123 may not be produced or imported for any purposes other than the listed permissible uses. The proposed revision would add to the list of permissible uses the following: Use as a fire suppression streaming agent listed under the SNAP program as acceptable for use or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for nonresidential applications. This revision would allow for this additional use in the years 2020 through 2029.

The EPA is also proposing to add a new paragraph after § 82.15(g)(4) to ensure consistency with the proposed change to § 82.16(e)(2). Section 82.15(g) establishes limits on the introduction into interstate commerce and use of certain HCFCs at certain dates in accordance with the worst-first approach discussed previously. Section 82.15(g)(4)(i) establishes limits that apply to many HCFCs including HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, effective January 1, 2015. 22 The EPA is proposing a new paragraph after § 82.15(g)(4) that repeats the limits in § 82.15(g)(4)(i) but may be helpful in clarifying the permissible uses of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 produced or imported after January 1, 2020. Consistent with the restrictions on production and import in the Montreal Protocol (as modified through the adjustment adopted in 2018) and § 82.16, with regard to fire suppression, HCFC-123 produced or imported after January 1, 2020, may only be used for servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. Existing inventories of HCFC-123 produced or imported prior to January 1, 2020, may continue to be used to manufacture and service new fire suppression equipment after January 1, 2020. This change would ensure that the regulations are clear and consistent between §§ 82.15 and 82.16, and, as a practical matter, would add no additional limitations to those in § 82.16.

22 Section 82.15(g)(4)(i) applies to all HCFCs not governed by paragraphs § 82.15(g)(1) through (g)(3)

2020, may continue to be used to manufacture and service new fire suppression equipment after January 1, 2020. This change would ensure that the regulations are clear and consistent between §§ 82.15 and 82.16, and, as a practical matter, would add no additional limitations to those in § 82.16.

22 Section 82.15(g)(4)(i) applies to all HCFCs not governed by paragraphs § 82.15(g)(1) through (g)(3).

These proposed revisions, if finalized, would provide flexibility consistent with the November 2018 adjustment to the phaseout schedule for HCFCs in the Montreal Protocol. The United States was a proponent of adjusting the phaseout schedule to allow for the continued production and consumption of HCFCs to service existing fire suppression equipment for years 2020 through 2029. The EPA's analysis indicates that in theory, the United States could meet its own domestic fire suppression needs with alternatives and recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123, absent competing demands from other sectors. Past phase-outs, such as the halon phaseout, demonstrated that the availability of recycled/reclaimed and stockpiled material provides flexibility for users of ODS long after the phaseout date. However, recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123, which is currently being sold predominately into the refrigeration and air-conditioning market, 23 may not be immediately available to the fire suppression sector. The EPA is concerned that reclaimers and distributors would need to adjust current distribution and sales practices to ensure that reclaimed material is available for fire suppression. At least in the near term this could affect the availability and price of HCFC-123. Given that a lack of HCFC-123 based fire suppression agents could present a safety issue, especially for applications where there is not an approved alternative clean agent, such as for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicles, allowing continued consumption of HCFC-123 for the years 2020 through 2029 for servicing existing fire suppression equipment is prudent

lity and price of HCFC-123. Given that a lack of HCFC-123 based fire suppression agents could present a safety issue, especially for applications where there is not an approved alternative clean agent, such as for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicles, allowing continued consumption of HCFC-123 for the years 2020 through 2029 for servicing existing fire suppression equipment is prudent. This is also consistent with the EPA's long-standing policy of working to avoid the premature retirement of existing ODS-based equipment while fostering the transition to alternatives.

23 Based on conversation with industry.

The EPA notes that the November 2018 adjustment adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol also contains an essential use provision and adds other uses under the Article 2F cap, namely solvent applications in rocket engine manufacturing and topical medical aerosol applications for the specialized treatment of burns. The EPA is only proposing regulatory changes that would allow production and consumption for the servicing of fire suppression equipment manufactured before 2020. The EPA does not currently have any information indicating a need in the United States for the additional flexibilities added to Article 2F; for that reason, the EPA has not assessed their practicality or its authority to implement them under the CAA, and we are not proposing any action on them at this time.

D. Revisions to Labeling Requirements

This section presents the EPA's proposal to adjust the current labeling requirements to reflect the proposed change to 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, which would allow the use of newly-imported HCFC-123 for servicing fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. The proposed changes to §§ 82.15 and 82.16 in subpart A are discussed in Section III.B of this notice

beling Requirements

If the proposed change to subpart A is finalized, HCFC-123 imported on or after January 1, 2020 could be used to make Halotron® I, a fire suppression agent produced with HCFC-123, and could be used to service fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020. It could not, however, be used in the manufacture of new equipment on or after January 1, 2020 or to service equipment manufactured after January 1, 2020. Only Halotron® I produced with HCFC-123 that is reclaimed or was imported prior to 2020 may be used for those purposes. Labeling of products manufactured with or containing HCFCs has been required under CAA Section 611 since 2015, and the EPA has not seen a movement away from these fire suppression agents due to current labeling requirements. Similarly, the EPA does not expect a proposed addition to the existing labeling requirement would cause a movement away from Halotron® I. The EPA identified this addition as the lowest cost option to ensure the United States meets its international obligation that newly-produced HCFC-123 only be used to service existing equipment, since this would only modify the text of the existing label to provide more information to technicians. Thus, in addition to adding a labeling requirement, users will need to be able to know the date of manufacture of fire suppression equipment

lowest cost option to ensure the United States meets its international obligation that newly-produced HCFC-123 only be used to service existing equipment, since this would only modify the text of the existing label to provide more information to technicians. Thus, in addition to adding a labeling requirement, users will need to be able to know the date of manufacture of fire suppression equipment. They will also need to be able to distinguish fire suppression agents that may be used only for servicing equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020 from fire suppression agents that may be used for manufacturing new equipment or servicing equipment regardless of the date of manufacture.

The EPA believes that users will be able to identify the date of equipment manufacture using existing methods as is the case with refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. However, without additional labeling of containers of fire suppression agents that contain HCFC-123, namely Halotron® I, it may not be possible for users to distinguish containers that may only be used to service fire suppression equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020 from other containers. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to modify the current labeling requirements codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart E for such containers. The EPA is proposing to conclude that such modified labeling is necessary to ensure that users will have enough information to determine which containers of fire suppression agent may be used in which equipment, in order to comply with the proposed revisions to the HCFC phaseout regulations. The existing CAA section 611 label is on reclaimed and virgin product. This proposal would modify only labels of product containing virgin HCFC

t such modified labeling is necessary to ensure that users will have enough information to determine which containers of fire suppression agent may be used in which equipment, in order to comply with the proposed revisions to the HCFC phaseout regulations. The existing CAA section 611 label is on reclaimed and virgin product. This proposal would modify only labels of product containing virgin HCFC. The EPA is also taking comment on whether to modify the current labeling requirements for containers of fire suppression agents that contain HCFC-123 that is either reclaimed or was imported before 2020, and if there are any other low-cost ways to distinguish containers for servicing fire suppression equipment.

To the EPA's knowledge, the only HCFC used in a fire suppression agent is HCFC-123, and it is only used in an agent sold under the name Halotron® I. Clean agents like Halotron® I do not leave a residue, and are commonly used in applications such as data centers, clean rooms, and aircraft where high-value or life-saving equipment will not be damaged by its use, thereby minimizing economic damages from a fire ( e.g., shorter equipment downtime or lower costs to repair). There are three main fire suppression streaming end uses where clean agents are used in the United States: (1) Hand-held portables; (2) 150-pound wheeled units; and (3) ARFF vehicles.

As per the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and DOT regulations at 49 CFR 180.250, all portable fire extinguishers must be maintained in a fully charged operable condition and undergo hydrostatic testing. NFPA is a codes and standards organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute established to minimize the risk and effects of fire by establishing criteria for building, processing, design, service, and installation around the world

tions at 49 CFR 180.250, all portable fire extinguishers must be maintained in a fully charged operable condition and undergo hydrostatic testing. NFPA is a codes and standards organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute established to minimize the risk and effects of fire by establishing criteria for building, processing, design, service, and installation around the world. Fire extinguishers, which include portable hand-held devices and wheeled units, are recommended to undergo maintenance to ensure that an extinguisher will operate effectively and safely in the event of fire. 24 Equipment should be recharged after being used to extinguish a fire for it to be usable again. Technicians who conduct hydrostatic testing, perform inspections, or recharge fire suppression equipment after a discharge may need additional information to aid in distinguishing between the permissible uses of specific containers of Halotron® I.

24 National Fire Protection Association. (2018) “Standards for Portable Fire Extinguishers” available at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=10 .

The EPA is proposing to modify the existing label required by section 611 of the CAA for certain containers of fire suppression agent. Section 611 requires containers of ODS to have a label and demonstrates that Congress recognized that labeling requirements may be needed to effectively implement the phaseout. In 1993, the EPA established the labeling requirements for both class I and class II substances in 40 CFR part 82, subpart E (58 FR 8136, February 1, 1993). Containers in which ODS are stored or transported must bear a clearly legible and conspicuous warning label that can be read by consumers before they can be introduced into interstate commerce

y be needed to effectively implement the phaseout. In 1993, the EPA established the labeling requirements for both class I and class II substances in 40 CFR part 82, subpart E (58 FR 8136, February 1, 1993). Containers in which ODS are stored or transported must bear a clearly legible and conspicuous warning label that can be read by consumers before they can be introduced into interstate commerce. Section 611 provides specific language for the label: “Warning: Contains [insert name of substance], a substance that harms public health and environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.” This is reflected in the implementing regulations at § 82.106. According to CAA section 611, the label must be “clearly legible and conspicuous.” Labels generally should be within the principal display panel, the warning statement should be in sharp contrast to any background upon which it appears, and if there is any outer package for the container ( e.g., cylinder, isotank, or other container), labels should be on the outside packaging. Specific requirements on the size, text, and location of the label are provided in §§ 82.106-82.110.

The EPA is proposing to modify the required labeling of all containers of fire suppression agent made with HCFCs imported on or after January 1, 2020. The EPA believes that Halotron® I is the only fire suppression agent that uses HCFCs that would be manufactured after 2020. Containers of Halotron® I must currently be labeled per § 82.102(a) because they contain a class II substance. The EPA is proposing to modify the current required label for all containers of Halotron® I made with HCFC-123, imported on or after January 1, 2020, by adding the following sentence: “Do not use to service

The EPA is also requesting comment on whether it should also require a modified label for containers of Halotron® I made with recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 or HCFC-123 imported before 2020

nce. The EPA is proposing to modify the current required label for all containers of Halotron® I made with HCFC-123, imported on or after January 1, 2020, by adding the following sentence: “Do not use to service

The EPA is also requesting comment on whether it should also require a modified label for containers of Halotron® I made with recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 or HCFC-123 imported before 2020. While there would be limited additional cost, this could help technicians distinguish between specific containers of Halotron® I. A second sentence could therefore be added to the existing label for containers of Halotron® I made with recycled/reclaimed HCFC-123 or HCFC-123 imported before 2020 that reads “Not restricted to use in servicing pre-2020 equipment.” Additionally, the EPA is requesting comment on whether there is another low-cost way to distinguish containers for servicing fire suppression equipment, such as having all containers labeled “Virgin material may not be used to service equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2020,” and then include additional labeling on containers that distinguish “virgin” vs. “reclaimed” material. This may result in a cost of about $3,000 to the industry.

The agency intends to develop outreach materials in concert with the final rule and distribute them to appropriate stakeholders to ensure industry awareness of the servicing requirements. The EPA believes that there are existing methods to determine the date of manufacture of fire suppression equipment, as follows.

DOT fire extinguisher regulations at 49 CFR 173.309 require that each fire extinguisher be tested before initial shipment and marked to indicate the year of the test. Technicians could use this date as a guide for determining servicing with Halotron® I. The agency recommends that technicians inspect the date on hand-held and wheeled fire extinguishers to determine if they were manufactured before or after January 1, 2020

gulations at 49 CFR 173.309 require that each fire extinguisher be tested before initial shipment and marked to indicate the year of the test. Technicians could use this date as a guide for determining servicing with Halotron® I. The agency recommends that technicians inspect the date on hand-held and wheeled fire extinguishers to determine if they were manufactured before or after January 1, 2020.

For servicing ARFF vehicles, the EPA recommends that technicians inspect the manufactured date on the vehicle. For class I-III all-wheel drive commercial vehicles, vehicle identification numbers (VINs) are required by DOT per 49 CFR 565. VINs are located on the lower right-hand corner of the windshield. For smaller class IV and V vehicles, a Vehicle Information Data Plate must be in the cab of the vehicle and contain all the information in the “Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Vehicle Tilt Table Certification” per NFPA 414, including the make and model year. 25 Locating the year the vehicle was manufactured would aid the technician in determining whether a container of Halotron® I can be used for servicing.

25 National Fire Protection Association. (2018) “Standards for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-fighting Services at Airports” available at: http://arco-hvac.ir/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/NFPA-403-Std-Aircrft-Rscu-Fire-Ftg-Srvs-at-Airprts-2018.pdf .

The EPA requests comment on whether individuals servicing fire suppression equipment can readily identify the date the equipment was manufactured and whether the EPA's understanding of the location of this information is accurate. The EPA also takes comment on ways technicians can identify the manufacture date of fire suppression equipment and whether manufacturers and service technicians typically reuse Halotron® I cylinders to hold recovered fire suppression agent or imported HCFC-123. The EPA is taking comment on whether the manufacture of Halotron® I can designate cylinders for use in servicing existing equipment.

. The EPA also takes comment on ways technicians can identify the manufacture date of fire suppression equipment and whether manufacturers and service technicians typically reuse Halotron® I cylinders to hold recovered fire suppression agent or imported HCFC-123. The EPA is taking comment on whether the manufacture of Halotron® I can designate cylinders for use in servicing existing equipment.

E. Allocation of HCFC-124 Production and Consumption Allowances

This section presents the EPA's proposed approach for determining the amount of HCFC-124 production and consumption allowances to be issued for the years 2020 through 2029. HCFC-124 is minimally used as a refrigerant. It is a component in refrigerant blends such as R-401A, which is used in industrial process and transport refrigeration equipment. It is also used as a stand-alone refrigerant in some niche applications that reach high condensing temperatures. It is not currently used for fire suppression.

As previously noted, under section 605(b)(1) and (c) of the CAA, it is unlawful for any person to produce or consume any class II substance in an annual quantity greater than the quantity of such substance produced or consumed by such person during the baseline year. This would equate to a maximum production amount of 4,029 MT (89 ODP-weighted MT) and a maximum consumption amount of 2,396 MT (53 ODP-weighted MT). Over the past five years, consumption has been approximately 250 MT per year and reclamation has been minimal. Based on recent sales data from the California Air Resources Board, the EPA estimates that annual demand for HCFC-124 is between 100 to 200 MT for servicing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment nationally. More information on anticipated demand for HCFC-124 is in the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report

years, consumption has been approximately 250 MT per year and reclamation has been minimal. Based on recent sales data from the California Air Resources Board, the EPA estimates that annual demand for HCFC-124 is between 100 to 200 MT for servicing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment nationally. More information on anticipated demand for HCFC-124 is in the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report.

Given the small projected need for HCFC-124 beyond 2019 and the continued use of certain refrigerant blends containing HCFC-124, the agency is proposing to issue HCFC-124 production and consumption allowances in the years 2020 through 2029 consistent with the level of demand in the 2018 Draft Servicing Tail Report. Based on Vintaging Model estimates, along with industry feedback on anticipated demand, uses of HCFC-124, and the use of HCFC-124 allowances in recent years, the EPA is proposing to allocate 200 MT for the first three years and then gradually decrease over the next seven years by an equal amount each year, as shown in Table 2. The EPA's goal is to ensure that servicing needs can be met, while also encouraging recovery and reuse and transition to alternatives. The EPA believes providing consistent allocations for the first three years would assist in establishing an inventory of HCFC-124 to be used for servicing throughout the allocation period and past the phaseout date for the expected lifetimes of all existing equipment. The EPA does not want to strand existing equipment because of an inadequate supply of HCFC-124. This proposed allocation supports this goal because it accounts for allowed end uses of HCFC-124 that may not be captured by the Vintaging Model ( e.g., use of niche refrigerant blends containing HCFC-124 to service equipment manufactured before 2020). The EPA is taking comment on this approach.

The EPA is also taking comment on whether, to ensure adequate supply, the agency should issue 200 MT annually beginning in 2020 without any decrease (Alternative in Table 2)

wed end uses of HCFC-124 that may not be captured by the Vintaging Model ( e.g., use of niche refrigerant blends containing HCFC-124 to service equipment manufactured before 2020). The EPA is taking comment on this approach.

The EPA is also taking comment on whether, to ensure adequate supply, the agency should issue 200 MT annually beginning in 2020 without any decrease (Alternative in Table 2). Without significant reclamation of HCFC-124, it may be preferable to err toward a higher allocation. This is a small quantity in the broader context and would not have significant environmental effects given the low ODP (0.022) of HCFC-124.

Table 2—Comparison of HCFC-124 Production and Consumption Allowance Allocation Options Between 2020-2030 [MT] 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Cumulative Proposal 200 200 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1,300 Alternative: No Annual Decrease 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 0 2,000 The EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this proposal, as well as whether to issue 200 MT or some other number of allowances per year without any decline or waiting until 2023 before starting to decrease allowances. Commenters should provide as much detail, with as much quantitative reasoning ( e.g., benefits, market effects, etc.), as possible.

F. Changes To Transfer of Allowance Provisions in Section 82.23

This section presents the EPA's proposal to prohibit the transfer of allowances for phased out HCFCs to allowances for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124. The proposal would prohibit calendar-year inter-pollutant transfers into ODS that are already phased out of production and consumption. This proposal responds to stakeholder inquiries about inter-pollutant transfers to phased out HCFCs. HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 are the only remaining HCFCs that can be produced or imported in the years 2020 through 2029, with limited exceptions. As such, the EPA is proposing to issue allowances for only these two substances

transfers into ODS that are already phased out of production and consumption. This proposal responds to stakeholder inquiries about inter-pollutant transfers to phased out HCFCs. HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 are the only remaining HCFCs that can be produced or imported in the years 2020 through 2029, with limited exceptions. As such, the EPA is proposing to issue allowances for only these two substances. Production and import of HCFC-141b, HCFC-225ca, and HCFC-225cb have already been phased out and production and import of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are phased out starting in 2020. Demand for some of these HCFCs, particularly HCFC-22, will continue beyond 2020. This could create an incentive for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 allowance holders to attempt to convert their allowances into allowances for phased out HCFCs, such as HCFC-22.

Under CAA section 607, the EPA has issued regulations at § 82.23 which provide for both inter-pollutant and inter-company transfers of allowances for class II ODS under certain conditions. In an inter-pollutant transfer, an allowance holder converts allowances for one class II ODS into allowances for another class II ODS (§ 82.23(b)). The EPA is concerned about the potential for allowance holders to attempt inter-pollutant transfers that would be inconsistent with the established chemical-by-chemical phaseout.

The EPA views § 82.16 as effectively prohibiting this practice by prohibiting production and import of HCFCs that have already been phased out. Section 82.16(b)-(e) prohibits individuals from producing or importing certain HCFCs that have been phased out, with limited exceptions. For example, production and import of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are prohibited in 2020, with limited exceptions that are not considered to be United States consumption under the CAA or Montreal Protocol

roduction and import of HCFCs that have already been phased out. Section 82.16(b)-(e) prohibits individuals from producing or importing certain HCFCs that have been phased out, with limited exceptions. For example, production and import of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are prohibited in 2020, with limited exceptions that are not considered to be United States consumption under the CAA or Montreal Protocol. These provisions do not explicitly prohibit the transfer of HCFC-123 or HCFC-124 allowances into allowances for a phased out ODS even though the entity would be violating § 82.16(e)(1) if it produced or imported that phased out ODS for any purpose other than the few listed exceptions, such as for use in a process resulting in its transformation.

Given the EPA has already received several inquiries about whether inter-pollutant transfers from HCFC-123 or HCFC-124 to HCFC-22 will be allowed after the phaseout of HCFC-22, the EPA is proposing to explicitly prohibit calendar-year inter-pollutant transfers of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 to phased out HCFCs in § 82.23(b) to ensure clarity for the regulated community. Section 82.23(d) already prohibits permanent inter-pollutant transfers of baseline allowances, so there is no additional change needed in that paragraph. The proposed change to § 82.23(b) would not have a practical effect on the ability of allowance holders to legally produce or import phased out ODS given the prohibition in § 82.16. However, the proposed change would minimize confusion and reduce the likelihood that an allowance holder attempts to request an inter-pollutant transfer of HCFC-123 or HCFC-124 allowances to phased out HCFCs. Inter-pollutant transfers between HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 may continue so long as the newly produced or imported HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 are for an allowed use, such as for servicing refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances manufactured before January 1, 2020

likelihood that an allowance holder attempts to request an inter-pollutant transfer of HCFC-123 or HCFC-124 allowances to phased out HCFCs. Inter-pollutant transfers between HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 may continue so long as the newly produced or imported HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 are for an allowed use, such as for servicing refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances manufactured before January 1, 2020.

The EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed prohibition on calendar-year inter-pollutant transfers into ODS that are already phased out of production and consumption to improve the clarity of the regulations at § 82.23.

IV. Updates to Other Provisions of the Production and Consumption Control Program

This section presents the EPA's proposal to update several other provisions in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A—Production and Consumption Controls. To decrease the burden of ODS reporting and increase the accuracy of reports, the EPA is proposing to require that certain reports, import petitions, and certifications of intent to import ODS for destruction be submitted electronically through CDX. To reduce the reporting burden, the EPA is proposing to update the reporting regulations, consolidate reporting elements, and harmonize reporting requirements for class I and class II substances. The EPA is also proposing changes to the recordkeeping provisions for QPS uses of methyl bromide to increase awareness of the existing use restrictions and to amend the regulatory text for readability. In addition, to better monitor imports into the United States and to facilitate imports of ODS for destruction, the EPA is proposing changes to provisions related to imports of ODS.

A. Electronic Reporting

The EPA began allowing electronic reporting as an option for most types of reported information under this program in 2008 (73 FR 15520)

ons and to amend the regulatory text for readability. In addition, to better monitor imports into the United States and to facilitate imports of ODS for destruction, the EPA is proposing changes to provisions related to imports of ODS.

A. Electronic Reporting

The EPA began allowing electronic reporting as an option for most types of reported information under this program in 2008 (73 FR 15520). The EPA provided electronic reporting forms and instructions to assist entities in fulfilling reporting requirements in §§ 82.13, 82.20, and 82.24 but did not require their use and allowed the submission of hard-copy forms. Upon receipt of the reports, the EPA either enters the data manually or imports it electronically via CDX into the ODS Tracking System. Manual entry of data provided in hard copy is time consuming for the agency as well as a potential source of error. On July 1, 2018 the EPA launched a new electronic platform for the ODS Tracking System along with revised and streamlined electronic forms. The EPA is proposing to require the use of the agency's CDX to submit reports electronically and is proposing a compliance date for this

Currently, the definition of “Administrator” instructs submitters to mail all reports and petitions to import ODS. The EPA is proposing to amend the definition of “Administrator” to require electronic reporting for the reports and petitions that are available in CDX, which includes the majority of reports under subpart A, as well as the import petitions and the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction, a new process which the EPA is proposing to create, as discussed further in Section IV.D of this notice. The EPA is also proposing to revise §§ 82.13, 82.23, and 82.24 to clarify that where a form is electronically available in CDX it must be submitted electronically through that tool

ts under subpart A, as well as the import petitions and the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction, a new process which the EPA is proposing to create, as discussed further in Section IV.D of this notice. The EPA is also proposing to revise §§ 82.13, 82.23, and 82.24 to clarify that where a form is electronically available in CDX it must be submitted electronically through that tool. The EPA is also proposing to add the definition of “Central Data Exchange” and provide instructions on how to register in CDX and submit information electronically in a new section at § 82.14. Each entity must establish an account in CDX in order to prepare, transmit, certify, and submit reports and submissions.

CDX is the EPA's electronic system for environmental data exchange and serves as the EPA's main mechanism for receiving and exchanging electronic information reported via the internet. CDX provides the capability for submitters to access their data using web services. CDX enables the EPA to work with stakeholders to enable streamlined electronic submission of data via the internet. All information sent via CDX is transmitted securely to protect CBI. A reporting entity may register for a CDX account or gain access to an existing CDX account at https://cdx.epa.gov, as discussed further below.

DX account at https://cdx.epa.gov, as discussed further below.

The ODS Tracking System is a secure database that serves as the primary vehicle for tracking the production and consumption of ODS in the United States. The ODS Tracking System allows producers, importers, and exporters of class I (excluding methyl bromide) and class II substances to submit quarterly and annual reports electronically. The ODS Tracking System maintains the data submitted to the EPA and helps the agency to: (1) Maintain oversight over total production and consumption of ODS in the United States; (2) monitor compliance of individual companies with domestic limits and restrictions on production, imports, and transfers and with specific exemptions from the phaseout; (3) enforce against entities illegally importing without allowances; and (4) assess and report on compliance with the United States production and consumption caps established under the Montreal Protocol, as implemented through the CAA.

Providing a system to facilitate electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's E-Enterprise initiative to reduce transaction costs and burdens for the regulated community by leveraging technologies. Eliminating paper-based submissions in favor of electronic reporting, including use of the revised Microsoft Excel reporting forms, and CDX, is part of broader government efforts to move to modern electronic methods of information gathering. One of the objectives of E-Enterprise is to reduce paperwork burden for the regulated community by offering electronic reporting, optimized operations, and advanced real-time monitoring tools. For more information on the EPA's E-Enterprise efforts please visit: https://www.epa.gov/e-enterprise.

Section 603 of the CAA grants the EPA the authority to issue certain regulations on the monitoring and reporting of ODS

ives of E-Enterprise is to reduce paperwork burden for the regulated community by offering electronic reporting, optimized operations, and advanced real-time monitoring tools. For more information on the EPA's E-Enterprise efforts please visit: https://www.epa.gov/e-enterprise.

Section 603 of the CAA grants the EPA the authority to issue certain regulations on the monitoring and reporting of ODS. The EPA may also use the information gathering authority under CAA section 114(a) to carry out the provisions of Title VI, including the production and consumption controls, and may require anyone who is subject to Title VI, or who may have information necessary to carry out Title VI, to make such reports as may reasonably be required. It is reasonable to require electronic reporting for the reasons set forth in this notice. Using electronic reporting enables more efficient data transmittal and reduces errors through built-in validation procedures. It reduces the reporting burden for submitters by reducing the cost and time required to review, edit, and transmit data to the agency. It also promotes efficiency in communications and cost savings in submissions and correspondence. Additional support for electronic reporting comes from the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504), which states that Executive agencies are to provide “(1) for the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper; and (2) for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable.” The EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59848), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the CFR to submit a report directly to the EPA can be satisfied with an electronic submission that meets certain conditions once the agency has published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form

40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59848), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the CFR to submit a report directly to the EPA can be satisfied with an electronic submission that meets certain conditions once the agency has published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. See 40 CFR 3.2(a). For more information about CROMERR, go to https://www.epa.gov/cromerr.

The EPA designed the electronic reporting forms with input from stakeholders to reduce effort and allow submitters to paste transaction-level data into the form from other spreadsheets. They contain built-in validations, drop-down lists, and auto-populated cells to reduce errors from data entry. Once the form is complete, users generate a comma separated value (CSV) file and submit the Microsoft Excel report, CSV file, and any required supporting attachments via CDX. Refer to the EPA's website for additional information on electronic form submission: https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/ods-recordkeeping-and-reporting. The web-based tool, as appropriate, also allows the user to choose “Print,” “Save,” or “Transmit through CDX.” The reporting tool encrypts the file and electronically submits it through CDX. The user can also check the status of their submissions at any time via CDX. Upon successful receipt of the submission by the EPA, the status of the submissions will be flagged as completed. The CDX inbox is currently used to notify the users of any correspondence related to user registration.

ation.

Under this proposal, entities generally would be required to submit the first quarter reports for the 2020 reporting year, due April 1, 2020, through CDX. Other reports that are available for submission through CDX, including import petitions and certifications of intent to import ODS for destruction, also would be required to be submitted electronically through CDX starting April 1, 2020. The EPA believes this would give the regulated community enough time to register in CDX and familiarize themselves with the revised electronic reporting forms and format. If this rule is finalized as proposed, reporting entities would be required to register and electronically submit most reports and petitions through CDX. Specifically, for production, import, export, destruction, transformation, transfers, and trades of ODS entities must use specified forms to allow for https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/ods-recordkeeping-and-reporting and through CDX:

—Class I Producer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-151); —Class I Importer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-150); —Class I Exporter Annual Report (EPA Form 5900-149); —Class I Laboratory Supplier Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-153); —Second-Party Transformation Annual Report (EPA Form 5900-147); —Second-Party Destruction Annual Report (EPA Form 5900-148); —Class II Producer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-202); —Class II Importer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-200); —Class II Exporter Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-199); —Class II Trades (EPA Form 5900-205); —Class II Request for Additional Consumption Allowances (EPA Form 5900-201). —Methyl Bromide Producer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-141); —Methyl Bromide Importer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-144); —Methyl Bromide Exporter Quarterly Report (EPA 5900-140); —Distributor of QPS Methyl Bromide Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-155); and —Methyl Bromide Pre-2005 Stocks Annual Report (EPA Form 5900-142). Petitioners currently have the option of using CDX to submit petitions

. —Methyl Bromide Producer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-141); —Methyl Bromide Importer Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-144); —Methyl Bromide Exporter Quarterly Report (EPA 5900-140); —Distributor of QPS Methyl Bromide Quarterly Report (EPA Form 5900-155); and —Methyl Bromide Pre-2005 Stocks Annual Report (EPA Form 5900-142). Petitioners currently have the option of using CDX to submit petitions. The current CDX process guides users through a series of drop downs, fillable fields, and uploads of PDF attachments using an electronic webform. The EPA is proposing to require reporting entities importing ODS for reuse or destruction to submit their reports through CDX because it would enable more efficient data transmittal and would reduce errors, as it has built-in validation procedures. For instance, missing information in a required field would prevent the petitioner from submitting the petition until all fields are completed. Thus, the EPA and entities would expect to benefit from electronic reporting by receiving complete submissions in a system that allows for secure electronic communication.

The EPA estimates that entities submitting ODS reports who have not yet registered in CDX would incur a one-time burden associated with registration. Most entities have already registered with CDX to voluntarily submit electronic ODS Tracking System forms or for other agency regulatory programs. The EPA estimates 20 respondents would need to incur the one-time CDX registration burden. Based on the EPA's CROMERR (ICR number 2002.07; OMB Control No. 2025-0003), the EPA assumes that entities would spend fifteen minutes per employee to register with CDX and complete LexisNexis identity proofing. Furthermore, the EPA assumes that an average of two technical staff members would need to register for each company, resulting in 20 minutes of burden per entity.

The EPA estimates that only those entities who have not yet registered in CDX would incur a one-time burden for this change

tities would spend fifteen minutes per employee to register with CDX and complete LexisNexis identity proofing. Furthermore, the EPA assumes that an average of two technical staff members would need to register for each company, resulting in 20 minutes of burden per entity.

The EPA estimates that only those entities who have not yet registered in CDX would incur a one-time burden for this change. Based on the number of entities that are already reporting through CDX, the EPA expects more than 90% of reporting entities were reporting electronically at the start of 2019. Thus, the EPA estimates initial CDX registration and electronic signature costs incurred in the first year would be $2,000 because most entities have previously registered in CDX and are reporting electronically. The EPA estimates the annual costs savings to reporters to be $4,000 per year for electronic reporting.

As discussed in the supporting statement for the accompanying ICR available in the docket to this rule, the EPA also expects to reduce its own burden as the result of receiving electronic submissions and communicating electronically with entities. The agency resources and time requirements to review and process data would decrease, and document storage and retrieval would require fewer resources. The electronic submission of data through CDX would allow for the direct import of data into the ODS Tracking System. This would reduce the time the agency spends manually entering data into the ODS Tracking System from paper forms as well as reduce the potential for human error that exists when data are entered by hand. Agency personnel would also be able to communicate more efficiently with entities electronically. The conversion to an electronic reporting system as well as the adoption of CDX to facilitate form submission and processing are expected to create long-term burden reductions and increased efficiencies for the EPA. Annual costs to the EPA would be associated with the operation and maintenance of CDX for the data flow

would also be able to communicate more efficiently with entities electronically. The conversion to an electronic reporting system as well as the adoption of CDX to facilitate form submission and processing are expected to create long-term burden reductions and increased efficiencies for the EPA. Annual costs to the EPA would be associated with the operation and maintenance of CDX for the data flow.

The EPA seeks comment on its proposal to require electronic reporting for ODS data under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, with exceptions for a few low-volume forms. In addition, the EPA seeks input on experience to date with electronic reporting of ODS data and whether entities that have already transitioned to electronic reporting have been able to lower their reporting costs, and if so, by how much. The EPA also requests comment on the proposal that the requirement for electronic reporting would begin 30 days after the effective date of any final rule and on whether additional time would be needed to comply with the electronic reporting requirements.

B. Changes to Reporting Requirements in §§ 82.13, 82.23, and 82.24

This section presents the EPA's proposal to consolidate and harmonize ODS reporting elements. The agency has provided the option of electronic reporting for most submissions since 2008 to assist stakeholders in the reporting process. The proposed regulatory changes would reflect current practices by entities that can be designed into electronic forms. The EPA monitors company compliance, in part, through the recordkeeping and reporting regulations at §§ 82.13 and 82.24. The EPA is proposing these updates under CAA sections 603 and 114. Many of these proposed regulatory changes would ease the reporting burden. For example, the EPA is proposing to remove reporting elements in §§ 82.23(a), 82.24(b), and 82.24(c) that require the reporter to calculate values from data already provided

in part, through the recordkeeping and reporting regulations at §§ 82.13 and 82.24. The EPA is proposing these updates under CAA sections 603 and 114. Many of these proposed regulatory changes would ease the reporting burden. For example, the EPA is proposing to remove reporting elements in §§ 82.23(a), 82.24(b), and 82.24(c) that require the reporter to calculate values from data already provided. Requiring this of the entity is unnecessary because if finalized as proposed, the requirement to report electronically through CDX means these values can automatically be calculated and populated. This would save reporting entities time in reporting and reduce errors in submissions. The EPA is also proposing to change §§ 82.13(h) and 82.24(d) so that the quantity (rather than the percentage) of used, recycled, or reclaimed class I and class II substances, respectively, would be a required reporting element. This change would improve consistency with the importer reporting requirements and correspond with the way companies report their annual data. It would also streamline the exporter reporting forms by eliminating the need for an entity to calculate a percentage. The EPA is also proposing to remove references to expended and unexpended production and consumption allowances at § 82.13(f)(3)(iv) and (g)(4)(viii), which

Other proposed regulatory changes would harmonize the requirements for class I and class II substances. For example, the EPA is proposing that the timeframe submitters have to make revisions to forms for class I and class II substances be the same. Currently under § 82.24 class II reporters have 180 days from the end of the applicable reporting period to make revisions while the class I provisions in § 82.13 are silent on the issue. The EPA is proposing to address this omission in the class I regulations by adding a provision that revisions to reports for class I substances under § 82.13 be made within 180 days of the end of the applicable reporting period

§ 82.24 class II reporters have 180 days from the end of the applicable reporting period to make revisions while the class I provisions in § 82.13 are silent on the issue. The EPA is proposing to address this omission in the class I regulations by adding a provision that revisions to reports for class I substances under § 82.13 be made within 180 days of the end of the applicable reporting period. This would conform to the current practices followed by entities that make revisions to class I reports and is consistent with the EPA's current practice of allowing such revisions to the reports for class I substances. These changes would also be consistent with the current regulations in § 82.24 for revisions to reports for class II substances.

The EPA is further proposing to amend § 82.24(d)(1) to clarify that exporters who submit a Request for Additional Consumption Allowances (RACA) must still include that export on their quarterly exporter report. Under § 82.20, companies may submit a request for additional consumption allowances if they export class II substances that were previously produced in or imported into the United States using consumption allowances. Currently, the regulatory text at § 82.24(d)(1) excludes from quarterly reporting those RACAs even though exporters do typically include those exports in their quarterly reporting. For ease of review by the EPA and for consistency of reporting by exporters, the agency is proposing that all exports be included in the quarterly export report, even if the EPA had issued additional consumption allowances to the exporter for that export. This proposed change matches current practice, so the agency does not anticipate an increase in burden for the exporter.

nal consumption allowances to the exporter for that export. This proposed change matches current practice, so the agency does not anticipate an increase in burden for the exporter.

The EPA is also proposing to amend the reporting requirements at § 82.13(v) to add the contact information for the source company from which the material was purchased and the laboratories to whom the material is sold. This proposal would allow the EPA to better track the sale of ODS for laboratory purposes through the Class I Laboratory Supplier Report.

Lastly, the EPA is proposing to correct class I reporting requirements for exporters by replacing the term “Employee Identification Number” with the correct term “Employer Identification Number” in § 82.13(h).

The EPA seeks comment on its proposed regulatory changes to the reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The EPA welcomes comment on any other changes that would ease burden on reporters.

C. Changes to Methyl Bromide Provisions in §§ 82.4 and 82.13

The EPA is proposing to amend the existing regulatory provisions related to the QPS exemption for methyl bromide under CAA section 604(d)(5) and ensure that QPS methyl bromide is not used in a manner inconsistent with the exemption. The EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 604(h) set January 1, 2005 as the production and import phaseout date (§ 82.4(b), (d)). Certain exceptions apply, including an exemption for methyl bromide produced or imported for quarantine and preshipment applications. Quarantine applications and preshipment applications are both defined at § 82.3. Briefly, quarantine applications are treatments to prevent the introduction, establishment, and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their official control. These can include commodities entering or leaving the United States or any State (or political subdivision thereof)

ment applications. Quarantine applications and preshipment applications are both defined at § 82.3. Briefly, quarantine applications are treatments to prevent the introduction, establishment, and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their official control. These can include commodities entering or leaving the United States or any State (or political subdivision thereof). Preshipment applications are those non-quarantine applications applied within 21 days before export to meet the official requirements of the importing country or existing official requirements of the exporting country. The current recordkeeping and reporting regulations relating to QPS methyl bromide appear at § 82.13 and establish specific requirements for producers, importers, distributors, and applicators, including in some instances requirements for written certifications that the methyl bromide will be used only for QPS applications in accordance with the definitions in § 82.3.

This section discusses three types of proposed changes to the QPS regulations. As a brief overview, first, the EPA is proposing to clarify that it is a violation to sell or use methyl bromide produced under the QPS exemption for any uses other than QPS applications. Second, the EPA is proposing to extend the existing certification requirements to all purchasers of QPS methyl bromide. Third, the EPA is proposing to make non-substantive changes to §§ 82.4 and 82.13 to improve readability, including changes to the naming convention for methyl bromide where appropriate and removal of unnecessary references to “used” material.

These proposed changes are, in part, in response to the misuse of QPS methyl bromide by applicators and distributors in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. As described in the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), on March 18, 2015, 26 a U.S. Virgin Islands pest control company, Terminix International USVI LLC, fumigated a condominium complex in St. John with a product containing methyl bromide for the purpose of exterminating household pests. As a result, a family of four suffered acute methyl bromide poisoning resulting in three family members having life-altering illnesses. On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources issued a stop-use order for methyl bromide to the company that performed the fumigation. A subsequent investigation by the Department of Planning and Natural Resources and the EPA revealed that a previous fumigation with methyl bromide had occurred on October 20, 2014, at the same condominium resort. In total, 37 persons may have been exposed to methyl bromide as a result of the October 2014 and March 2015 fumigations (Kulkarni et al., 2015). Terminix, LP and Terminix, USVI were sentenced to pay a total of $10 million in criminal fines and restitution for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 27 The companies were also ordered to perform community service following an investigation and guilty pleas to their use and application of illegal fumigants in multiple residential locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

26 1. Kulkarni, P.A., Duncan, M.A, Watters, M.T., Graziano, L.T., Vaouli, E., Cseh, L.F., Risher, J.F., Orr, M.F., Hunte-Ceasar, T.C., Ellis, E.M. (2015) Severe Illness from Methyl Bromide Exposure at a Condominium Resort-U.S. Virgin Islands, March 2015 Morbidity Monthly and Weekly Report (MMWR) Center for Disease Control, 64(28); pg. 763-766. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6428a4.htm.

27 EPA. (2017)

A, Watters, M.T., Graziano, L.T., Vaouli, E., Cseh, L.F., Risher, J.F., Orr, M.F., Hunte-Ceasar, T.C., Ellis, E.M. (2015) Severe Illness from Methyl Bromide Exposure at a Condominium Resort-U.S. Virgin Islands, March 2015 Morbidity Monthly and Weekly Report (MMWR) Center for Disease Control, 64(28); pg. 763-766. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6428a4.htm.

27 EPA. (2017). “Press Release: Terminix Companies Sentenced for Applying Restricted-Use Pesticide to Residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/terminix-companies-sentenced-applying-restricted-use-pesticide-residences-us-virgin.

As a result of the exposures in the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as documented misuse of QPS methyl bromide in Puerto Rico, and the high health risk potential from mishandling or misuse of QPS methyl bromide, the EPA is proposing to add a regulatory provision at § 82.4(r) to expressly prohibit the sale or use of QPS methyl

The existing regulations at § 82.13(y)(1) and (z)(2) require certification statements from distributors, applicators, commodity owners, shippers or their agent that methyl bromide “will be used only for quarantine and presh

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.