75898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 84 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0196; FRL–10782–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV98 

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Review and Renewal of Eligibility for 

Application-Specific Allowances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency is undertaking this 

rulemaking to assess the eligibility of six 

applications to receive priority access to 

allowances allocated pursuant to the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020. This 

rulemaking proposes the framework for 

how EPA will assess whether to renew 

the eligibility of applications to receive 

application-specific allowances; 

decisions to renew or not renew each of 

the six applications that currently 

receive application-specific allowances; 

revisions to the Technology Transitions 

regulations as relevant to the specific 

applications under review; a procedural 

process for submitting a petition to 

designate a new application as eligible 

for priority access to allowances; narrow 

revisions to the methodology used to 

allocate allowances to applicationspecific allowance holders for calendar 

years 2026 and beyond; and limited 

revisions to existing regulations. EPA is 

also proposing to authorize an entity to 

produce regulated substances for export. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing certain 

confidentiality determinations for newly 

reported information if this rulemaking 

is finalized as proposed. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 31, 2024. 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 September 23, 

2024. If a virtual public hearing is held, 

it will take place on or before October 

1, 2024 and further information will be 

provided at https://www.epa.gov/ 

climate-hfcs-reduction. 

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0196. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard-copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Graff, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, telephone number: 

202–564–5387; or email address: 

graff.michelle@epa.gov. You may also 

visit EPA’s website at https://

www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction for 

further information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘the Agency,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is 

used, we mean EPA. Acronyms and 

abbreviations that are used in this 

rulemaking that may be helpful include: 

2-BTP—2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene 

AAGR—Average Annual Growth Rate 

AES—Automated Export System 

AIM Act—American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 

AHRI—Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

APU—Auxiliary Power Unit 

ASHRAE—American Society for Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

ASA—Application-Specific Allowance 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CBP—U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CF3I—Trifluoroiodomethane 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CGMP—Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice 

CHIPS Act—Creating Helpful Incentives to 

Produce Semiconductors Act of 2022 

ClF3—Chlorine Trifluoride 

CO2—Carbon Dioxide 

COVID—Coronavirus Disease 

CVD—Chemical Vapor Deposition 

DFARS—Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement 

DOD—U.S. Department of Defense 

DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice 

EEI—Electronic Export Information 

EV—Exchange Value 

EVe—Exchange Value Equivalent 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FAR—Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FDA—U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act 

FSTOC—Fire Suppression Technical Options 

Committee 

FTOC—Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical 

Options Committee 

FR—Federal Register 

GHG—Greenhouse Gas 

GWP—Global Warming Potential 

HCFO—Hydrochlorofluoroolefin 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFIB—Hexafluoroisobutylene 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

ITN—Internal Transaction Number 

Kg—Kilogram 

MCMEU—Mission-Critical Military End Uses 

MCTOC—Medical and Chemicals Technical 

Options Committee 

MDI—Metered Dose Inhaler 

MT—Metric Ton 

MTEVe—Metric Tons of Exchange Value 

Equivalent 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NF3—Nitrogen Trifluoride 

ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential 

ODS—Ozone-Depleting Substances 

OMB—U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget 

PFC—Perfluorocarbon 

PII—Personally Identifiable Information 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

PU—Polyurethane 

RACA—Requests for Additional 

Consumption Allowance 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RSV—Respiratory Syncytial Virus 

SCPPU—Structural Composite Preformed 

Polyurethane 

SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SiN—Silicon Nitride 

SiO2—Silicon Dioxide 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

SISNOSE—Significant Economic Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities 

TCE—Trichloroethylene 

TEAP—Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel 

TSCA—Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSD—Technical Support Document 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Proposed Regulatory 

Action 

B. Summary of Proposed Actions 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What is EPA’s authority for taking this 

action? 

III. Background 

IV. How is EPA assessing whether to extend 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

A. How is EPA interpreting the ‘‘no safe or 

technically achievable substitute will be 

available’’ criterion? 

B. How is EPA interpreting the insufficient 

supply of regulated substances criterion? 

C. What is EPA’s proposed framework for 

renewing applications? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75899 

1EPA first codified the allocation methodology 

for general pool and ASA holders in ‘‘Phasedown 

of Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the Allowance 

Allocation and Trading Program Under the 

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act’’ 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Allocation Framework 

Rule’’) (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021). The 

methodology for general pool allowance holders 

was subsequently updated in ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Allowance Allocation 

Methodology for 2024 and Later Years’’ (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2024 Allocation Rule’’ (88 FR 

46836, July 20, 2023); the ASA methodology was 

not updated in the 2024 Allocation Rule. 

V. Review of the Six Applications Listed in 

the AIM Act 

A. Overview of Total U.S. HFC 

Consumption 

B. Propellants in Metered Dose Inhalers 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

C. Defense Sprays 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

4. Proposed Restriction Under EPA’s 

Technology Transitions Program 

D. Structural Composite Preformed 

Polyurethane Foam for Marine Use and 

Trailer Use 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

4. Proposed Restriction Under EPA’s 

Technology Transitions Program 

E. Etching of Semiconductor Material or 

Wafers and the Cleaning of Chemical 

Vapor Deposition Chambers Within the 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Sector 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

F. Mission-Critical Military End Uses 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

G. Onboard Aerospace Fire Suppression 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

2. Supply 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

VI. What are the proposed requirements 

associated with a petition to be listed as 

an application that will receive 

application-specific allowances? 

VII. Proposed Revisions to Existing 

Regulations 

A. Expected Total HFC Purchases 

B. Unique Circumstances 

C. Methodology for Entities With Irregular 

Purchasing History and Very Small Users 

D. Average Annual Growth Rate 

Calculations 

E. Inventory 

F. Department of Defense Conferrals 

G. Limited Set-Aside for Unique 

Circumstances Related to MDIs 

H. Return of Unneeded Allowances 

I. Enabling Auctions of Illegally Imported 

HFCs 

J. Quarterly Exporter Reporting of Internal 

Transaction Numbers 

K. Date of Purchase for Requests for 

Additional Consumption Allowances 

(RACAs) 

VIII. Authorization To Produce for Export 

A. To what entities is EPA proposing to 

allocate production for export 

allowances? 

B. How many production for export 

allowances is EPA proposing to issue to 

Iofina on an annual basis, and for how 

many years is EPA proposing to issue 

these allowances? 

C. Would Iofina need to expend 

consumption allowances for materials 

produced with production for export 

allowances and subsequently exported? 

D. How will this process affect the issuance 

of other types of allowances? 

E. What are the proposed recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for 

production for export allowances? 

1. Annual Certifications 

2. Quarterly Export and Inventory 

Reporting 

3. Recordkeeping 

IX. How will EPA handle confidentiality for 

newly reported information? 

A. Background on Determinations of 

Whether Information Is Entitled to 

Treatment as Confidential Information 

B. Data Elements Associated With a 

Petition To Be Listed as an Application 

That Will Receive Application-Specific 

Allowances 

C. Data Elements Related to Proposed 

Revisions to Existing Regulations 

D. Data Elements Reported to EPA Related 

to Production for Export 

X. What are the costs and benefits of this 

action? 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing 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 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Proposed Regulatory 

Action 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is undertaking this action 

to implement certain provisions of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020, codified at 

42 U.S.C. 7675 (AIM Act or the Act). 

The Act directs EPA to implement the 

phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs) by issuing a limited quantity of 

transferrable production and 

consumption allowances, which entities 

must expend to produce or import 

HFCs. In addition, subsection (e)(4)(B) 

of the Act authorizes EPA to allocate 

allowances exclusively for the use in 

specific applications for which there is: 

(1) no safe or technically achievable 

substitute and (2) an insufficient supply 

of the HFCs used in the application that 

can be secured from chemical 

manufacturers. The Act listed six 

applications that would receive priority 

access to allowances for a five-year 

period beginning on December 27, 2020: 

propellants in metered dose inhalers 

(MDIs), defense sprays, structural 

composite preformed polyurethane 

(SCPPU) foam for marine use and trailer 

use (hereafter referred to as SCPPU foam 

for marine and trailer uses), the etching 

of semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of chemical vapor 

deposition (CVD) chambers within the 

semiconductor manufacturing sector, 

mission-critical military end uses 

(MCMEU), and onboard aerospace fire 

suppression. EPA intends to finalize 

this proposed rule ahead of the 

allocation of calendar year 2026 

allowances. Without finalization of this 

proposed rule, all applications would be 

ineligible for allowances for calendar 

year 2026.1 EPA has created a category 

of allowances to provide this priority 

access, which EPA refers to as 

application-specific allowances (ASAs). 

ASAs are allocated ahead of general 

pool allowances based on a 

methodology intended to determine 

eligible entities’ needs for regulated 

substances (see Section VII of this 

preamble and the Allocation Framework 

Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021) for 

more information). After the total ASA 

quantity is determined, the remaining 

allowances are distributed to general 

pool allowance recipients using a 

different methodology. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75900 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Subsection (e)(4)(B)(v) of the AIM Act 

directs EPA to review applications 

receiving priority access to allowances 

not less frequently than once every five 

years, and, if the application meets the 

criteria above, authorize the eligibility 

of the application to receive priority 

access to allowances for a period of not 

more than five years. EPA is proposing 

how the Agency will interpret these two 

criteria to review applications receiving 

ASAs. EPA is also proposing decisions 

to renew or not renew each of the six 

applications that currently receive 

ASAs. 

Separately, subsection (i) of the Act 

authorizes EPA, by rulemaking, to 

restrict the use of HFCs in sectors or 

subsectors where the regulated 

substances are used. Under the 

authority of this provision, EPA 

finalized the rule ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the 

Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons 

Under the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020’’ (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule’’; 88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023), which established restrictions 

for three sectors and 39 subsectors. The 

rule exempted applications with a 

current qualification for ASAs. As such, 

if an application is no longer eligible to 

receive ASAs, it would become subject 

to the restrictions established in the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule. EPA 

is therefore proposing how the 

Technology Transitions regulations 

would apply to applications if EPA were 

to determine that those applications are 

not eligible for renewal for the full fiveyear period. 

The Act also includes a provision for 

the public to petition EPA to designate 

an application as eligible for priority 

access to allowances. EPA is proposing 

a procedural process for submitting a 

petition under this provision and to 

define minimum required elements of 

such a petition. In addition, this 

rulemaking proposes narrow revisions 

to the methodology used to allocate 

allowances to ASA holders for calendar 

years 2026 and beyond as well as other 

limited revisions to the existing 40 CFR 

part 84 regulations. EPA is also 

proposing to authorize an entity to 

produce regulated substances for export 

for application-specific uses pursuant to 

subsection (e)(5). Lastly, EPA is 

proposing certain confidentiality 

determinations for newly reported 

information if this rulemaking is 

finalized as proposed. 

B. Summary of Proposed Actions 

Application-specific allowance holder 

review: EPA is describing how it 

proposes to interpret the criteria under 

subsection (e)(4)(B) of the AIM Act and 

evaluate the six categories of ASA 

holders listed in subsection (e)(4)(B)(v) 

of the Act. EPA is proposing to renew 

the following applications for the full 

five-year period from 2026–2030: 

propellants in MDIs, the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector, MCMEU, and onboard aerospace 

fire suppression. EPA is co-proposing 

two options for defense sprays: do not 

renew or renew for a two-year period 

through 2027. EPA is co-proposing three 

options for SCPPU foams for marine and 

trailer uses: do not renew, renew for a 

two-year period through 2027, or renew 

for the full five-year period from 2026– 

2030 with allowance amounts 

determined based on the exchange value 

(EV) of a substitute HFC. In cases where 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

ASA holders, this proposal also details 

how the Technology Transitions 

regulations would apply to those 

applications. 

Application-specific allowance holder 

petitions: EPA is proposing the process 

and information requirements for 

submitting petitions under subsection 

(e)(4)(B) of the AIM Act which seek the 

designation of an application as an 

essential use. 

Application-specific allowance 

methodology: EPA is proposing targeted 

revisions to the existing ASA 

methodology: to require companies to 

provide a total request for allowances 

for the calendar year, to expand 

permissible scenarios that could qualify 

as unique circumstances, to use a 

different allocation methodology for 

certain very small users of HFCs and 

entities with irregular purchasing 

history, how to account for inventory in 

allocation decisions, to establish a setaside of allowances for situations that 

meet the criteria for unique 

circumstances related to medical 

conditions treated by MDIs, and to 

allow ASA holders to return a portion 

of their allowances voluntarily if they 

do not intend to use them. EPA is also 

proposing new requirements for 

conferrals of MCMEU allowances and 

an opportunity to return unneeded 

ASAs. 

Other regulatory revisions: EPA is 

proposing other specific regulatory 

changes to: clarify the ability of the 

Federal government to pursue, if 

appropriate, auctioning illegally 

imported HFCs that are seized by 

enforcement officials, require exporting 

companies to report ‘‘Internal 

Transaction Numbers’’ (ITNs) quarterly, 

and simplify the reporting on ‘‘date of 

purchase’’ for a Request for Additional 

Consumption Allowances (RACA). 

Authorization of production for 

export: EPA is proposing to authorize an 

entity to produce for export for 

application-specific uses abroad. 

Handling of confidentiality for newly 

reported information: EPA is proposing 

certain confidentiality determinations 

for newly reported information if this 

rulemaking is finalized as proposed. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this proposal if you use HFCs in one of 

the six applications eligible for an 

allocation under section (e)(4)(B)(iv) of 

the AIM Act. You may also potentially 

be affected if you produce, import, 

export, purify, destroy, reclaim, 

package, or otherwise distribute HFCs 

for end users in one of these six 

applications or are a current HFC 

allowance holder. Potentially affected 

categories, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes, 

and examples of potentially affected 

entities are included in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

325120 ................................. Industrial Gas Manufacturing. 

325199 ................................. All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing. 

325211 ................................. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing. 

325412 ................................. Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing. 

325414 ................................. Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing. 

325998 ................................. All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing. 

326220 ................................. Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing. 

326150 ................................. Urethane and Other Foam Product. 

326299 ................................. All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75901 

TABLE 1—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

333415 ................................. Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing. 

333511 ................................. Industrial Mold Manufacturing. 

334413 ................................. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. 

334419 ................................. Other Electronic Component Manufacturing. 

334510 ................................. Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing. 

336212 ................................. Truck Trailer Manufacturing. 

336214 ................................. Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing. 

336411 ................................. Aircraft Manufacturing. 

336611 ................................. Ship Building and Repairing. 

336612 ................................. Boat Building. 

336992 ................................. Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing. 

SIC 373102 .......................... Military Ships, Building, and Repairing. 

339112 ................................. Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing. 

423720 ................................. Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers. 

423730 ................................. Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

423740 ................................. Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

423830 ................................. Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers. 

423840 ................................. Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

423860 ................................. Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers. 

424690 ................................. Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers. 

488510 ................................. Freight Transportation Arrangement. 

541380 ................................. Testing Laboratories. 

541714 ................................. Research and Technology in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology). 

562111 ................................. Solid Waste Collection. 

562211 ................................. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal. 

562920 ................................. Materials Recovery Facilities. 

922160 ................................. Fire Protection. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provide 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. 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 is EPA’s authority for taking 

this action? 

On December 27, 2020, the AIM Act 

was enacted as section 103 in Division 

S, Innovation for the Environment, of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). In 

subsection (k)(1)(A), the AIM Act 

provides EPA with the authority to 

promulgate necessary regulations to 

carry out EPA’s functions under the Act, 

including its obligations to ensure that 

the Act’s requirements are satisfied (42 

U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(A)). Subsection 

(k)(1)(C) of the Act also provides that 

Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 113, 114, 

304, and 307 apply to the AIM Act and 

any regulations EPA promulgates under 

the AIM Act as though the AIM Act 

were part of title VI of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this rulemaking is subject 

to CAA section 307(d) (see 42 U.S.C. 

7607(d)(1)(I)) (CAA section 307(d) 

applies to ‘‘promulgation or revision of 

regulations under subchapter VI of this 

chapter (relating to stratosphere and 

ozone protection)’’). 

The AIM Act authorizes EPA to 

address HFCs in three main ways: 

phasing down HFC production and 

consumption through an allowance 

allocation program, facilitating the 

transition to next-generation 

technologies by restricting use of these 

HFCs in the sector or subsectors in 

which they are used, and promulgating 

certain regulations for purposes of 

maximizing reclaiming and minimizing 

releases of HFCs from equipment and 

ensuring the safety of technicians and 

consumers. This proposal relates to the 

first area and addresses restrictions in 

the second area for impacted subsectors. 

The Act required EPA, for the fiveyear period beginning on December 27, 

2020, to allocate the full quantity of 

allowances necessary, based on 

projected, current, and historical trends, 

for the production or consumption of 

regulated substances for the exclusive 

use in six applications: propellants in 

MDIs, defense sprays, SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses, the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector, MCMEU, and onboard aerospace 

fire suppression (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)). EPA has defined 

these allowances as ASAs. EPA intends 

to finalize this rulemaking ahead of the 

allocation of calendar year 2026 

allowances. Without finalization of this 

rulemaking, all applications would be 

ineligible for application-specific 

allowances for calendar year 2026. 

Subsection (e)(4)(B)(v) of the AIM Act 

requires EPA to review applications 

receiving allocations pursuant to 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) at least every 

five years. If pursuant to this review 

EPA determines that the requirements of 

two statutory criteria are met, EPA shall 

authorize production or consumption, 

as applicable, of the exclusive use of 

regulated substances in the application 

for renewable periods of not more than 

five years. Specifically, EPA must 

determine whether: (1) no safe or 

technically achievable substitute will be 

available during the applicable period 

for the application; and (2) the supply 

of the regulated substance that 

manufacturers or users of the regulated 

substance for that application are 

capable of securing from chemical 

manufacturers is insufficient to 

accommodate the application. 

Separately, an entity may file a 

petition for an application to receive 

ASAs. The AIM Act outlines timeframes 

and deadlines for EPA to act on such a 

petition and how the Agency should 

assess such a petition (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(ii)). Specifically, not later 

than 180 days after receiving a petition, 

EPA must propose and seek public 

comment on whether to provide ASAs 

for the application. Not later than 270 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75902 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

days after EPA receives a petition, the 

Agency must take final action on the 

petition. Any application determined to 

be eligible for ASAs would also be 

subject to the review requirements in 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(v). 

Subsection (i) of the AIM Act, 

‘‘Technology Transitions,’’ provides that 

‘‘the Administrator may by rule restrict, 

fully, partially, or on a graduated 

schedule, the use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1)). However, rules 

promulgated under subsection (i) ‘‘shall 

not apply to . . . an essential use under 

clause (i) or (iv) of subsection (e)(4)(B), 

including any use for which the 

production or consumption of the 

regulated substance is extended under 

clause (v)(II) of that subsection’’ (42 

U.S.C. 7675(i)(7)(B)(i)). Therefore, per 

subsection (i)(7)(B)(i), the restrictions 

promulgated under the Technology 

Transitions Program are not currently 

applicable to any application receiving 

an ASA (40 CFR 84.56(a)(2)). To the 

extent that this proposal would result in 

an application no longer receiving an 

ASA, this action also proposes the 

Technology Transitions Program 

restrictions that would apply to that 

application, if any, based on EPA’s 

consideration of the factors listed in 

subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act, should 

EPA finalize a determination that an 

application can no longer receive an 

ASA. 

Prior to proposing a rule, subsection 

(i)(2)(A) of the Act directs EPA to 

consider negotiating with stakeholders 

in the sector or subsector subject to the 

potential rule in accordance with 

negotiated rulemaking procedures 

established under subchapter III of 

chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code 

(commonly known as the ‘‘Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990’’). If EPA makes 

a determination to use the negotiated 

rulemaking procedures, subsection 

(i)(2)(B) requires that EPA, to the extent 

practicable, give priority to completing 

that rulemaking over completing 

rulemakings under subsection (i) that 

are not using that procedure. If EPA 

does not use the negotiated rulemaking 

process, subsection (i)(2)(C) requires the 

Agency to publish an explanation of the 

decision not to use that procedure 

before commencement of the 

rulemaking process. The Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 563) 

provides seven criteria that the head of 

an agency should consider when 

determining whether a negotiated 

rulemaking is in the public interest, 

namely, whether: (1) there is a need for 

a rule; (2) there are a limited number of 

identifiable interests that will be 

significantly affected by the rule; (3) 

there is a reasonable likelihood that a 

committee can be convened with a 

balanced representation of persons who 

can adequately represent the identified 

interests and are willing to negotiate in 

good faith to reach a consensus on the 

proposed rule; (4) there is a reasonable 

likelihood that a committee will reach a 

consensus on the proposed rule within 

a fixed period of time; (5) the negotiated 

rulemaking procedure will not 

unreasonably delay the notice of 

proposed rulemaking and the issuance 

of the final rule; (6) the agency has 

adequate resources and is willing to 

commit such resources, including 

technical assistance, to the committee; 

and (7) the agency, to the maximum 

extent possible consistent with the legal 

obligations of the agency, will use the 

consensus of the committee with respect 

to the proposed rule as the basis for the 

action proposed by the agency for notice 

and comment. 

If a head of agency determines that 

the use of the negotiated rulemaking 

procedure is in the public interest, an 

agency may convene a federally 

chartered advisory committee, and may 

rely on an appointed convener under 5 

U.S.C. 563(b) to assist with ascertaining 

the names of persons who are willing 

and qualified to represent interests that 

will be significantly affected by the 

proposed rule. If the agency decides to 

establish a negotiated rulemaking 

committee, the agency must publish in 

the Federal Register and in relevant 

publications a notice announcing the 

agency’s intention to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking committee, a 

description of the subject and scope of 

the rule, a list of the interests which are 

likely to be significantly affected by the 

rule, a list of the persons proposed to 

represent such interests and the 

proposed agency representatives, a 

proposed agenda and schedule for 

completing the committee’s work, a 

description of the administrative and 

technical support to be provided to the 

committee by the agency, a solicitation 

for comments on the proposal to 

establish the committee and on the 

proposed membership of the committee, 

and an explanation of how a person may 

apply or nominate another person for 

membership on the committee. The 

agency must provide at least 30 calendar 

days for the submission of comments 

and applications related to the 

membership of the committee. In 

establishing and administering such a 

committee, the agency shall comply 

with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, unless an exception applies. If the 

committee reaches consensus on a 

proposed rule, the committee shall 

transmit a report containing the 

proposed rule to the Federal agency. If 

the committee does not reach a 

consensus on a proposed rule, the 

committee may transmit a report 

specifying any areas upon which 

consensus was reached. The proposed 

rule is still subject to public comment, 

and for purposes of a rulemaking 

developed under the AIM Act, the 

requirements of CAA section 307(d). 

Before proposing the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, consistent 

with AIM Act subsection (i)(2)(A) and 

(C), EPA considered whether to 

negotiate with stakeholders using the 

negotiated rulemaking procedure 

provided for in the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990, decided not to 

use such procedures, and published its 

explanation of that decision in the 

Federal Register (86 FR 74080, 

December 29, 2021). 

EPA noted in the final 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule that, 

where appropriate, EPA will consider 

recent Agency actions and decisions 

related to restrictions on the use of 

HFCs in sectors and subsectors for its 

consideration on using negotiated 

rulemaking procedures. EPA did not, for 

example, separately consider using 

negotiated rulemaking for four petitions 

that were received after a rulemaking 

process had already been commenced 

regarding the same sectors and 

subsectors, nor did EPA consider anew 

whether or not to use negotiated 

rulemaking in an interim final rule (88 

FR 88825, December 26, 2023) that 

amended one provision of the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule for one 

subsector. 

Similarly, the proposed changes to the 

Technology Transitions regulations 

contemplated in this action would be 

targeted at a subset of applications 

within a subsector subject to those 

restrictions. EPA is not addressing a 

new subsector in this proposal, nor even 

proposing a different level of stringency 

from already promulgated restrictions; 

rather, this action proposes only to 

establish deadlines by which 

applications would need to comply with 

Technology Transitions regulations in 

the event that those applications no 

longer receive ASAs. EPA does not 

believe that the public interest would be 

served by using the negotiated 

rulemaking procedure for this limited 

adjustment to the Technology 

Transitions regulations, especially 

because timeliness is a concern. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75903 

2While the overwhelming majority of HFC 

production is intentional, EPA is aware that HFC– 

23 can be a byproduct associated with the 

production of other chemicals, including but not 

limited to hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)–22 and 

other fluorinated gases. 

III. Background 

HFCs are anthropogenic 2 fluorinated 

chemicals that have no known natural 

sources. HFCs are used in a variety of 

applications such as refrigeration and 

air conditioning, foam blowing agents, 

solvents, aerosols, and fire suppression. 

HFCs are potent greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) with 100-year global warming 

potentials (GWPs) (a measure of the 

relative climatic impact of a GHG) that 

can be hundreds to thousands of times 

that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

HFC use and emissions have been 

growing worldwide due to the global 

phaseout of ozone-depleting substances 

(ODS) under the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol), and the 

increasing use of refrigeration and airconditioning equipment globally. HFC 

emissions had previously been 

projected to increase substantially over 

the next several decades. In 2016, in 

Kigali, Rwanda, countries agreed to 

adopt an amendment to the Montreal 

Protocol, known as the Kigali 

Amendment, which provides for a 

global phasedown of the production and 

consumption of HFCs. The United 

States ratified the Kigali Amendment on 

October 31, 2022. Global adherence to 

the Kigali Amendment would 

substantially reduce future emissions, 

leading to a peaking of HFC emissions 

before 2040. 

There are hundreds of possible HFC 

compounds. The 18 HFCs listed as 

regulated substances by the AIM Act are 

some of the most commonly used HFCs 

(neat and in blends) and have high 

impacts as measured by the quantity of 

each substance emitted multiplied by 

their respective GWPs. These 18 HFCs 

are all saturated, meaning they have 

only single bonds between their atoms, 

and therefore have longer atmospheric 

lifetimes than fluorinated compounds 

that are unsaturated. More detailed 

information on HFCs, their uses, and 

their impacts is available in the 

Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021). 

IV. How is EPA assessing whether to 

extend eligibility for applicationspecific allowances? 

As noted in Section II.B of this 

preamble, the AIM Act directs EPA to 

undertake a review of applications 

receiving allowances pursuant to 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) at least every 

five years. The statute says that access 

to ASAs shall be authorized for a 

renewed period if two statutory criteria 

are met. Specifically: (1) ‘‘no safe or 

technically achievable substitute will be 

available during the applicable period 

for that application; and’’ (2) ‘‘the 

supply of the regulated substance that 

manufacturers or users of the regulated 

substance for that application are 

capable of securing from chemical 

manufacturers . . . including any 

quantities of a regulated substance 

available from production or import, is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application’’ (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(1)). In this section, we 

outline how EPA interprets these 

criteria, what information the Agency 

will consider in assessing these criteria, 

and a proposed framework for 

evaluating if an application is eligible 

for renewal for up to five years. EPA 

notes that under the statute, these 

criteria also apply to new applications 

that may be listed, but, aside from 

Section VI addressing the petition 

process, this proposed rulemaking is 

primarily focused on the renewal of 

existing applications. However, EPA’s 

interpretations of the criteria discussed 

in this section would apply to future 

actions to add new applications. The 

AIM Act includes additional evaluation 

considerations for new applications in 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(i), but the Agency is 

not addressing their interpretation in 

this rulemaking. 

A. How is EPA interpreting the ‘‘no safe 

or technically achievable substitute will 

be available’’ criterion? 

In order for an application to continue 

to be eligible to receive ASAs, EPA must 

determine ‘‘no safe or technically 

achievable substitute will be available’’ 

for the application during the time 

period under review (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(I)). EPA is proposing 

that the best interpretation of this 

criterion is that if there is an available 

substitute that is both safe and 

technically achievable, an application 

would not meet this criterion for 

renewal. EPA acknowledges that the 

statutory language could be ambiguous 

as to whether a substitute must be both 

safe and technically achievable. 

However, reading the statutory language 

differently than proposed would seem 

to create a perverse outcome. In such a 

scenario, an application would become 

ineligible for ASAs if EPA identified a 

substitute that was technically 

achievable, but not safe. EPA reads the 

context of subsection (e)(4) as indicating 

that Congress intended that listed 

applications continue to receive priority 

access to allowances as long as the 

application needed to use regulated 

substances. In a situation where an 

identified substitute is not safe, EPA 

believes that it would be Congress’s 

intent to continue to provide priority 

access to allowances such that the 

application was not prematurely forced 

to transition to an unsafe substitute. 

Similarly, it does not seem reasonable to 

take away access to ASAs when an 

identified substitute is safe, but not 

technically achievable. If the 

application cannot technically 

implement the transition to a substitute, 

it seems unrealistic to think that there 

could be a transition away from 

regulated substances. Accordingly, EPA 

proposes to interpret the statutory text 

and surrounding framework such that if 

EPA determines there is no safe 

substitute that is technically achievable 

for an application, or a technically 

achievable substitute is not safe, the 

application would meet the first 

criterion for renewal. 

In looking at potential substitutes for 

an application under subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(i)(I), EPA is proposing to 

consider regulated substances (i.e., other 

HFCs), alternative substances (e.g., 

hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), 

hydrocarbons), and blends of HFCs and/ 

or HFC alternatives that can perform the 

same general function as the current 

HFC in use. EPA is proposing that such 

an interpretation of the term 

‘‘substitute’’ is most consistent with the 

statutory language of subsection 

(e)(4)(B) as a whole. Specifically, in its 

direction to EPA to review applications 

receiving ASAs every five years, 

Congress directed EPA to ‘‘review the 

availability of substitutes, including any 

quantities of the regulated substance 

available.’’ This sentence structure, 

indicating that examination of 

quantities of regulated substances 

available would be included as part of 

analyzing what substitutes are available, 

suggests that regulated substances are 

part of the universe of substitutes that 

Congress intended EPA to include in its 

review. In addition to EPA’s 

determination that such an approach is 

more consistent with the statutory 

language than an approach of only 

looking at non-regulated substances as 

substitutes, EPA has also identified 

other benefits of this interpretation. For 

example, it would seem to be a perverse 

outcome if EPA renewed an 

application’s eligibility for ASAs at 

historic quantities where there was an 

available substitute that did not require 

any or required fewer allowances to 

procure. Non-HFCs may be able to fill 

the same role as the HFC, often 

functioning as a chemical-for-chemical 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75904 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3While the AIM Act calls for reduction of HFC 

production and consumption on an EV-weighted 

basis, EV and GWP are numerically equal. Lower 

GWP is an important consideration for whether a 

substitute is safe, so EPA is using GWP instead of 

EV in the discussion in this section of the rule. 

4EPA is using the term ‘‘commercialization’’ to 

mean that the substitute is commercially available 

and actively being used in an application’s 

equipment or sold on the market (domestically or 

internationally) for use in the application. 

‘‘Commercialization’’ is not intended to be equated 

with ‘‘available,’’ as explained in more detail in the 

main text. 

replacement or requiring limited design 

changes. 

EPA is proposing, as part of its 

assessment of what chemicals may be 

determined to be safe as a substitute for 

applications under review, to only 

include substances, including blends of 

substances, with a lower GWP than the 

regulated substance currently in use. As 

explained in the Allocation Framework 

Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021), the 

HFC phasedown’s significant benefits 

are derived from the reduction of 

production and consumption of certain 

chemicals on a GWP-weighted basis.3

Considering higher-GWP substances or 

blends of substances would run against 

this overall objective and could reduce 

the benefits of the HFC phasedown, 

especially if this rulemaking led to the 

uptake of higher-GWP non-HFC 

technologies (e.g., semiconductor 

manufacturers transitioning back to 

using higher-GWP perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs)). In addition, this proposed 

interpretation aligns with the approach 

under the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023), 

which established GWP limits for 

subsectors and considered substitutes as 

only those with lower GWPs. Further 

discussion regarding the sources EPA is 

relying on to determine if a substitute is 

safe (e.g., listed by EPA’s Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

Program) can be found below. 

In addition to looking at chemicals 

that could serve as substitutes, EPA is 

also including in its analysis any 

potentially available not-in-kind 

technologies (e.g., finger-pump bottles 

that would not use any chemical 

propellant in lieu of aerosol cans) for 

purposes of subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I). 

Such an approach is consistent with the 

common understanding of the plain 

language definition of ‘‘substitute.’’ For 

example, Merriam Webster defines 

substitute as a thing that ‘‘takes the 

place of function of another’’ and the 

Oxford dictionary similarly notes a 

substitute is a ‘‘thing acting or serving 

in place of another.’’ In general, not-inkind technologies can serve the need of 

some applications, so it is appropriate to 

include them within the scope of 

assessing safe and technically 

achievable substitutes. It would be 

unnecessarily limiting to exclude from 

the scope of the analysis a technology 

that performs the same general function 

for the application as the current HFC 

in use does. EPA also acknowledges that 

market pressure from the HFC 

phasedown may encourage a transition 

into not-in-kind technologies (and nonHFCs) by limiting the supply of HFCs 

on a GWP-weighted basis, while the 

Technology Transitions Program 

prohibits the use of certain HFCs in 

certain sectors and subsectors. There is 

also precedent for considering not-inkind technologies under CAA Title VI, 

such as the SNAP Program and 

Nonessential Product Bans, and the AIM 

Act Technology Transitions Program, all 

of which also evaluate not-in-kind 

substitutes as possible alternatives to 

ODS and HFCs, respectively. 

EPA is aware that a transition to 

certain substitutes will require changes 

to how the HFCs are used in the 

application (e.g., accommodating a 

flammable HFC in the manufacturing 

process). Shifts to not-in-kind 

technologies will inherently require a 

change in manufacturing and/or the 

product, so it would be a consistent 

approach to also not outright exclude 

substitute chemicals that would 

similarly require a change in 

manufacturing process or the product. 

EPA does not want to unnecessarily 

limit the scope of the substitute analysis 

at this point in time, and therefore is 

considering a wide range of possible 

safe and technically achievable 

substitutes. The phasedown of HFCs is 

still nascent, and, at this point, we 

cannot know the full breadth of 

technologies that will be developed as 

replacements for the current HFCs in 

use. 

The Agency is proposing to assess this 

criterion, specifically that a substitute is 

safe, technically achievable, and 

available, on an application-wide basis. 

For applications that use multiple HFCs, 

a substitute would need to be able to 

replace all HFCs used (or multiple 

substitutes that replace all individual 

HFCs would need to be available). For 

applications that have sub-applications 

(e.g., defense sprays include those 

intended for humans and those 

intended for animals), there would need 

to be a viable substitute for known subapplications. EPA’s interpretation is that 

it would be unreasonable to consider an 

application as having met this criterion 

and thereby ineligible for renewal 

unless all known sub-applications can 

successfully transition away from their 

currently used HFC(s). 

EPA’s evaluation of each application 

is not intended to be a company-specific 

review; the commercialization 4 of a 

substitute by one sub-application 

suggests the substitute is safe or 

technically achievable for the entire 

application barring evidence, such as 

testing data, to the contrary. However, 

there are additional barriers to 

commercialization, which are 

considered when assessing if the 

identified substitute is available for an 

entire application. In addition, EPA’s 

interpretation of the statutory language 

is that applications are intended to be 

viewed as a whole and not necessarily 

renewed by sub-application. 

Specifically, the listing of the 

applications in subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)(I) 

does not break down the application 

into sub-applications (e.g., ‘‘defense 

sprays’’ is not listed as multiple separate 

applications, e.g., ‘‘personal defense 

sprays,’’ ‘‘law enforcement defense 

sprays,’’ and ‘‘bear defense sprays’’). 

Similarly, for applications that use 

multiple HFCs and have specific uses 

for the individual HFCs, it would not be 

reasonable to assess this criterion as 

being met if an application does not 

have an available safe and technically 

achievable substitute for each HFC. It is 

EPA’s opinion that Congress did not 

intend for an application to lose its 

eligibility for ASAs if it could only 

transition some, but not all, of the HFCs 

currently used in the application. 

EPA reviewed a range of sources in 

developing its assessment of the 

availability of safe, technically 

achievable substitutes for each 

application at issue here. Sources 

include, but are not limited to: 

manufacturer announcements; 

information provided by stakeholders 

under part 84 reporting requirements 

and other communications; relevant 

Federal and State regulations; 

evaluations carried out under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023) and the SNAP 

Program; standards from industry, 

standard-setting bodies (e.g., American 

Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)), 

and the U.S. Government (e.g., the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 

standards for MDIs); and peer-reviewed 

technical reports. The Technical 

Support Document (TSD) ‘‘Draft Review 

of Applications in the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) 

Act Section (e)(4)(B)(4)’’ contains a 

comprehensive array of sources we 

looked at for each application, and EPA 

is taking comment on other relevant 

sources that should be considered. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75905 

As noted, EPA is considering the 

listings under the SNAP Program as part 

of its assessment. The SNAP Program 

has an established history evaluating 

substitutes for ODS, many of which are 

also possible substitutes for HFCs. 

Where relevant, in its assessment of the 

availability of safe substitutes, EPA 

considered information from the SNAP 

Program, including the listings 

themselves and the information 

underlying SNAP Program decisions. 

The SNAP Program does not evaluate 

substitutes for semiconductor etching 

and cleaning of CVD chambers. Some 

military applications are covered under 

the SNAP Program. In other cases, such 

as MDIs and SCPPU foams, while these 

applications are within the scope of the 

SNAP Program, there may be other 

sources of information (e.g., the FDA, 

company information) that may be more 

appropriate. 

In its evaluation of substitutes and 

related decisions (e.g., to list as 

acceptable or unacceptable), the SNAP 

Program carries out a comparative risk 

evaluation and considers whether a 

substitute to an ozone-depleting 

substance presents human health and 

environmental risks that are lower than 

or comparable to such risks from other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available for the same uses. 

The human health risks analyzed 

include safety, and in particular, 

flammability, toxicity, and exposure (of 

workers, consumers, and the general 

population) to chemicals with direct 

toxicity; environmental risks include 

ozone depletion potential (ODP) and 

GWP. Information and data relied upon 

in the SNAP Program are directly 

relevant to EPA’s assessment of 

substitutes in this rulemaking, and 

therefore EPA has pulled from and 

relied upon SNAP Program assessments 

as appropriate. 

EPA evaluates substitutes under the 

SNAP Program on an ongoing basis and 

over time has listed numerous 

substances as ‘‘acceptable,’’ ‘‘acceptable, 

subject to use conditions,’’ or 

‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ ‘‘Acceptable subject to use 

conditions’’ indicates that a substitute is 

acceptable only if used in a certain way. 

Use conditions can include, but are not 

limited to, warning labels, compliance 

with relevant safety standards, and 

restrictions on where a substitute is 

used (e.g., HFC–134a is acceptable for 

FDA-approved MDIs for medical 

purposes but is not acceptable for a 

majority of aerosol uses, and some fire 

suppression substitutes may only be 

used in typically unoccupied spaces). 

EPA can also list substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ under SNAP, indicating that a 

substitute may be used only within 

certain specialized applications within 

an end use and may not be used for 

other applications within that end use 

(e.g., SNAP has previously listed some 

substitutes as acceptable for only 

narrowed use limits for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related 

applications). In listing of a chemical as 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions directly relevant to the 

application, the SNAP Program makes 

an assessment that the benefits 

outweigh the risks relative to other 

alternatives; these listings are relevant 

data to support EPA’s determination 

under AIM Act subsection (e)(4)(B) on 

whether a substitute is ‘‘safe’’ under the 

interpretation proposed in this 

rulemaking. 

EPA lists substitutes as 

‘‘unacceptable’’ under SNAP if the 

Agency determines that they may 

increase overall risk to human health 

and the environment, compared to other 

alternatives that are available or 

potentially available for the same use. 

EPA has listed substitutes as 

unacceptable considering the human 

health criteria described above, as well 

as the environmental factors considered 

under SNAP. For example, SNAP has 

listed certain substitutes as 

unacceptable due to unusually high 

ODP, GWP, toxicity and exposure, and 

flammability (where it is not clear how 

to mitigate risks sufficiently). 

Substitutes listed as unacceptable in an 

end use are prohibited for that use and 

therefore would not be an available safe 

or technically achievable substitute for 

an application under our proposed 

interpretation of this criterion. 

The Agency is also reviewing the 

evaluations carried out for the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023) and relying on 

information and assessments done in 

that rulemaking, as appropriate. In 

establishing restrictions, the Technology 

Transitions Program factored in the 

availability of substitutes, considering 

both safety and technological 

achievability, among other factors. The 

Technology Transitions Program relied 

on information from a wide range of 

sources when assessing availability, 

including but not limited to, SNAP, the 

Montreal Protocol’s Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), 

standards bodies, and information 

provided by industry, States, and 

environmental non-governmental 

organizations. Though the Technology 

Transitions Program looked subsectorwide, not at specific end uses, and did 

not specifically analyze the applications 

currently receiving ASAs under 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv), some of these 

applications (e.g., defense sprays and 

SCPPU foams for marine and trailer 

uses) have similarities with the 

subsectors currently subject to 

restrictions. As a result, in carrying out 

the assessments undertaken in this 

rulemaking, EPA is considering relevant 

information from the Technology 

Transition Program’s evaluations. 

In the assessment undertaken in this 

rulemaking, EPA is also taking into 

account other Federal standards and 

regulations, both within EPA and from 

other U.S. Government agencies. For 

many applications under review in this 

rulemaking, there are applicable 

regulations and standards that outline 

requirements related to the chemicals or 

technologies used within an 

application. In these situations, such 

standards and regulations may in some 

instances limit use of possible 

substitutes. In some instances, it may 

not be possible for a substitute to ever 

be used. In other instances, applicable 

regulations may require entities to go 

through a regulatory approval process 

that would affect when an application 

can transition to a substitute. Some 

examples of regulations and standards 

we are considering as part of our 

proposed evaluations include EPA’s 

regulations covering pesticides such as 

bear spays and dog sprays (subapplications of defense sprays) under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. 136– 

136y), the FDA’s requirements for MDIs, 

and the U.S. Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) requirements 

for onboard aerospace fire suppression. 

Additional standards and regulations for 

each application are discussed further 

in the relevant chapter of the TSD. EPA 

invites comment on any other standards 

or regulations that entities think EPA 

should consider in determining an 

application’s ability to transition to a 

substitute. 

EPA also considered the work 

undertaken by the Montreal Protocol’s 

TEAP in the proposed application 

assessment given the TEAP’s analytical 

work on substitutes and alternative 

technologies to substances controlled 

under the Montreal Protocol, including 

HFCs. TEAP assesses technical and 

economic information that serves as the 

basis for parties’ assessment of control 

measures of substances under the 

purview of the Montreal Protocol. Such 

information is related to substitutes that 

may replace the substances controlled 

under the Montreal Protocol and 

alternative technologies that may be 

used without adverse impact on the 

ozone layer and climate, production and 

consumption of controlled substances, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75906 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

5For a discussion on the difference between 

producing HFCs consistent with the AIM Act and 

blending HFCs to make various refrigerant blends, 

see ‘‘Response to Comments’’, pg. 193, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0044, associated with the 

Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 55116) and the 

discussion in the 2024 Allocation Rule (88 FR 

46863). 

emissions of controlled substances, 

potential alternatives for exempted uses 

and others, as mandated by the parties. 

This assessment includes applications 

listed in AIM subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv). In 

addition, TEAP develops assessments in 

response to decisions taken by the 

parties to the Montreal Protocol, 

including but not limited to Decision 

XXVIII/2, which call for an assessment 

of alternatives to HFCs every five years. 

EPA particularly looked at the 2022 

Assessment Reports by the Medical and 

Chemical Technical Options Committee, 

concerning semiconductors, aerosols, 

and MDIs; the Flexible and Rigid Foams 

Technical Options Committee (FTOC); 

and the Fire Suppression Technical 

Options Committee (FSTOC). TEAP 

reports have included information on 

technical achievability and safety. TEAP 

reports are developed by experts around 

the world and provide insight into the 

HFC substitutes currently in use and 

under development in the United States 

and globally. As such, EPA is 

considering relevant information from 

these reports when carrying out the 

assessment of available safe or 

technically achievable substitutes 

undertaken in this rulemaking. 

As described throughout this section, 

EPA is considering information from a 

wide range of sources in its assessment 

of the availability of safe or technically 

achievable substitutes for the 

applications receiving ASAs under 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)(I), and no one 

source will be determinative for this 

criterion. Further information about 

sources consulted for each application 

can be found in Section V of this 

preamble and the TSD. EPA invites 

comment on its interpretation of ‘‘no 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

will be available’’ and the sources it is 

considering in its assessment of this 

criterion. 

B. How is EPA interpreting the 

insufficient supply of regulated 

substances criterion? 

Under the second criterion for 

renewal of an application’s eligibility to 

receive ASAs, EPA must determine that 

‘‘the supply of the regulated substance 

that manufacturers or users of the 

regulated substance for that application 

are capable of securing from chemical 

manufacturers . . . , including any 

quantities of a regulated substance 

available from production or import, is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application’’ (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II)). As described here 

and in the sections of the proposed rule 

discussing each of the six applications, 

a determination that there is insufficient 

supply could be based on a number of 

different factors, including the available 

domestic supply of the HFC(s) at issue, 

demand for said HFC(s), and supply 

chain constraints particular to a given 

application (e.g., federally required 

purity specifications). Priority access to 

allowances through ASAs has the 

potential to address insufficient supply 

of HFCs by allowing entities that use 

HFCs in an eligible application to more 

easily procure HFCs from a domestic 

supplier by conferring allowances to 

authorize production or import or to 

import the HFCs themselves. 

In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

interpreting this criterion as requiring 

an assessment related to the supply of 

the HFC(s) currently used in an 

application’s equipment or to 

manufacture the application’s products 

for use. Under this proposed 

interpretation, EPA would not evaluate 

HFC(s) currently used exclusively for 

research and development in assessing 

whether there is insufficient supply. 

EPA recognizes that the research and 

development process may find various 

alternatives to be unsuitable for an 

application. Therefore, it would be 

premature to consider supply of 

potentially unsuitable HFC alternatives 

until such time as they have been 

commercialized or are close to 

commercialization. Further, it could 

also have the perverse effect of limiting 

research into alternatives if an 

application’s initial research could 

prematurely contribute to removal from 

eligibility for ASAs. 

EPA is proposing to consider 

regulated substances supplied by 

chemical manufacturers in its 

assessment of supply. EPA interprets 

the reference to regulated substances 

‘‘from chemical manufacturers’’ in 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II) as direction 

from Congress to assess supply from 

chemical manufacturers only, and that 

this direction could cover both virgin 

and recovered and reprocessed HFCs. 

EPA is proposing to include HFCs 

produced domestically and those that 

are produced abroad and imported in its 

assessment of supply under this 

criterion. Congress directed EPA to 

consider regulated substances ‘‘from 

chemical manufacturers . . . , 

including any quantities of a regulated 

substance available from production or 

import’’ in its assessment under 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II). Because of 

Congress’s reference to production and 

import of regulated substances, and the 

lack of any language suggesting that 

chemical manufacturers should be read 

as limited to only U.S. producers, EPA 

intends to consider imported material 

from foreign HFC producers in addition 

to regulated substances from domestic 

producers. As a result, EPA is proposing 

not to consider HFC supply held by and 

available to entities that do not produce 

or import HFCs in its assessment of this 

criterion. This would exclude quantities 

of HFCs held by entities that do not 

produce or import HFCs with 

allowances, potentially including 

reclaimers, distributors, HFC blenders,5

and HFC repackagers. EPA considers 

this proposed interpretation to be most 

consistent with the statutory language in 

42 U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II). 

The Agency is proposing to consider 

multiple sources of data in its 

evaluation of whether supply of a 

regulated substance is insufficient to 

accommodate an application. 

Specifically, in developing the analysis 

for each application, EPA has drawn 

information regarding the total expected 

HFC consumption in the United States, 

global production of individual HFCs 

used in the applications, manufacturer 

announcements regarding production of 

specific HFCs, past and projected 

market trends for an application that 

can inform projected demand for the 

HFC(s) it uses, and allowance usage by 

application to date, including 

conferrals, imports, and open market 

purchases by ASA holders, as well as 

expenditures of conferred allowances by 

suppliers to ASA holders. EPA is 

intending to consider data from all of 

these sources collectively in order to 

gain a more complete picture of 

projected supply for the relevant 

individual HFC(s), rather than relying 

on one data point. EPA is taking 

comment on these and any other 

sources the agency should consider 

when assessing insufficient supply. 

EPA is proposing to assess 

insufficient supply on an applicationwide basis. If an application uses 

multiple HFCs, and the supply of at 

least one of those HFCs is insufficient to 

accommodate the application, EPA 

would consider the criterion met for the 

application. EPA interprets 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II) to require the Agency 

to review the supply of the regulated 

substance for each regulated substance 

an application uses. If there is an 

insufficient supply for one HFC, EPA 

would determine that this criterion is 

met, and the application would 

continue to be eligible for ASAs, 

assuming the first criterion regarding 

substitutes is also met. EPA is proposing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75907 

that such an approach is the best 

interpretation of the AIM Act direction 

in 42 U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II) that if 

both criteria are met, ‘‘the Administrator 

shall authorize the production or 

consumption, as applicable, of any 

regulated substance used in the 

application.’’ A converse approach 

would result in EPA not renewing the 

ASA eligibility of an application that 

has no available substitutes and there is 

an insufficient supply available of a 

regulated substance used by that 

application. EPA is interpreting the AIM 

Act to provide ASAs to an application 

where at least one regulated substance 

that manufacturers are capable of 

securing is insufficient to accommodate 

the application, even if the supply of a 

different regulated substance is not 

insufficient. 

In addition to looking generally at the 

supply of HFCs, EPA is also considering 

relevant restrictions, if any, on the type 

of HFC or supplier of HFCs that would 

further limit supply to a particular 

application. For example, FDA 

regulations govern use of 

pharmaceutical-grade HFCs by MDI 

manufacturers. Facilities manufacturing 

the regulated substances must comply 

with FDA regulations, and there are a 

limited number of purifiers. EPA is 

considering any applicable relevant 

Federal regulations and standards 

(examples listed above in Section IV.A.), 

including required regulatory approvals 

and purity levels, that could limit the 

supply of the HFC(s) used within an 

application. 

C. What is EPA’s proposed framework 

for renewing applications? 

In outlining the requirement that EPA 

review the applications eligible for 

ASAs at least every five years, the AIM 

Act states that if EPA determines ‘‘that 

the requirements described in 

subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) are 

met’’ then the EPA will renew the 

application’s eligibility to continue to 

receive ASAs (42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(v)(II)) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, EPA interprets the 

statutory language to mean that both 

criterion (I) of clause (i) (that a 

substitute is not available) and criterion 

(II) (that supply is insufficient) must be 

met for an application to be renewed as 

eligible for ASAs. If either or both 

criteria are not met as of January 1, 

2026, EPA proposes to not renew an 

application’s eligibility to receive ASAs. 

Put another way, if EPA determines, for 

example, that supply is not insufficient 

to accommodate an application as of 

January 1, 2026, EPA would propose to 

not renew that application’s eligibility 

for ASAs, regardless of whether a 

substitute is available. 

If both statutory criteria are met as of 

January 1, 2026, EPA intends to assess 

whether an application’s fulfillment of a 

criterion may change over the following 

five-year period. The outcome of this 

assessment would be determinative of 

how long EPA will deem an application 

eligible to receive ASAs. For example, if 

EPA determines that there is no 

substitute available as of January 1, 

2026, but a substitute will be available 

by January 1, 2028, EPA would renew 

the application’s eligibility to receive 

ASAs for only two years (i.e., calendar 

years 2026 and 2027). Similarly, if 

supply is deemed insufficient to 

accommodate the application as of 

January 1, 2026, but the market will 

change such that supply will not be 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application as of January 1, 2028, EPA 

would renew the application’s 

eligibility to receive ASAs for only two 

years (i.e., calendar years 2026 and 

2027). 

If EPA determines that an application 

has a safe or technically achievable 

substitute available that is a regulated 

substance, EPA proposes to evaluate the 

supply of the substitute HFC and assess 

if supply of the substitute HFC is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application. If the Agency did not do 

this, the application would not be 

eligible for renewal because it had met 

the substitute criterion, regardless of the 

supply of this substitute HFC; EPA sees 

this as counter to Congress’s intent 

when it established priority access to 

allowances for these applications. 

Further, it is EPA’s assessment that it 

would be counterproductive to an 

application’s efforts to transition away 

from the currently used HFC(s) if EPA 

did not consider the supply of the HFC 

substitute when assessing eligibility for 

renewal for ASAs (i.e., if an application 

had insufficient supply of the substitute 

HFC, an entity may be forced to return 

to using its original HFC). Under the 

framework proposed in this rulemaking, 

if EPA determines there is an HFC 

substitute, but there is insufficient 

supply of that HFC substitute, EPA 

would continue to list the application as 

eligible for ASAs. This approach would 

allow an entity transitioning to a lowerGWP HFC to remain eligible to receive 

allowances until supply of that lowerGWP HFC is no longer insufficient (or 

a non-HFC substitute is identified). 

EPA is also proposing that if an 

application is eligible to be renewed for 

ASAs for less than five years, the 

application will not be reviewed for 

eligibility for ASAs ahead of the next 

five-year renewal period. The direction 

in the statute under AIM subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(v) is to review each 

‘‘application receiving an allocation of 

allowances under clause (i) or (iv) . . . 

not less frequently than once every 5 

years,’’ and, if the criteria are met, EPA 

shall renew the application ‘‘for 

renewable periods of not more than 5 

years.’’ EPA interprets this language, 

coupled with the lack of language in the 

statute directing EPA to do another 

review of an application that is no 

longer eligible for allowances at the end 

of its renewal period, as direction that 

EPA is not required to re-review this 

application for eligibility for ASAs 

ahead of the next five-year period. 

Congress’s direction to undertake a 

renewal is specific to applications 

receiving ASAs under 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i) and (iv). If an 

application is renewed for only two of 

five years at this stage, when the next 

renewal period arises, it would not be 

receiving ASAs under 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i) or (iv). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that the best interpretation of 

the AIM Act language is that once EPA 

determines that an application is no 

longer eligible for ASAs, EPA would not 

re-review that application at any future 

time. If an application is determined to 

no longer be eligible for ASAs and an 

entity is interested in being considered 

for eligibility for ASAs again, the entity 

would need to petition the Agency to be 

evaluated for eligibility, and the Agency 

would then undertake the relevant 

petition review process; see Section VI 

of this preamble for further discussion 

of the petition process requirements. 

V. Review of the Six Applications 

Listed in the AIM Act 

EPA reviewed the six applications 

listed in AIM Act subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)—propellant in MDIs; 

defense sprays; SCPPU foam for marine 

use and trailer use; the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector; MCMEU; and onboard aerospace 

fire suppression—as required under 42 

U.S.C. (e)(4)(B)(v)(I). Pursuant to that 

review, in this rulemaking EPA is 

proposing and seeking comment on 

whether the criteria for renewal 

described in Section IV of this preamble 

are met for any part, or the entirety, of 

the 2026–2030 time period. This section 

begins with an overview of total 

projected U.S. HFC consumption and 

then proceeds into EPA’s assessment of 

the criteria for each application and 

proposed decision regarding whether to 

renew each application’s eligibility to 

receive ASAs. EPA provides additional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75908 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6The United States ratified the Kigali 

Amendment in October 2022. 

7See Emissions Reduction and Reclamation Rule 

(88 FR 72216, 72292, October 19, 2023). 

8The actions taken pursuant to subsection (h) and 

(i) of the AIM Act did not propose to and did not 

accelerate the HFC phasedown. The RIAs associated 

with those actions did not analyze an acceleration 

of the HFC phasedown. Rather, HFCs will continue 

to be available consistent with the phasedown 

codified at 40 CFR part 84, subpart A, and this 

action does not propose to change that phasedown 

schedule. Even if the requirements finalized 

pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) in effect reduce 

the production or consumption of HFCs used in 

particular sectors or subsectors faster than the 

scheduled reductions under the AIM Act, that does 

not make those rules an acceleration under 

subsection (f). 

9 In the Allocation Framework Rule, EPA 

established a system whereby allowances are 

measured on an EV equivalent basis. 86 FR at 

55142. To determine the total number of allowances 

needed, producers and importers multiply the 

quantity of the HFC they seek to produce or import 

by its EV. For example, an importer would need to 

expend 143 consumption allowances to import 100 

kilograms (kg) of HFC–134a. Given the variation in 

EVs, one would need to expend 5.3 allowances to 

import 100 kg of HFC–152a. 

information in the TSD available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

A. Overview of Total U.S. HFC 

Consumption 

This section contains a summary of 

total projected U.S. HFC consumption. 

We assess specific HFC supply 

considerations on an application-byapplication basis below. EPA provides 

additional information regarding this 

analysis in the TSD. 

The global and domestic HFC markets 

have been rapidly changing since 

agreement to the Kigali Amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol in 2016.6 The 

domestic HFC market has been further 

changing since the passage of the AIM 

Act in 2020 and the subsequent 

promulgation of domestic regulations. 

In 2021, EPA promulgated regulations to 

implement the required phasedown of 

HFC production and consumption in 

the United States. Additional 

regulations coming into effect, as early 

as January 1, 2025, will also further alter 

this overall market and impact demand 

for certain HFCs. EPA anticipates the 

market will be dynamic as it responds 

to these additional regulations and 

continues adapting to the global 

phasedown of HFCs. 

In the addendum to the HFC 

Phasedown Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) updated for the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023), EPA modeled total HFC 

consumption to be significantly lower 

than the limit established by the 

statutory phasedown cap for all years of 

the phasedown, assuming compliance 

with the restrictions. The 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule 

established subsector-level GWP limits 

and restrictions on the use of certain 

regulated substances. These 

requirements take effect as early as 

January 1, 2025, and as late as January 

1, 2028. While some subsectors already 

use either HFCs that are below the GWP 

limit or non-HFC substitutes, other 

subsectors will need to transition away 

from their currently used HFC to 

comply with these regulations. In 

addition, the proposed rulemaking 

‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Management of Certain 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes 

Under Subsection (h) of the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020’’ (88 FR 72216, October 19, 2023) 

(hereafter ‘‘Emissions Reduction and 

Reclamation Rule’’) has proposed 

requirements that reclaimed and 

recycled HFCs be used for certain 

equipment in the refrigeration, airconditioning, and heat pump sector and 

fire suppression sector (onboard 

aerospace fire suppression, as an 

application eligible for ASAs, is 

currently exempt) as early as early as 

January 1, 2028. If finalized as 

proposed, these requirements are also 

expected to limit use of virgin HFCs for 

specific activities (e.g., servicing for 

certain refrigeration and air 

conditioning subsectors).7 In general, 

there is uncertainty associated with 

these estimates, as they are based on 

expected industry transitions in 

response to AIM Act rulemakings and 

predicted market dynamics. If HFC 

consumption is lower than the amount 

allowed under the AIM Act in a given 

year, the result may be that there are 

more allowances than are needed to 

meet market demand in that year.8 If 

demand for HFCs is lower than the cap, 

it is possible that general pool 

consumption and production 

allowances, which are currently used to 

produce or import HFCs for entities that 

do not hold allowances and entities that 

use HFCs in an application-specific use, 

would be available to allow for the 

production or import of HFCs for use by 

entities that historically have relied 

upon ASAs. While current ASA holders 

can access material produced using 

general pool allowances or purchase 

HFCs on the open market, if demand by 

non-ASA entities is lower than the cap, 

it is possible that the ‘‘leftover’’ 

allowances could be used to supply 

ASA holders and therefore decrease the 

need for ASAs. It is also possible that all 

allowances are used, and the HFCs that 

are not sold in that year are stockpiled 

in anticipation of future needs. 

The Agency cannot fully predict shifts 

in chemical production, domestically 

and internationally, that may occur. As 

the HFC phasedown progresses, EPA 

anticipates suppliers may focus their 

business on supplying lower-GWP 

HFCs, since production and 

consumption of these lower-GWP HFCs 

requires the expenditure of fewer 

allowances for the same volume of 

substance.9 At the same time, sectors 

that are not yet ready to transition and 

are not covered by the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023) may continue to use higherGWP HFCs and could grow in size. 

EPA also does not yet have data on 

how the market is reacting to the 2024 

stepdown in HFC allowances (from 90 

percent of the HFC consumption 

baseline to 60 percent of baseline); at 

the time of this proposal the market is 

only a few months into adjusting to the 

2024 HFC stepdown, and EPA has 

received only one set of quarterly 

reports. Among other things, data on 

market reactions could inform how the 

market will react to the next large 

stepdown in 2029 (from 60 percent of 

baseline to 30 percent of baseline). For 

example, the decrease in available 

consumption allowances could 

encourage users of HFCs to transition 

faster than projected. However, given 

the significant amount of HFCs in 

inventory at the end of 2022, the 

transition away from HFCs could also be 

slower than projected. Though it seems 

likely that demand could be below the 

cap for the 2025–2028 period based on 

existing regulations, it is uncertain if 

2029 (the fourth year of the five-year 

renewal period) will see similar space 

between consumption and allowed 

consumption under the cap. EPA also 

notes the 2024 stepdown in permissible 

production and consumption is unique 

given its scale and that it is occurring 

early in the overall AIM Act 

implementation. There will be 

significantly more information regarding 

the state of the HFC market after the 

January 1, 2024, stepdown at the time 

EPA is finalizing this proposal, and EPA 

intends to analyze available data to 

inform its decisions regarding whether 

supply of individual HFCs is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

individual applications. 

In addition, there are also other 

constraints on supply of specific HFCs 

used in the six applications that EPA is 

taking into consideration (e.g., purity 

specifications required by Federal 

standards and regulations and limited 

number of producers), as explained in 

more detail in Sections V.B through 

V.G. of this preamble. Supply chain 

dynamics for each of the six 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75909 

10Non-Article 5 countries are defined as 

developed countries under the Montreal Protocol. 

For a list of Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries 

see https://ozone.unep.org/classification-parties. 

11See https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/ 

documents/MCTOC-Assessment-Report-2022.pdf. 

applications could affect whether 

general pool allowances would be able 

to be used to provide HFCs for each 

application. 

B. Propellants in Metered Dose Inhalers 

EPA has been allocating ASAs for 

regulated substances used for 

propellants in MDIs in accordance with 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(ff) of the AIM 

Act. In the Allocation Framework Rule, 

EPA defined a ‘‘metered dose inhaler’’ 

as ‘‘a handheld pressurized inhalation 

system that delivers small, precisely 

measured therapeutic doses of 

medication directly to the airways of a 

patient. MDIs treat health conditions 

such as asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease and are approved for 

such use by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA)’’ (40 CFR 84.3). 

Patients using MDIs to treat pulmonary 

conditions work closely with their 

healthcare provider to identify the right 

treatment for their condition. 

Pharmaceutical grade HFC–227ea and 

HFC–134a, purified from technical 

grade HFC–227ea and HFC–134a, 

respectively, are both used in MDIs as 

a propellant. 

EPA is proposing to determine that no 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

will be available for propellants in MDIs 

and that supply of the regulated 

substance that manufacturers and users 

are capable of securing from chemical 

manufacturers is insufficient to 

accommodate this application through 

calendar year 2030. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to renew the eligibility of 

entities using regulated substances for 

propellants in MDIs to receive ASAs for 

the five-year period of calendar years 

2026 through 2030. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

EPA has not identified substitutes that 

it would propose to deem safe and 

technically achievable that are available 

for propellants in the metered-dose 

inhalers application at this time. In 

assessing the availability of substitutes 

for MDIs, EPA reviewed information 

from sources such as the FDA, the EPA 

SNAP Program, the TEAP’s Medical and 

Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee (MCTOC), industry, 

scientific journal articles, and more, 

which is described in greater detail in 

the TSD included in the docket for this 

proposed action. After reviewing 

relevant information and analyses, EPA 

is aware of two potential replacements 

for HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as 

propellants in MDIs, specifically HFO– 

1234ze(E) and HFC–152a. 

MDIs, including those containing an 

alternative propellant other than HFC– 

134a or HFC–227ea, are subject to the 

approval requirements under section 

505 of the Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act. The process to develop an 

MDI with a new propellant is complex 

and will take time. A sponsor (i.e., MDI 

manufacturer) will need to reformulate 

the MDI product to use the new 

alternative propellant and conduct a 

development program to obtain data, 

including clinical data, with the new 

MDI product. If the development 

program is successful, a sponsor will 

then need to submit an application to 

the FDA for approval; the review 

timeline for a new drug application is 

10 to 12 months. The overall process to 

develop an MDI product containing a 

new alternative propellant is expected 

to take years. 

EPA regularly consulted with the FDA 

throughout development of this 

proposed rule, and the reformulation of 

the majority of MDIs with an alternative 

propellant may extend beyond the end 

of the renewal period of 2030. EPA is 

aware that a few MDI manufacturers 

have begun the development process, 

some of whom are expecting to soon 

begin Phase 3 trials and FDA has stated 

that it is possible that they may receive 

new drug applications for a small 

number of MDI products with 

alternative propellants by 2030. 

However, these new drug applications 

will need to undergo FDA review. For 

new drug applications that receive FDA 

approval, the commercialization plans 

for new MDIs are unknown but is 

anticipated to take additional time. 

Unlike for some of the other uses 

receiving ASAs where 

commercialization of substitutes across 

the entire application after those 

products are first available on the 

market may take a few years, for MDIs, 

EPA anticipates that it will take many 

years before alternatives are available 

across the application. That is, it will 

take time for reformulation, approval, 

and commercialization to occur for each 

of the individual MDI products used to 

treat pulmonary disease. For example, 

manufacturers of generic MDIs may face 

delay in transitioning to alternative 

propellants, as generic drug products 

must be shown to be a duplicate of, and 

bioequivalent to, a previously approved 

drug product and rely on FDA’s finding 

that the previously approved product is 

safe and effective. Applicants request 

approval for generic drug products, 

including MDIs, in Abbreviated New 

Drug Applications (ANDAs). FDA 

provides its recommendations for 

establishing bioequivalence in its 

product-specific guidances, which for 

orally inhaled products like MDIs, have 

generally included some combination of 

in vitro and in vivo studies, along with 

recommendations related to the 

formulation and device. FDA committed 

to review 90% of standard original 

ANDAs within 10 months from the date 

of submission, but often multiple review 

cycles are necessitated by application 

quality. This review time can be 

extended if a site/facility is not ready for 

inspection. The timing of ANDA 

approval also depends on, among other 

things, the patent and exclusivity 

protections for the previously approved 

product. 

According to the MCTOC 2022 

Assessment Report, the transition from 

HFC–134a and HFC–227ea to HFC–152a 

and HFO–1234ze(E) in MDIs is expected 

to begin in non-Article 5 countries 10 in 

2025 and continue through at least 

2032, and no other feasible, lower-GWP 

MDI propellants have been identified in 

the United States and abroad.11 HFO– 

1234ze(E) and HFC–152a, along with 

other aerosol propellants, are listed as 

acceptable by EPA’s SNAP Program and 

are commercially available and 

currently used in commercial and/or 

technical aerosol products. 

Furthermore, they also have most of the 

requisite physical properties to function 

as a propellant in MDIs with 

significantly lower GWPs than the 

current HFCs in use; however, neither 

propellant has significant use in 

pharmaceuticals today and will require 

extensive clinical research and FDA 

approval before they could replace the 

current HFCs. 

In light of the above analysis, it is 

EPA’s assessment that there is no 

information before the Agency at the 

time of this proposal to suggest that 

there would be a safe and technically 

achievable substitute available prior to 

the next five-year review. 

2. Supply 

As previously mentioned, 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea (also known as HFA–134a 

and HFA–227ea) are currently used as 

propellants in MDIs. 

As part of the manufacturing process 

for MDIs, technical grade HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea are purified into 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea. Documents the FDA 

requires as part of the drug approval 

process must specify the facility 

manufacturing the HFC propellant. The 

supply of pharmaceutical-grade HFC– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75910 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

134a comes from technical grade HFC– 

134a that is produced at a limited 

number of production facilities in other 

countries, including a single plant in the 

United States, and then purified at a 

single facility in the United Kingdom 

and reimported to the United States for 

consumption in MDIs. In its analysis of 

other applications, EPA has noted that 

HFC–134a is the most widely available 

HFC. However, this fact does not equate 

to a sizeable supply for the MDI 

application because MDI manufacturers 

are not easily able to switch suppliers of 

pharmaceutical-grade HFCs. Unlike 

other applications, where EPA has 

discussed the diverse number of 

chemical suppliers for HFC–134a 

globally, in this instance the options are 

constrained. 

As components of drug products, the 

use of HFCs in MDIs are subject to 

certain FDA requirements. FDA’s 

Current Good Manufacturing Practice 

(CGMP) requirements under the statute 

(21 U.S.C. 351(a)) apply to drugs, 

including their components (21 U.S.C. 

321(g)(1)), and include requirements 

related to methods, facilities, controls, 

manufacturing, processing, packing, and 

holding to assure that drugs meet 

requirements for safety, identity, 

strength, and quality and purity. FDA 

has also promulgated CGMP regulations 

for finished pharmaceuticals in 21 CFR 

210 and 211. These CGMP regulations 

also contain requirements for 

manufacturers in their handling, 

control, storage, and testing of 

components used in manufacture of 

drug products. HFC purification occurs 

in dedicated facilities that are subject to 

FDA CGMP requirements for drugs and 

devices, as well as other international 

quality standards, as MDI manufacturers 

may serve markets in addition to that of 

the United States. If an MDI 

manufacturer wanted to change their 

supplier of pharmaceutical grade HFC, 

this would trigger FDA review. MDI 

manufacturers who change suppliers of 

pharmaceutical grade HFCs would need 

to provide data to ensure the safety and 

quality of the new propellant and 

submit the data to the FDA for review 

and approval. This data may include 

pharmacology/toxicology data, product 

quality data of the new propellant 

source, and a comparison of the current 

and proposed new propellant sources, 

and quality data that demonstrates the 

drug made with the new propellant 

meets all applicable quality 

requirements. Depending upon the 

comparability of the HFA sources, 

additional data may be requested by the 

FDA (21 CFR 314.70). 

There are three suppliers of 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–227ea for 

use in the United States. One of the 

suppliers is a producer that purifies the 

technical grade HFC–227ea at one of 

their facilities in the United States. The 

second produces and purifies the 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–227ea at 

their facility in Germany, which is then 

imported by that producer for 

distribution to domestic MDI 

manufacturers. The third supplies 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–227ea to the 

United States from their facility in the 

United Kingdom. At least two of these 

facilities also supply pharmaceuticalgrade HFC–227ea globally for MDI 

manufacture. Producers of 

pharmaceutical-grade HFC–227ea must 

also comply with FDA requirements as 

described above, which limits their 

ability to switch to other suppliers of 

HFC–227ea. 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

EPA is proposing to renew the 

eligibility of entities using regulated 

substances for propellants in MDIs to 

receive ASAs for the five-year period of 

calendar years 2026 through 2030. EPA 

is proposing to determine ‘‘that the 

requirements described in subclauses (I) 

and (II) of clause (i) are met’’ in 

accordance with the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(v)(II). Specifically, 

for the reasons outlined earlier in this 

section, EPA is proposing to determine 

that no safe or technically achievable 

substitute will be available for 

propellants in MDIs and that supply of 

the regulated substance that 

manufacturers and users are capable of 

securing from chemical manufacturers 

is insufficient to accommodate 

propellants in MDIs through calendar 

year 2030. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the supply of both HFC– 

134a and HFC–227ea is insufficient to 

accommodate the propellants in MDIs 

application. 

C. Defense Sprays 

Per subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(bb) of 

the AIM Act, EPA has been allocating 

ASAs for defense sprays since 2021. 

EPA defined a ‘‘defense spray’’ as ‘‘an 

aerosol-based spray used for selfdefense, including pepper spray and 

animal sprays, and containing the 

irritant capsaicin and related 

capsaicinoids (derived from oleoresin 

capsicum), an emulsifier, and an aerosol 

propellant,’’ (40 CFR 84.3). Within this 

application, there are four primary uses: 

bear sprays, dog sprays, personal 

defense sprays, and law enforcement 

sprays. The defense sprays chapter in 

the TSD contains more details on these 

product categories. HFC–134a is the 

primary propellant currently used for 

the majority of defense sprays and is the 

only HFC for which EPA has allocated 

allowances since 2022. After analyzing 

information relevant to the statutory 

criteria, as outlined in this section and 

the TSD, EPA is proposing two 

options—to not renew the eligibility for 

entities in this application to receive 

ASAs or to renew for two years. EPA is 

also taking comment on the possibility 

of renewing for a full five-year period. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

There has already been 

commercialization of alternatives to 

HFC–134a as a propellant in some 

defense spray uses, and transition is 

underway for other parts of the 

application. Thus, while many defense 

sprays currently use HFC–134a as a 

propellant, EPA is aware of entities that 

have already successfully 

commercialized alternative propellants, 

including non-HFCs, in some of their 

products. The availability of safe and 

technically achievable substitutes for 

this application will continue to 

expand, and EPA will take any 

additional information into account in 

the final rulemaking. 

All dog defense sprays 

commercialized in the United States 

and registered with EPA under FIFRA 

use a non-HFC propellant and have 

never used an HFC propellant; from 

company communications, EPA is 

aware that at least three dog sprays 

utilize compressed nitrogen gas. In 

addition, EPA is aware from company 

communications that two bear sprays 

using propellants other than HFC–134a 

are available domestically, one using a 

non-HFC, HFO–1234ze(E), and one 

utilizing a lower-GWP HFC, HFC–152a. 

Both products have been available for 

multiple years. In addition, there is one 

bear spray that is manufactured 

domestically, but sold into the Canadian 

market, that also utilizes HFO– 

1234ze(E). EPA is also aware of at least 

one defense spray used on humans 

available in other countries, but 

manufactured in the United States, that 

uses HFO–1234ze(E). 

The commercialization of defense 

sprays with alternative propellants 

suggests that there are safe and 

technically achievable substitutes to 

HFC–134a available within this 

application, but it is not clear that they 

are immediately available for the entire 

application. In other words, there are 

multiple different uses within this 

application, and many of the uses have 

similar technical requirements (e.g., 

large spray volume and distance) and 

safety considerations (e.g., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75911 

12 Defense sprays used to deter bears, dogs, and 

other animals are considered pesticides under 

FIFRA, so must comply with related requirements, 

including approval for the inert ingredients (e.g., 

the propellant) used in the product. In addition to 

HFC–134a, both HFC–152a and HFO–1234ze(E) are 

approved for use as inert ingredients for non-food 

pesticidal use (e.g., animal sprays). Transitioning a 

product to another approved propellant is a 

relatively simple process that only requires 

submission of product performance data (i.e., no 

tests related to safety, impacts on human health, 

etc.), and approval can occur in five to seven 

months. This action would be a Pesticide 

Registration Improvement Act B680 or B681. See 

https://www.epa.gov/pria-fees/pria-fee-categorytable-biopesticides-and-pollution-preventiondivision-bppd-amendments for more information. 

13Written testimony submitted for the record 

from Safariland and Security Equipment 

Corporation for the U.S. Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works hearing on the AIM 

Act. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ 

2020/3/s-2754-american-innovation-andmanufacturing-act-of-2019-written-testimony-andquestions-for-the-record. 

14See https://www.arkema.com/usa/en/media/ 

news/global/corporate/2022/20221006-two-majorsteps-develop-supply-forane-1233zd/. 15Consumption = (Total Production + Production 

for Feedstock + Imports [Virgin and 

Used])¥(Exports [Virgin and Used] + Destruction). 

flammability). Thus, EPA’s assessment 

is that while there are certain 

differences amongst the uses, generally 

a propellant commercialized for one use 

should be safe and technically 

achievable for another use as explained 

in more detail below. It is EPA’s 

understanding that defense sprays have 

industry-set technical requirements that 

differentiate them from other aerosols, 

but that outside of FIFRA requirements 

for bear sprays,12 defense sprays do not 

need to be certified or comply with 

Federal regulatory standards to be sold 

in the United States. EPA is aware of 

some voluntary standards for law 

enforcement sprays, explained in more 

detail in the defense sprays chapter of 

the TSD, that specify performance 

requirements and test methods for the 

evaluation of these sprays. EPA’s 

understanding is that defense sprays do 

not need to be certified under this 

standard to be sold into the law 

enforcement market. 

While some entities have successfully 

commercialized alternative propellants, 

there are steps other entities will need 

to undertake in order to use these 

alternatives, such as their own research 

and development process, approval 

under FIFRA for bear sprays, and 

potentially changes to manufacturing 

facilities. For example, EPA is aware of 

at least two defense spray manufacturers 

that had made significant investments to 

potentially transition to a non-HFC as a 

propellant that did not pursue the 

transition due to performance 

concerns.13 The multiple defense spray 

products commercialized using 

alternative propellants suggests that past 

challenges can be overcome, though 

EPA acknowledges that 

commercialization of alternative 

propellants across this entire 

application may take a few years. 

Outside of what has already been 

commercialized by some defense spray 

companies, EPA is not aware of any 

other substances under consideration as 

safe and technically achievable 

substitutes for this application. Multiple 

propellants, including HFC–152a, HFO– 

1234ze(E), and hydrocarbons, have been 

listed as acceptable under SNAP and 

identified as technically and 

economically feasible alternatives for 

propellants in aerosols by the TEAP’s 

MCTOC. However, there are additional 

technical demands in the defense spray 

application that provide unique 

challenges as compared to other types of 

aerosol applications. For example, given 

their use for personal protection and 

crowd control, defense sprays need to 

have a larger spray cloud and longer 

spray distance, and stakeholders have 

noted that law enforcement’s use of 

defense sprays alongside stun guns (e.g., 

Tasers) poses specific concerns around 

flammability. Therefore, alternatives 

identified as acceptable for aerosols, 

such as hydrocarbons, may not be 

available for all defense spray uses. 

SNAP lists substitutes for aerosols at the 

end use level, not the application level 

(e.g., the Agency has listed substitutes 

for aerosol propellants, which would 

allow for those substitutes in defense 

sprays), and TEAP’s MCTOC has not 

specifically discussed or evaluated 

defense sprays as an individual use. 

More information about the specialized 

nature of defense sprays can be found in 

the defense sprays chapter of the TSD. 

To inform determinations in this 

rulemaking, EPA invites comment on 

whether the alternatives 

commercialized for some defense spray 

uses are not available for the entire 

application, including any supporting 

data and information; EPA is 

particularly interested in data regarding 

flammability of alternative propellants 

at the concentrations found in defense 

sprays and testing results demonstrating 

safety risks in the situations where 

defense sprays are typically utilized. 

2. Supply 

The majority of defense sprays 

currently use HFC–134a as their 

propellant. HFC–134a is the most 

widely produced HFC globally and is 

produced in substantial quantities in 

multiple countries, including the United 

States. In 2022, domestic production of 

HFC–134a was 61,377 metric tons (MT), 

making up 46 percent of U.S. HFC 

production on a mass basis; this 

production amount is also nearly double 

the domestic production amount of the 

HFC produced in the second highest 

quantity. EPA is aware that one 

domestic producer of HFC–134a is 

transitioning its facility to produce a 

different chemical.14 In addition, there 

are multiple entities that import HFC– 

134a. In 2022, 7,363.1 MT of HFC–134a 

were imported into the United States. 

Overall, HFC–134a made up 

approximately 32 percent of total U.S. 

HFC consumption 15 in 2022 on a mass 

basis. This application has very limited 

demand for HFC–134a in comparison to 

U.S. consumption of HFC–134a; 

allocated ASAs for this application in 

2024 are equivalent to 0.1 percent of 

calculated domestic consumption of 

HFC–134a in 2022, on a metric tons of 

exchange value equivalent (MTEVe) 

basis. In addition, at the end of 2022, 

suppliers held 51,902.9 MT of HFC– 

134a in domestic inventory, which is 

equivalent to about 101 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–134a in 

2022, and 1,036.8 MT of HFC–134a was 

reclaimed; the entities both holding this 

material in inventory and reclaiming 

these HFCs are broader than EPA’s 

interpretation of chemical 

manufacturers (see Section IV.B for 

more information), so not all of this 

HFC–134a may be considered available 

supply. 

However, as described in more detail 

in Section V.A of this preamble, the 

overall market for HFCs and for HFC– 

134a in particular is likely to continue 

changing in light of the AIM Act and 

other restrictions. There is uncertainty 

regarding how the market is reacting to 

the stepdown of the level of permissible 

production and consumption of HFCs 

that took effect on January 1, 2024, and 

EPA anticipates further market changes 

as a result of the stepdown taking effect 

on January 1, 2029. However, global 

production capacity is expected to 

remain substantial over the coming 

years, given production will continue in 

countries on later HFC phasedown 

schedules, and EPA expects continued 

domestic and global demand for HFC– 

134a. EPA will analyze any available 

information on market adjustment to the 

January 1, 2024, stepdown and 

regulations effective January 1, 2025, in 

finalizing this rulemaking. 

In considering supply of the regulated 

substance currently used by this 

application, EPA also notes that the 

Agency is unaware of any reason why 

this application cannot use recovered 

and reprocessed HFCs. For example, 

EPA is not aware of any specific purity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75912 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

16 In alignment with the definition in 42 U.S.C. 

7675(b)(9), EPA defined reclaim as ‘‘the 

reprocessing of regulated substances to all of the 

specifications in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F (based on Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 700–2016) 

that are applicable to that regulated substance and 

to verify that the regulated substance meets these 

specifications using the analytical methodology 

prescribed in section 5 of appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F’’ (40 CFR 84.3). Thus, HFC–134a 

refrigerant that is reclaimed and used by a different 

user than the one recovering the refrigerant must 

meet the purity requirements of AHRI 700, 

Standard for Specifications for Refrigerants. That 

standard, among other things, requires that 

reclaimed HFC–134a must be visibly clean (that is, 

no visible solids or particulate), no more than 1.5 

percent by volume of air in the vapor phase, no 

more than 10 parts per million of water by weight, 

and no more than 0.5 percent by weight of other 

volatile impurities. 

17Though there are other pathways to produce 

HFC–134a, the pathway using TCE is the primary 

production pathway in the United States, and it is 

EPA’s understanding that it is complex to change 

production pathways. 

18See https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcsreduction/hfc-data-hub/expanded-hfc-data. 

19See https://www.chemours.com/en/newsmedia-center/all-news/press-releases/2023/ 

chemours-announces-capacity-increase-of-hfc152a-providing-reliable-domestic-supply-of-lowglobal-wa. 

requirements for HFCs used in this 

application. As a result, the supply of 

recovered and reprocessed HFCs that 

can be secured from chemical 

manufacturers is relevant when 

assessing whether the supply of HFC– 

134a is insufficient to accommodate this 

application. The likeliest source of these 

reprocessed HFCs for defense sprays 

would be reclaimed refrigerants, which 

must meet specific purity 

requirements.16 Since there are no 

Federal purity requirements or industry 

purity standards for HFCs used in 

aerosols, the purity of reclaimed HFCs 

is likely the same or higher than the 

virgin HFCs used in this application. 

The supply of reclaimed HFC–134a in 

the United States is substantial and 

increases the supply of HFC–134a 

available to this application. However, 

as is true in many other parts of EPA’s 

supply analysis, there is uncertainty 

regarding the overall supply and 

demand for reclaimed HFCs. 

There is additional uncertainty 

around the supply and demand for 

HFC–134a as a result of the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023). GWP 

restrictions under the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule begin taking effect 

January 1, 2025, with the latest 

restriction taking effect on January 1, 

2028. Overall demand for HFC–134a 

could fall since all subsectors subject to 

Technology Transitions restrictions will 

not be permitted to use neat HFC–134a, 

as its GWP of 1,430 is greater than the 

highest GWP limit (i.e., 700). However, 

many subsectors subject to Technology 

Transition restrictions already use 

chemicals that fall below the GWP 

restriction levels, and where this is the 

case EPA does not anticipate any change 

in demand of HFC–134a. Additionally, 

some sectors may use blends with HFC– 

134a as a component where the GWP is 

below the applicable limit. Moreover, 

HFC–134a will likely continue to be 

used in other applications not subject to 

these restrictions (e.g., heavy-duty 

trucks), as well as for servicing existing 

equipment (e.g., light-duty motor 

vehicle air conditioning). HFC suppliers 

may also shift their production and 

import practices, such that supply of 

HFC–134a changes. EPA intends to 

review available information on market 

shifts that occur when the first set of 

Technology Transition restrictions take 

effect on January 1, 2025, and where 

possible will incorporate any relevant 

information into the analysis 

underpinning finalization of this 

rulemaking. Based on this additional 

information, at finalization of this 

proposed rule, EPA may be in a position 

to determine that the supply of HFC– 

134a is not insufficient to accommodate 

this application once all of the 

Technology Transition restrictions take 

effect as of January 1, 2028, if not earlier 

(i.e., as early as January 1, 2026). 

EPA also intends to finalize a 

rulemaking under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act, the Emissions Reduction and 

Reclamation Rule (88 FR 72216, October 

19, 2023), in the summer of 2024. EPA 

proposed a number of requirements 

including those concerning use of 

reclaimed HFCs for certain activities. In 

addition, EPA intends to finalize a 

rulemaking, ‘‘Trichloroethylene (TCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA)’’ (88 FR 74712, 

October 31, 2023), later this year; this 

rulemaking has proposed to ban the use 

of TCE due to unreasonable risk of 

injury to human health. If finalized as 

proposed, this would prohibit TCE from 

being used as a feedstock to 

manufacture HFC–134a within eight 

and a half years from when that rule is 

finalized. While this could end the 

production of HFC–134a in the United 

States,17 it is unclear how this change 

would affect overall supply of HFC– 

134a, as there is currently still global 

supply of HFC–134a that could be 

imported into the United States. EPA 

anticipates being able to consider the 

projected effects of these other rules 

prior to finalizing this rulemaking. 

Entities do not need to seek or receive 

ASAs in order to use HFC–134a in 

defense sprays. Further, entities do not 

have to expend an allowance to 

purchase HFC–134a from another entity 

that has imported or produced the 

regulated substance. EPA notes that of 

the six defense spray entities that have 

received ASAs at some point for 

calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024, 

three did not receive ASAs in at least 

one of those years. EPA is also aware of 

at least two entities selling bear sprays 

that use HFC–134a that have never 

applied for, and therefore never 

received, ASAs. This suggests that at 

least those two entities were able to 

acquire HFC–134a on the open market 

without having ASAs. These facts could 

suggest that ASAs may not be 

imperative for entities in this 

application to access HFC–134a. 

In sum, HFC–134a is currently more 

widely available than other HFCs, and 

defense sprays’ need for HFC–134a is 

small compared to the overall demand 

for HFC–134a across a range of sectors. 

At the same time, there is inherent 

uncertainty in the HFC market due to 

future stepdowns and new regulations 

coming into effect. Further information 

regarding EPA’s assessment of the 

supply of HFC–134a related to the needs 

of the defense sprays application can be 

found in the defense sprays chapter of 

the TSD. 

EPA is also considering the supply of 

HFC–152a, as it is used in at least one 

defense spray product, as noted above. 

HFC–152a is produced in substantial 

quantities, though the current domestic 

production of HFC–152a is about half 

that of HFC–134a, on a mass basis.18 In 

2022, domestic production of HFC–152a 

was 29,654.9 MT, about 22 percent of 

U.S. HFC production by mass. There is 

currently only one U.S. HFC–152a 

production facility, and that producer 

has announced plans to increase 

production by approximately 20 percent 

by mid-2024.19 At the time of this 

proposal, the facility expansion is not 

yet complete, so EPA cannot say with 

certainty when it will be available. 

However, there is also substantial global 

production of HFC–152a, which also 

supplies the U.S. market. Multiple 

entities imported HFC–152a in 2022, 

importing a total of 5,810.1 MT. Overall, 

HFC–152a made up approximately 20 

percent of total U.S. HFC consumption 

in 2022 on a mass basis. In addition, at 

the end of 2022, suppliers held 5,076.3 

MT of HFC–152a in domestic inventory, 

which is equivalent to about 16 percent 

of calculated consumption of HFC–152a 

in 2022. The company that has 

commercialized the bear spray using 

HFC–152a has never received 

allowances for HFC–152a, which 

suggests that at least this entity is able 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75913 

20See 2023 Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023) TSD ‘‘American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020— 

Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination: List of 

Substitutes.’’ This list is not exhaustive, so it is 

possible HFC–152a is an available alternative for 

other subsectors. In addition, EPA did not identify 

information for products or equipment containing 

certain substitutes, which may indicate a lack of 

current commercial demands for the substitutes in 

those products or equipment. However, this did not 

automatically remove those substitutes from the list 

of available substitutes, as commercial demands is 

only one subfactor that needed to be considered 

under subsection (i)(4)(B). 

21The proposed amendatory text included in this 

Federal Register notice shows only one of the coproposed options. This is for illustrative purposes 

and should not be read as EPA favoring one coproposal over another. 

to acquire HFC–152a on the open 

market without having ASAs. 

In addition, HFC–152a has one of the 

lowest EVs relative to other regulated 

HFCs, so fewer allowances are needed 

to import or produce HFC–152a in 

comparison to the same volume of 

higher-EV HFCs. For example, an 

importer would need to expend 143 

consumption allowances to import 100 

kg of HFC–134a compared to 12.4 

allowances to import 100 kg of HFC– 

152a—a greater than 90% reduction. 

This means that, from a strictly 

allowance-focused view, HFC–152a will 

be easier to acquire than most other 

HFCs as the phasedown progresses and 

the number of HFC allowances is 

reduced. Allowances allocated to an end 

user may therefore not be necessary to 

secure production or import of HFC– 

152a. 

Future projections suggest that there 

could be increased demand for HFC– 

152a, although there is inherent 

uncertainty with how industry will 

respond to the phasedown of HFCs at 

this early stage. HFC–152a has a GWP 

that is below all the GWP limits for 

sectors and subsectors subject to the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule (88 

FR 73098, October 24, 2023). The 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule identified 

HFC–152a as an available or potentially 

available substitute for all 13 foam 

subsectors, aerosol propellants, motor 

vehicle air conditioning, and household 

refrigerators and freezers.20 However, 

there are also multiple other acceptable 

alternatives, including non-HFCs, and, 

for subsectors where a transition to 

another substitute has already occurred 

(e.g., motor vehicle air conditioning, 

household refrigerators and freezers), it 

is highly unlikely that a new transition 

to HFC–152a would be considered. For 

subsectors where HFC–152a neat or in 

blends is likely under consideration, it 

is not yet known if there will be any 

significant shift toward use of HFC– 

152a, particularly as many relevant 

subsectors have begun to move out of 

HFCs entirely. For example, the MCTOC 

2022 Assessment report notes that a 

significant proportion of aerosols 

already use non-HFCs as propellants. 

Similarly, the FTOC 2022 Assessment 

Report highlights that fluorocarbon use 

in foams has been falling for decades, 

and foams are largely expected to 

continue transitioning to non-HFCs, 

including hydrocarbons, HFOs, and 

hydrochlorofluoroolefins (HCFOs). 

Demand for HFC–152a may therefore 

change in future years as subsectors 

transition to alternatives from their 

currently used HFC. 

In sum, while there is a reasonably 

large supply of HFC–152a that is 

expected to increase over the coming 

years relative to other HFCs, there is 

uncertainty around future demand for 

the reasons described above. 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

Given the rapidly changing landscape 

for HFC supply and EPA’s assessment of 

substitute availability application-wide, 

EPA is proposing two options based on 

our current analysis and in anticipation 

of additional available information 

before this proposed rule is finalized. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

finalize one of the following outcomes: 

(1) No renewal, such that the 

application will not receive ASAs or (2) 

Renew eligibility for ASAs for two 

years, such that ASAs are available for 

calendar years 2026 and 2027.21 EPA is 

also seeking comment on renewing 

eligibility for the full five-year period. 

As explained earlier in this proposal, 

an application must meet both criteria 

to be eligible to receive ASAs. For the 

reasons described earlier in this section, 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

there is not a safe and technically 

achievable substitute that is 

immediately available for the entire 

application, but a safe or technically 

achievable substitute will be available 

for the entirety of the defense spray 

application by January 1, 2028. In other 

words, EPA proposes to determine that 

the criterion in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) 

is not met for defense sprays starting 

January 1, 2028. Under this proposed 

determination, even if EPA received 

information to determine that supply of 

the currently used regulated substance 

was insufficient, defense sprays would 

not be eligible for renewal as of January 

1, 2028, unless they have insufficient 

supply of a substitute HFC, as discussed 

in more detail below. 

EPA is also proposing to determine 

that either (1) the supply of HFC–134a 

is not insufficient to accommodate this 

application; or (2) the supply of HFC– 

134a will not be insufficient to 

accommodate this application as of 

January 1, 2028. In other words, EPA 

proposes to determine that the criterion 

in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) is either: (1) 

not met at all for this application for 

HFC–134a, and therefore the application 

would not be eligible to receive ASAs 

starting January 1, 2026; or (2) not met 

as of January 1, 2028, and therefore the 

application would not be eligible to 

receive ASAs starting January 1, 2028. 

Under the first option, this means that 

even if the application does not have a 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

available, ASAs would not be available 

for defense spray manufacturers as of 

January 1, 2026. For the second option, 

defense sprays would not be an eligible 

application for ASAs as of January 1, 

2028, regardless of the availability of 

substitutes. 

EPA does not have sufficient 

information to make a definitive 

determination on whether supply of 

HFC–152a is insufficient to 

accommodate this application at the 

time of this proposal. We are monitoring 

this issue and will be seeking 

information on the alternatives that 

subsectors subject to Technology 

Transitions restrictions transition into 

and how much additional domestic 

production capacity of HFC–152a comes 

online in the coming year. 

EPA is also taking comment on 

whether defense sprays should be 

eligible to receive ASAs for the full fiveyear period from 2026–2030. A full fiveyear renewal could be without 

restriction or could be based on and 

tailored only to the application’s need to 

purchase HFC–152a. As explained 

earlier, HFC–152a is used commercially 

in one bear spray product, so this latter 

scenario could be relevant if HFC–152a 

is an available safe and technologically 

achievable substitute for the entire 

defense spray application by 2028. 

Under this scenario, EPA would follow 

an approach similar to the option 

proposed for SCPPU foams for marine 

and trailer uses in Section V.D.3. 

EPA intends to review comments and 

other relevant information received on 

this proposal to further understand how 

the market surrounding this application 

evolves and the availability of 

substitutes application-wide before EPA 

finalizes this proposed rule. 

Specifically, we intend to review 

additional information on how the HFC 

market adjusts to the 2024 stepdown, 

defense sprays’ research into alternative 

propellants and related trials (including 

relevant data on flammability), what 

alternatives consumer aerosols 

transition to (as they are subject to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75914 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22See Household and Commercial Products 

Association (HCPA) and National Aerosols 

Association (NAA) Technology Transitions Petition 

to EPA dated July 6, 2021. Available in the public 

docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0289–0037. 

Technology Transitions restrictions 

starting in 2025), and research into 

alternative propellants intended to be 

used in technical aerosols (which are 

subject to the Technology Transitions 

restrictions starting in 2028). EPA 

invites submission of comment and 

additional data related to these data 

gaps. EPA will consider this new 

information, in addition to public 

comments, in making a final 

determination for this application. 

4. Proposed Restriction Under EPA’s 

Technology Transitions Program 

The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023) 

restricts the manufacture and import of 

all aerosol products that use HFCs or 

HFC blends that have a GWP greater 

than 150. This restriction begins January 

1, 2025, for all aerosols except for those 

specifically listed in the final rule as 

technical aerosols, which have 

manufacture and import restrictions 

starting January 1, 2028. The listed 

technical aerosols are applications for 

which EPA received sufficient 

information through the comment 

period or through EPA’s own analysis 

indicating that additional time is 

needed to transition to substitutes due 

to various technical requirements, such 

as non-flammability and/or a specific 

vapor pressure. The list of technical 

aerosols does not include defense 

sprays. 

The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule exempts applications that receive 

ASAs (40 CFR 84.56(a)(2)). However, as 

finalized in the October 24, 2023, rule, 

if an application no longer qualifies for 

ASAs, the Technology Transitions 

restrictions then apply. 

While most aerosols are required 

under the Technology Transitions 

Program to meet a 150 GWP limit 

starting on January 1, 2025, the EPA 

provided additional time to comply 

with this limit for some technical 

aerosol uses. Most of the U.S. aerosol 

industry subject to the January 1, 2025, 

compliance date has already 

transitioned to using propellants that 

meet the 150 GWP limit,22 and therefore 

has available substitutes for use based 

on EPA’s consideration of the factors 

listed in subsection (i)(4)(B) (e.g., 

technological achievability, commercial 

demands, safety, consumer costs, etc.). 

By contrast, the uses that received an 

extension for compliance with the 150 

GWP limit until January 1, 2028, 40 CFR 

84.54(a)(16)(i)(A)–(O), currently use 

HFC–134a (most often as a propellant) 

and have limitations that require 

additional time ‘‘to reformulate, test, 

and transition’’ to ensure availability of 

substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B) for 

these technical uses. 

EPA is proposing that defense sprays 

would be considered under the 

Technology Transitions Program 

consistent with technical aerosols, with 

the corresponding compliance deadlines 

on the manufacture and import of 

defense sprays using HFCs and blends 

containing HFCs with a GWP of 150 or 

greater beginning January 1, 2028, with 

a three-year sell-through of those 

products. Thus, defense sprays 

manufactured or imported prior to 

January 1, 2028, could continue to be 

sold until January 1, 2031. As discussed 

in Section V.C.1 of this preamble, while 

some defense spray uses may have 

substitutes available in the near term 

that are technically achievable and safe, 

EPA’s proposed assessment under 

subsection (e)(4)(B) is that such 

substitutes are not immediately 

available across all defense spray uses. 

In particular, the flammability or 

specific vapor pressure of potential 

substitute propellants present 

availability concerns for some uses in 

the near term. Consideration of 

technological achievability and safety, 

as well as other subsection (i)(4)(B) 

factors, indicates that a compliance date 

of January 1, 2025, for transition of all 

defense spray uses is not appropriate, 

but the approval of substitute 

propellants as safe under SNAP and 

TEAP analyses (see Section V.C.1), as 

well as EPA’s assessment that many 

propellant uses in this subsector have 

been able to successfully transition to 

substitutes, provides support for EPA’s 

proposed finding that all defense sprays 

will have available substitutes by 

January 1, 2028. We invite comment on 

whether availability of substitutes for 

use in defense sprays, particularly 

considering those factors enumerated 

under subsection (i)(4)(B), indicates that 

defense sprays could in fact meet the 

existing 150 GWP limit restriction if the 

application ceased being eligible for 

ASAs on January 1, 2026. We note that 

given the January 1, 2028, compliance 

date for the transition of the remaining 

aerosol sector, comments urging the 

Agency to provide additional time for 

compliance beyond that date will need 

to provide very specific and detailed 

information in support of that request, 

speaking to the statute’s factors under 

subsection (i)(4) and in particular the 

subsection (i)(4)(B) factors. 

Under the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, the labeling 

requirements are effective at the same 

time as the manufacture and import 

restrictions, which, if EPA finalizes this 

action as proposed, would be January 1, 

2028. Recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions are effective for all sectors 

and subsectors under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule starting 

January 1, 2025. EPA proposes that the 

recordkeeping requirements would 

apply to defense spray manufacturers 

and importers beginning January 1 of 

the year that use no longer qualifies for 

ASAs, and the first report would be due 

March 31 of the following year. For 

example, if defense sprays are no longer 

eligible for ASAs in 2026, 

manufacturers and importers would 

need to keep records as required by the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

starting January 1, 2026, and submit 

their first Technology Transitions report 

to EPA by March 31, 2027, even if EPA 

finalizes its proposal that the 150 GWP 

limit for the manufacture and import of 

defense sprays using HFCs would not 

apply until January 1, 2028. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposal to consider defense sprays 

consistent with technical aerosols for 

purposes of the Technology Transitions 

Program and the restrictions that result 

from such a classification, such as the 

GWP limit that would take effect on 

January 1, 2028, use restrictions, a threeyear sell-through window for inventory 

ending January 1, 2031, and labeling 

and reporting requirements. 

EPA has previously determined that 

available substitutes for use as aerosol 

propellants include HFC–152a (GWP 

124) and HFO–1234ze(E) (GWP <1) (88 

FR 73098, October 24, 2023). EPA is 

also interested in any supporting data 

and information related to the 

availability of substitutes and whether a 

different timeline is more appropriate 

for transitioning in this application or 

for a subset of products in this 

application. 

D. Structural Composite Preformed 

Polyurethane Foam for Marine Use and 

Trailer Use 

The third application to which EPA 

has been allocating ASAs to since 2022 

is SCPPU foam for marine and trailer 

uses, in accordance with subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(cc) of the AIM Act. In the 

Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021), EPA defined 

this application as ‘‘a foam blown from 

polyurethane that is reinforced with 

fibers and with polymer resin during the 

blowing process, and is preformed into 

the required shape (e.g., specific boat or 

trailer design) to increase structural 

strength while reducing the weight of 

such structures’’ (40 CFR 84.3). SCPPU 

foam is different from other types of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75915 

polyurethane (PU) foams due to its 

specialized structural properties, and it 

is preformed into required shapes (e.g., 

specific boat or trailer design). HFC– 

134a is the current HFC used in the 

blowing process for SCPPU foam. After 

analyzing information relevant to the 

statutory criteria, as outlined in this 

section and the TSD, EPA is proposing 

a range of options—to not renew the 

eligibility for entities in this application 

to receive ASAs, to renew for two years, 

or to renew access to ASAs for five years 

with allowances determined based on 

the use of a lower-GWP HFC substitute 

for HFC–134a. EPA is also taking 

comment on the possibility of renewing 

for a full five-year period consistent 

with the current allowance allocation 

approach. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

EPA anticipates that SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses’ 

commercialization of formulations using 

alternatives to HFC–134a as blowing 

agents is well underway and will evolve 

significantly between issuance of this 

proposed rulemaking and its 

finalization. The Agency will consider 

information collected from regulated 

entities and other relevant sources 

through the public comment period and 

the current reporting requirements to 

inform a final determination. 

EPA is aware, from manufacturer 

communications and reporting, of two 

substitutes currently under 

development for this application—an 

HFC–152a/cyclopentane blend and an 

HFO. EPA notes that SNAP has listed 

both HFC–152a and cyclopentane as 

acceptable for all PU foams, including 

rigid PU uses in both marine flotation 

and commercial refrigeration (the two 

respective end uses for this application). 

Based on information from the 

manufacturers of SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses, EPA 

understands that the research and 

development phase for both potential 

substitutes is nearing completion and 

that companies are nearing a phase 

where they will be able to 

commercialize use of substitutes. If 

commercialization occurs as companies 

anticipate and as shared with EPA, the 

entire application would be able to use 

a substitute different from HFC–134a 

before January 1, 2026. According to the 

information shared with EPA, one 

substitute seems close to being 

commercialized for SCPPU foam for 

marine use, and the other substitute 

seems close to being commercialized for 

SCPPU foam for trailer use. The 

company that is close to 

commercializing use of the HFC–152a/ 

cyclopentane blend performed multiple 

early trial runs with HFOs, all of which 

failed to meet their needs, so the 

company decided to pursue the HFC– 

152a blend. On this basis, we are 

proposing to determine that the HFO is 

not an available substitute applicationwide for the five-year period from 2026– 

2030, given additional research and 

development trials are needed, as well 

as the subsequent ramp up to 

commercialization. EPA understands 

that often different companies use 

different blowing agents to produce the 

same foam. At this time, it is unclear 

why an HFC–152a/cyclopentane blend 

cannot be used across the entirety of the 

application and similarly whether at 

some future date another blowing agent 

(e.g., an HFO) might be used 

application-wide. To inform 

determinations in this rulemaking, EPA 

invites comment on any potential 

reasons why an HFC–152a/cyclopentane 

blend might not be safe and technically 

achievable for the entire application, 

including any supporting data and 

information, such as trial data. While 

there are two different end uses in this 

application, the foam used in both subapplications is the same (i.e., it is an 

SCPPU foam). 

Other than an HFO and an HFC–152a/ 

cyclopentane blend, EPA is not aware of 

other safe and available alternatives at 

this time. There are currently a range of 

alternatives identified as acceptable by 

SNAP and as technically proven by the 

TEAP’s FTOC for other PU foams, 

including rigid PU uses in both marine 

flotation and commercial refrigeration. 

Alternatives include a lower-GWP HFC 

(i.e., HFC–152a), hydrocarbons, and 

HFOs. However, alternatives identified 

as acceptable for PU foams are not 

necessarily available for SCPPU foam, 

given the unique technical requirements 

for this foam (e.g., specialized structural 

properties). SNAP generally lists 

substitutes at the sector and end use 

level, not the application level (e.g., the 

Agency has listed substitutes for rigid 

PU foam, which would allow for those 

substitutes in SCPPU foam, but it has 

not evaluated the use of these 

substitutes for SCPPU foam in 

particular), and TEAP’s FTOC did not 

specifically discuss or evaluate SCPPU 

foam as an individual use in its 2022 

assessment report. More information 

about the specialized nature of SCPPU 

foam can be found in the SCPPU foam 

chapter of the TSD. 

Aside from the limitations noted 

above, EPA is not aware of significant 

Federal regulatory restrictions on the 

type of substitutes that could be 

considered for this application. EPA is 

also not aware of any required standards 

that SCPPU foam needs to meet to be 

manufactured and sold in the United 

States. The SCPPU foam chapter of the 

TSD contains further information on 

sources consulted, and EPA invites 

comment on any additional information 

the Agency should consider in 

analyzing substitutes for this 

application. 

After reviewing the available 

information, including reports on 

progress made by manufacturers of 

SCPPU foam for marine and trailer use, 

EPA has not identified a safe and 

technically achievable substitute that is 

available at the time of this proposal, 

but anticipates that substitutes will 

likely be available soon. We are 

monitoring this issue and are seeking 

information from the entities that use 

HFCs in this application on whether 

progress continues as anticipated to 

inform our final determination. 

2. Supply 

Entities manufacturing SCPPU for 

marine and trailer uses currently use an 

HFC–134a formulation. As described in 

more detail in Section V.C.2 of this 

preamble, HFC–134a is the most widely 

produced of all HFCs. There is 

substantial domestic and global 

production of HFC–134a. This 

application’s demand for HFC–134a is 

very small compared to domestic 

consumption; allocated ASAs for this 

application in 2024 are equivalent to 0.1 

percent of calculated domestic 

consumption of HFC–134a in 2022, on 

an MTEVe basis. However, as noted 

earlier, the global and domestic HFC 

markets are continuing to adapt to 

regulations promulgated pursuant to the 

AIM Act, including the implementation 

of the phasedown of production and 

consumption of HFCs, and other 

authorities. EPA anticipates this market 

will continue to change, and EPA will 

analyze additional information as it 

becomes available ahead of finalizing 

this rulemaking. Such additional 

information will include whether there 

were immediate market shifts as a result 

of both the stepdown of the level of 

permissible production and 

consumption of HFCs that took effect on 

January 1, 2024, and regulations 

effective January 1, 2025. 

In addition to changes in the HFC 

market due to the overall phasedown of 

production and consumption, other 

AIM Act regulatory programs are 

expected to take effect both between 

proposal and finalization of this 

rulemaking and during the applicable 

period under review in this rulemaking, 

as described in more detail in Section 

V.C.2. These requirements may reduce 

demand for HFC–134a domestically for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75916 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

23The proposed amendatory text included in this 

Federal Register document shows only one of the 

co-proposed options. This is for illustrative 

purposes and should not be read as EPA favoring 

one co-proposal over another. 

certain other uses, though EPA expects 

continuing demand for HFC–134a in 

applications not subject to restrictions 

will continue. There may also be new or 

expanded use of blends with HFC–134a 

as a component designed to meet new 

restrictions. In addition, other EPA 

regulations may impact domestic supply 

of HFC–134a, but global supply should 

remain substantial in comparison to this 

application’s demand for HFC–134a. 

EPA is currently not aware of any 

applicable restrictions on where this 

application could purchase HFCs, 

including any purity requirements or 

regulatory restrictions on supply. As 

such, it is EPA’s assessment that this 

application may be able to use 

recovered and reprocessed HFCs 

supplied by chemical manufacturers. 

This is relevant in assessing what 

supply of regulated substance may be 

available to an application, since in 

such a case EPA does not need to limit 

its analysis to only virgin chemicals. 

The likeliest source of reprocessed HFCs 

for this application would be reclaimed 

refrigerants, which are held to AHRI 700 

standards (see footnote 17 in Section 

V.C.2). Since there are no Federal purity 

requirements for HFCs used in foams or 

any industry requirements, the purity of 

reclaimed HFCs is likely the same or 

higher than the virgin HFCs used in this 

application. While EPA is not aware of 

specific purity requirements for this 

application, EPA notes that efficacy of 

blowing agents can be influenced by 

their composition and purity. As 

described in more detail in Section 

V.C.2, the supply of reclaimed HFC– 

134a in the United States is significant, 

though there is uncertainty regarding 

the future demand for this material. 

As part of this proposed analysis, EPA 

is also considering the supply of HFC– 

152a. As further explained in Section 

IV.C, as part of the framework for its 

analysis EPA is proposing to evaluate 

the supply of a substitute HFC if that 

HFC is a safe or technically achievable 

substitute for an application. As 

outlined in the prior section (Section 

V.D.1), EPA’s analysis suggests that 

HFC–152a blended with cyclopentane 

appears to be a safe and technically 

achievable substitute for this 

application. EPA is therefore evaluating 

the supply of HFC–152a to determine 

whether it would be insufficient to 

accommodate this application. As 

described in more detail in Section 

V.C.2, other AIM Act regulations may 

increase demand for HFC–152a 

domestically for certain uses, though 

EPA notes that many sectors where 

HFC–152a is a technically achievable 

substitute have already transitioned to 

other alternatives. Domestic production 

capacity is also expected to increase, but 

EPA cannot say with certainty when it 

will be available. Global supply should 

also remain substantial in comparison to 

this application’s demand for HFC– 

152a. 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

In light of the rapid evolution of 

information regarding both the 

availability of substitutes for this sector 

(including all companies in this 

application’s stated plans to transition 

away from HFC–134a before 2026) and 

HFC supply, EPA is proposing a range 

of options based on the current Agency 

analysis and in anticipation of increased 

available information before this 

proposed rule is finalized. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to finalize any of the 

following outcomes: (1) no renewal, 

such that the application will not 

receive ASAs, (2) renew eligibility for 

ASAs for two years, such that ASAs are 

available for calendar years 2026 and 

2027, or (3) renew eligibility to continue 

receiving ASAs for the full five-year 

period with allowance amounts 

determined based on the EV of HFC– 

152a.23

Before finalization of this rule, we 

anticipate new information to become 

available on the supply of HFCs and 

availability of substitutes for the 

application, as outlined in detail in this 

section. EPA will consider this new 

information, in addition to public 

comments, in making a final 

determination for this application. 

As explained earlier in this section, 

the development of safe or technically 

achievable substitutes for this 

application is a rapidly evolving space, 

such that multiple possible outcomes 

can reasonably be expected to occur 

through 2030. All entities that have 

received ASAs for SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses to date have told 

EPA that they plan to transition to 

substitutes before January 1, 2026. One 

potential outcome at rule finalization is 

that EPA depends on these statements to 

determine that a ‘‘safe or technically 

achievable substitute is available for the 

applicable period’’ for this application. 

Statements from all of the companies 

that use regulated substances to 

manufacture SCPPU foam that they will 

transition to substitutes before the next 

ASA period could serve as a reasonable 

basis to determine that safe and 

technically achievable substitutes are 

available. There are also specific 

milestones that these entities have 

reached, such as one company receiving 

a final air permit for an expansion of the 

manufacturing facility that will use the 

HFC–152a/cyclopentane blend, 

indicating the company is able to move 

forward with full-scale testing and 

commercialization. If the entities’ plans 

shared with EPA remain the same at the 

time when EPA is finalizing this 

proposed rule, particularly if they have 

already commercialized use of the 

substitutes, it is likely that EPA would 

determine that a safe or technically 

achievable substitute is available for this 

application. If EPA makes this 

determination, SCPPU foam for marine 

and trailer uses will not be eligible for 

ASAs as of January 1, 2026, even if EPA 

receives information to determine that 

supply of the currently used regulated 

substance is insufficient, unless the 

application has insufficient supply of a 

substitute HFC, as discussed in more 

detail below in this section. However, 

EPA recognizes there is uncertainty as 

to whether plans to commercialize will 

remain the same, be delayed, or be 

subject to unanticipated hurdles that 

could require additional evaluation of 

this alternative. EPA also has less 

information regarding the deployment 

of the HFO alternative outside of 

statements from the entity working 

toward its development and 

commercialization. Before finalization 

of this proposed rule, EPA intends to 

review and consider, as appropriate, all 

available information, specifically 

regarding expected timelines and testing 

data. EPA invites comment regarding 

the availability of safe or technically 

achievable substitutes for this 

application. The Agency will continue 

to collect information from regulated 

entities and other relevant sources 

through the public comment period and 

the current reporting requirements to 

inform a final determination of whether 

the criterion in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) 

is met. 

EPA is also proposing to determine 

either: (1) the supply of HFC–134a is not 

insufficient to accommodate this 

application; or (2) the supply of HFC– 

134a is not insufficient to accommodate 

this application as of January 1, 2028. In 

other words, EPA proposes to determine 

that the criterion in subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(i)(I) is either: (1) not met at all 

for this application for HFC–134a, and 

therefore the application would not be 

eligible to receive ASAs with 

allowances calculated based on HFC– 

134a use starting January 1, 2026; or (2) 

not met as of January 1, 2028, and 

therefore the application would not be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75917 

eligible to receive ASAs with 

allowances calculated based on HFC– 

134a use starting January 1, 2028. Under 

the first option, this means that even if 

the application did not have a safe or 

technically achievable substitute 

available, ASAs would not be available 

for manufacturers of SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses as of January 1, 

2026. For the second option, SCPPU 

foam for marine and trailer uses would 

not be an eligible application for ASAs 

as of January 1, 2028, regardless of the 

availability of substitutes. However, if 

the available substitute is an HFC with 

insufficient supply, EPA may determine 

SCPPU foam for marine and trailer uses 

are eligible for renewal for that 

substitute HFC. 

Given the current uncertainty over 

which EPA anticipates having more 

clarity ahead of finalization of this 

proposed rule, at this time EPA 

contends that it could determine that 

the criterion in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) 

is met now, met as of January 1, 2028, 

or is not met at all through the entire 

renewal period with respect to HFC– 

152a. Under the first possible 

determination (supply of HFC–152a is 

not insufficient now), even if the 

application did not have a safe or 

technically achievable non-HFC 

substitute available as of January 1, 

2026, the application would not be 

eligible for renewal as of that date. 

Under the second possible 

determination (supply of HFC–152a is 

not insufficient as of January 1, 2028), 

the application would not be eligible for 

ASAs as of January 1, 2028, even if the 

application did not have a safe or 

technically achievable non-HFC 

substitute. Under the third possible 

determination (supply of HFC–152a is 

insufficient), the application would be 

eligible for ASAs if there was no safe or 

technically achievable non-HFC 

substitute for the entire application. 

EPA will monitor reported data over the 

next year on the noted areas of 

uncertainty and invites comment on this 

issue. 

In light of the range of outcomes EPA 

has proposed regarding its 

determinations on whether the criteria 

in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) and (II) are 

met, EPA is proposing three potential 

outcomes on whether and how SCPPU 

foam for marine and trailer uses may be 

eligible for future ASAs: (1) not eligible 

to receive ASAs; (2) eligible to receive 

calendar year 2026 and 2027 ASAs; and 

(3) eligible to receive ASAs for the fiveyear period of calendar years 2026–2030 

with allowance amounts determined 

based on the EV of HFC–152a. EPA is 

also taking comment on SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses eligibility to 

receive ASAs consistent with the 

current approach through calendar year 

2030 ASAs. EPA also could finalize 

different outcomes based on how the 

transition to substitutes progresses 

between this proposal and rule 

finalization. 

Under outcome (3), EPA is proposing 

to allocate allowances based on an 

expectation that the application can use 

HFC–152a. To achieve this, EPA is 

proposing to base the calculation of 

allowance allocations on the estimated 

total mass of HFCs needed by the 

application and allocate at the level 

necessary to purchase HFC–152a on an 

EV-weighted basis. For example, if a 

company used 1,000 kg of HFC–134a 

and 500 kg of HFC–152a in Year 3 (as 

defined by the regulatory formula; see 

Section VII for further discussion of 

regulatory formula and proposed 

revisions), and HFC–152a substituted 

for HFC–134a one-for-one on a gram 

basis for this application, EPA would 

multiply 1,500 kg by the applicable 

average annual growth rate (AAGR) and 

then by the EV of HFC–152a to calculate 

the company’s allowance allocation for 

the following year. EPA would not limit 

which HFCs could be purchased for use 

in the application once the allowances 

are issued. EPA is taking comment on 

whether the Agency should apply any 

relevant mass conversions in this 

calculation (i.e., if an application 

needed more or less HFC–152a on a 

gram-by-gram basis when substituting 

for HFC–134a) where the total mass of 

HFCs used would be multiplied by a 

mass ratio, as appropriate, then 

multiplied by the AAGR. 

As outlined in detail elsewhere in this 

section, before EPA finalizes this 

proposed rule, the Agency intends to 

review available information and 

comments received on this proposal to 

get further clarity on progress toward 

commercialization of substitutes, how 

the overall HFC market has adjusted to 

the 2024 stepdown, what alternatives 

are adopted by subsectors subject to 

2025 Technology Transitions Program 

restrictions, and how much additional 

domestic HFC–152a production 

capacity comes online. 

4. Proposed Restriction Under EPA’s 

Technology Transitions Program 

The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023) 

restricts the manufacture and import of 

foam products that use as a blowing 

agent HFCs or HFC blends that have a 

GWP of 150 or greater (hereafter, ‘‘foam 

products’’). This restriction begins 

January 1, 2025. Examples of items 

subject to this restriction include 

products that are foams, such as 

extruded polystyrene boardstock; 

products for blowing foam, such as twopart foam systems for blowing PU foam; 

and products that are manufactured 

using foam, such as boats or refrigerated 

trailers. 

The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule exempts applications which 

receive ASAs (40 CFR 84.56(a)(2)). 

However, as finalized in the October 24, 

2023, rule, if an application no longer 

qualifies for ASAs, the Technology 

Transitions restrictions would apply. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the 

transition to non-HFC and lower-GWP 

substitutes is already well underway or 

completed for much of the foams sector 

(see 88 FR 73184). EPA therefore 

established a uniform GWP limit of 150 

for the entire foams sector starting 

January 1, 2025. The sole exception to 

this restriction for the foams sector was 

SCPPU foam for marine and trailer uses, 

per their receipt of ASAs. As discussed 

above in Section V.D.1, EPA proposes 

that while there are no safe and 

technically achievable alternatives 

available at this time under subsection 

(e)(4)(B) specifically for use in SCPPU 

foams for marine and trailer uses, we 

anticipate, based on currently available 

information, that the development of 

substitutes for these uses is progressing 

rapidly, such that by the time EPA 

finalizes this action, substitutes meeting 

the (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) criterion may be 

available. While the list of 

considerations under subsection 

(i)(4)(B) that EPA is to factor in, to the 

extent practicable, when considering 

availability of substitutes for issuing 

restrictions under subsection (i) 

includes factors beyond those 

characteristics listed in subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(i)(I), in this instance EPA’s 

view is that technological achievability 

of lower-GWP substitutes in marine and 

trailer uses is the primary barrier to 

transitioning away from the use of HFC– 

134a in these two uses. Many of the 

factors listed in subsection (i)(4)(B) are 

not relevant to EPA’s assessment of 

availability of substitutes for these two 

uses, such as building codes, appliance 

efficiency standards, and contractor 

training costs. As noted in Section V.D.1 

of this preamble, EPA’s SNAP Program 

has already listed as acceptable the 

potential substitutes under 

consideration and the entities actively 

developing the substitutes and working 

to bring those substitutes to market are 

almost certainly considering costs to 

consumers and affordability for small 

business consumers as part of their 

efforts. 

We propose that the applicability of 

the restriction on HFC foam blowing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75918 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

24See https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/ 

documents/MCTOC-Assessment-Report-2022.pdf. 

agents in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule to SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses will depend 

entirely on which of the three coproposals EPA ultimately finalizes. That 

is, under co-proposal (1), where EPA 

would not renew ASAs for SCPPU for 

marine and trailer uses as of the 

effective date of a final rule based on 

this proposal, requirements of the 

Technology Transitions Program, which 

include labeling, reporting, 

recordkeeping, and restrictions on 

HFCs, would apply beginning January 1, 

2026. Under co-proposal (2), where EPA 

would renew ASAs for SCPPU for 

marine and trailer uses for 2026 and 

2027, requirements of the Technology 

Transitions Program would apply 

beginning January 1, 2028. For both coproposals (1) and (2), EPA proposes that 

the recordkeeping requirements would 

apply to manufacturers of SCPPU foams 

for marine and trailer uses beginning 

January 1 of the year those uses no 

longer qualify for ASAs, and the first 

report would be due March 31 of the 

following year, as discussed above in 

Section V.C.4. For example, under coproposal (1), manufacturers would need 

to keep records as required by the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule starting 

January 1, 2026, and submit their first 

Technology Transitions report to EPA 

by March 31, 2027; under co-proposal 

(2), manufacturers would need to keep 

such records starting January 1, 2028, 

and would submit their first Technology 

Transitions report by March 31, 2029. 

Under co-proposal (3), where EPA 

would renew ASAs for SCPPU for 

marine and trailer uses based upon the 

use of HFC–152a instead of HFC–134a, 

SCPPU for marine and trailer uses 

would continue to be exempt from the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule. The 

requirements under each co-proposal for 

SCPPU for marine and trailer uses are 

summarized in Table 2 below. EPA is 

interested in data and information 

related to the availability of substitutes 

and the proposed timeline for 

transitioning in this application. 

TABLE 2—APPLICABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS REQUIREMENTS UNDER CO-PROPOSALS FOR SCPPU FOR

MARINE AND TRAILER USES

Co-proposal Technology transitions GWP limit 

and compliance date 

Date technology transitions 

labeling requirements begin 

Date technology transitions 

reporting requirements begin 

(1) No renewal of ASAs ................. GWP limit of 150 beginning January 1, 2026.January 1, 2026 ............................ First report due March 31, 2027, 

including data from January 1, 

2026, through December 31, 

2026. 

(2) Renew eligibility for ASAs for 

2026 and 2027.

GWP limit of 150 beginning January 1, 2028.First report due March 31, 2029, including data from January 1, 2028, 

through December 31, 2028. 

(3) Renew eligibility for 2026–2030 

with allowance amounts determined based on the EV of HFC– 

152a.

Because application continues to be eligible for ASAs, it is exempt from Technology Transitions requirements. 

E. Etching of Semiconductor Material or 

Wafers and the Cleaning of Chemical 

Vapor Deposition Chambers Within the 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Sector 

EPA has been allocating ASAs for 

regulated substances used for the 

etching of semiconductor material or 

wafers and the cleaning of CVD 

chambers within the semiconductor 

manufacturing sector in accordance 

with subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(dd) of the 

AIM Act. In the Allocation Framework 

Rule, EPA defined ‘‘etching’’ in the 

context of semiconductor manufacturing 

as ‘‘a process type that uses plasmagenerated fluorine atoms and other 

reactive fluorine-containing fragments 

that chemically react with exposed thin 

films (e.g., dielectric, metals) or 

substrate (e.g., silicon) to selectively 

remove portions of material. This 

includes semiconductor production 

processes using fluorinated GHG 

reagents to clean wafers.’’ (40 CFR 84.3). 

EPA defined ‘‘chemical vapor 

deposition chamber cleaning’’ (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘chamber cleaning’’) in 

the context of semiconductor 

manufacturing as ‘‘a process type in 

which chambers used for depositing 

thin films are cleaned periodically using 

plasma-generated fluorine atoms and 

other reactive fluorine-containing 

fragments’’ (40 CFR 84.3). At the time of 

this proposal, EPA is aware of three 

HFCs that are used for this application 

in manufacturing. HFC–23 is commonly 

used for selective dry etching of silicon 

dioxide (SiO2) and silicon nitride (SiN), 

while HFC–32 and HFC–41 are used in 

high-aspect-ratio hole etching. HFC–23, 

HFC–32, and HFC–41 may also be 

minimally used in chamber cleaning 

processes. 

EPA is proposing to determine that no 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

will be available for the semiconductor 

application and that supply of the 

regulated substance that manufacturers 

and users are capable of securing from 

chemical manufacturers is insufficient 

to accommodate the semiconductor 

application through calendar year 2030. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to renew the 

eligibility of entities using regulated 

substances for the defined 

semiconductor application to receive 

ASAs for the five-year period of 

calendar years 2026 through 2030. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

EPA has not identified any substitutes 

that it would propose to deem safe and 

technically achievable that are available 

for the entirety of the defined 

semiconductor application. 

In developing this assessment, EPA 

reviewed information from industry 

trade groups, the TEAP’s MCTOC, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), scientific journal 

articles, and more. The sources 

examined by EPA are outlined in greater 

detail in the TSD included in the docket 

for this proposed action. 

The MCTOC 2022 Assessment report 

reviewed HFC gases commonly used in 

semiconductor manufacturing, along 

with their alternatives, using the 

following criteria: commercially 

available, technically proven, 

environmentally sound, economically 

viable and cost effective, safe to use in 

industrial applications considering 

flammability and toxicity issues, and 

easy to use and maintain.24 Based on 

this report and other sources, EPA is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75919 

25For this calculation, EPA is using purchases in 

2022 instead of allowances allocated so that percent 

of consumption can be calculated for each HFC. 

aware that semiconductor 

manufacturers currently utilize other 

fluorinated gases, such as sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride 

(NF3), some saturated PFCs (i.e., CF4, 

C2F6, c-C4F8), and some unsaturated 

PFCs (i.e., C4F6, C5F8) for the processes 

of etching and chamber cleaning. The 

MCTOC 2022 Assessment report lists 

these chemicals as both commercially 

available and technically proven and 

can be used as substitutes for etching 

and chamber cleaning. In developing its 

proposed determination regarding 

substitutes, however, EPA did not 

consider many of these chemicals in its 

proposed consideration of the 

availability of safe and technically 

achievable substitutes because of their 

higher GWPs, lower utilization rates 

(i.e., higher emission rates), or higher 

toxicity than HFCs. Sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6), which is used in the etching of 

silicon, silicon dioxide (SiO2), and 

silicon nitride (SiN), as well as chamber 

cleaning, has a 100-year GWP of 22,800. 

Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which is used 

in the etching of silicon and silicon 

nitride (SiN), as well as for chamber 

cleaning, has a 100-year GWP of 17,200. 

Saturated PFCs, used in the etching of 

silicon, silicon dioxide (SiO2), and other 

materials, have a 100-year GWP ranging 

between 7,390 to 12,200. Saturated PFCs 

are also difficult to abate and have 

relatively low utilization rates. 

Unsaturated PFCs are used in highaspect-hole-ratio etching. They have 

GWPs of less than two; however, these 

compounds have not been widely 

adopted at least in part since these 

chemicals can only be used in certain 

processes and are not necessarily viable 

for all types of etching, etching all 

materials, or chamber cleaning. For 

example, unsaturated PFCs are not 

known to be used in chamber cleaning, 

so the Agency does not consider 

unsaturated PFCs as available for the 

entire application. 

The MCTOC 2022 Assessment report 

also lists other compounds that are 

currently being studied for use but are 

not yet technically proven, are not 

considered safe or easy to use, and may 

have additional toxicity concerns. These 

chemicals include carbonyl sulfide, 

HFO–1336mzz(E), PFC–1216, chlorine 

trifluoride (ClF3), hexafluoroisobutylene 

(HFIB), and trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I). 

Carbonyl sulfide, used in certain etching 

applications, is also highly flammable 

and toxic. HFO–133mzz(E) is being 

considered as a replacement for certain 

etching chemicals. PFC–1216 is being 

studied for use in etching silicon 

dioxide (SiO2). Chlorine trifluoride 

(ClF3) may be used for chamber cleaning 

for Low Pressure CVD chambers but is 

extremely flammable and is not 

considered safe or easy to use. Although 

not known to currently be used, 

hexafluoroisobutylene (HFIB) could be 

used in certain etching applications for 

silicon containing material. 

Trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I) is used for 

etching of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and 

silicon nitride (SiN), but the MCTOC 

2022 Assessment report does not list it 

as safe or easy to use. 

EPA is aware of certain HFCs that 

may be in the early stages of research for 

high-aspect-ratio hole etching, such as 

HFC–134a and HFC–125. ASA holders 

have stated that research on lower-GWP 

alternatives is ongoing and there are 

currently no known alternatives to 

HFCs, PFCs, and nitrogen trifluoride 

(NF3), and any alternatives would not be 

commercially available until at least 

2030. 

In light of the above analysis, EPA has 

not identified a safe and technically 

achievable substitute that is available at 

the time of this proposal. When a 

substitute or substitutes are identified 

for the entirety of the application, it 

would still take significant time to 

replace the current HFC(s) with the 

substitute(s). One industry trade group 

has stated that semiconductor 

technologies require at least 10 years 

from fundamental research to high 

volume manufacturing to innovate and 

implement new technologies and their 

associated raw materials. Given that no 

promising substitutes have been 

identified, there is no information 

before the Agency at the time of this 

proposal to suggest that there would be 

a safe and technically achievable 

substitute available prior to the next 

five-year review. 

2. Supply 

HFC–23, HFC–32, and HFC–41 are all 

currently used in the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector. As described earlier in Section 

IV.B of the preamble, EPA is proposing 

to determine that an application meets 

this criterion if EPA determines that any 

of the HFCs currently used in an 

application’s equipment or to 

manufacture the application’s products 

for use have insufficient supply. 

As described above in Section E of 

this preamble, HFC–23 is used in the 

etching of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and 

silicon nitride (SiN) and is also used 

minimally in chamber cleaning. In 2022, 

domestic producers produced 

approximately 1,049.3 MT of HFC–23. 

876.2 MT were subsequently destroyed, 

and one producer sold 5.2 MT of this 

HFC–23 for consumptive uses, which 

could be used for semiconductors as 

well as other uses. In addition, there 

were about a half dozen entities that 

imported HFC–23 with total amount of 

imports equaling 125.6 MT. Overall, 

HFC–23 made up only 0.07 percent of 

total U.S. HFC consumption in 2022 on 

a mass basis. Moreover, as HFC–23 has 

the highest EV, it may be possible that 

this supply is further constricted in the 

future as the phasedown progresses and 

the number of available allowances is 

reduced. As stated elsewhere in this 

proposed rule, EPA recognizes that 

there is inherent uncertainty regarding 

HFC production, and in particular for 

HFCs with a more limited number of 

production facilities and/or higher 

GWPs than other regulated HFCs, this 

uncertainty may be greater. Therefore, 

EPA understands there will be changes 

to the market conditions resulting from 

the domestic and global phasedown of 

HFC production and consumption. 

In addition, the use of HFC–23 in the 

semiconductor manufacturing 

application is large compared to the 

annual consumption of HFC–23. In 

2022, semiconductor ASA holder 

purchases 25 of HFC–23 accounted for 

about 81 percent of calculated 

consumption of HFC–23. Furthermore, 

at the end of 2022, suppliers held 304.0 

MT of HFC–23 in domestic inventory, 

which is equivalent to about 293 

percent of calculated consumption of 

HFC–23 in 2022; not all of this HFC–23 

may be considered available supply, as 

the entities both holding this material in 

inventory and reclaiming these HFCs 

are broader than EPA’s interpretation of 

chemical manufacturers (see Section 

IV.B for more information). 

EPA also analyzed the supply of 

HFC–32. In 2022, the one domestic 

producer of HFC–32 produced 17,744.3 

MT of HFC–32. There were also over a 

dozen entities that imported HFC–32, 

with total import quantities equaling 

9,885.3 MT. Overall, HFC–32 made up 

approximately 17 percent of total U.S. 

HFC consumption in 2022 on a mass 

basis. The use of HFC–32 in the 

semiconductor manufacturing 

application is small compared to the 

annual consumption of HFC–32. In 

2022, semiconductor ASA holder 

purchases of HFC–32 accounted for less 

than 0.035 percent of calculated 

consumption of HFC–32. At the end of 

2022, suppliers held 21,435 MT of HFC– 

32 in domestic inventory, which is 

equivalent to about 80 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–32 in 

2022; similar to considerations for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

26See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

statements-releases/2022/01/21/fact-sheet-bidenharris-administration-bringing-semiconductormanufacturing-back-to-america-2/. 

27See https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/ 

industrials-and-electronics/our-insights/ 

semiconductor-fabs-construction-challenges-in-theunited-states. 

supply of HFC–23 and for other 

applications, not all of this inventory 

may be considered available. 

Another factor EPA is considering is 

the impact that other regulatory actions 

may have for the available supply of 

HFC–32. As described in more detail 

above in Section V.A, the overall market 

for HFCs is likely to continue changing 

in light of AIM Act and potentially other 

restrictions. There is particular 

uncertainty regarding demand for HFC– 

32. The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023) set 

a GWP threshold of 700 for certain 

sectors and subsectors where previously 

higher-GWP HFCs or HFC blends have 

been used. HFC–32 has a GWP of 675 

and may be a suitable alternative in 

those sectors and subsectors. In other 

cases, the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule set a GWP threshold of 150 and 

thus HFC–32 could not be used unless 

as a component of blends. The first set 

of restrictions under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule have 

compliance dates of January 1, 2025, 

with the latest compliance dates taking 

effect on January 1, 2028. Additionally, 

the proposed Emissions Reduction and 

Reclamation Rule (88 FR 72216, October 

19, 2023) proposes requirements for the 

use of recycled or reclaimed HFCs for 

certain uses, as discussed elsewhere in 

this preamble. When finalized, that rule 

may affect the use of reclaimed HFC–32. 

EPA also analyzed the supply of 

HFC–41. There is one domestic supplier 

of HFC–41 that produced 22.2 MT of 

HFC–41 in 2022. In addition, there were 

multiple entities that imported HFC–41, 

with total import quantities equaling 

38.3 MT. Overall, HFC–41 made up only 

0.03 percent of total U.S. HFC 

consumption in 2022 on a mass basis. 

The use of HFC–41 in the 

semiconductor manufacturing 

application is moderately large 

compared to the annual consumption of 

HFC–41. In 2022, semiconductor ASA 

holder purchases of HFC–41 accounted 

for 21.5 percent of calculated 

consumption of HFC–41. At the end of 

2022, suppliers held 26.7 MT of HFC– 

41 in domestic inventory, which is 

equivalent to about 60 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–41 in 

2022; as noted for the supply of HFC– 

23 and HFC–32 and for other 

applications, not all of this inventory 

may be considered available. 

One factor that plays into the 

sufficiency of supply of these HFCs is 

the purity specifications used by 

individual companies in the 

semiconductor manufacturing sector. 

While there is no Federal standard or 

regulation governing the purity of HFCs 

used in semiconductor manufacturing, 

EPA is aware that individual companies 

in this sector set their own 

requirements. HFCs purchased for use 

in semiconductor manufacturing is 

produced at around 95–97 percent 

purity and then typically is purified to 

99.999–99.9999 percent purity before it 

is used by semiconductor 

manufacturers. Supplying refined HFCs 

to end users can take up to one year, as 

purifiers require long lead times. 

These purity requirements are also 

relevant when considering if reclaimed 

HFCs can be used in this application. 

EPA notes that virgin HFCs produced 

for semiconductor use are typically only 

at 95–97 percent purity, so EPA is not 

aware of why reclaimed HFCs cannot 

also be purified to industry 

specifications; EPA invites comments 

on this. Of the three HFCs utilized by 

the semiconductor industry, only HFC– 

23 and HFC–32 were reclaimed in 2022 

and thereby could be a source of supply 

for this application, though the amount 

of reclaimed material is small. In 

addition, it is possible to capture the 

unreacted process gases used in 

semiconductor manufacturing, but the 

reclamation of fluorinated gases from 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

process is not currently economically 

viable. 

There are other factors that may 

further impact the supply of HFCs for 

this application. The Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors 

Act of 2022 (CHIPS Act) has allocated 

over 50 billion dollars to semiconductor 

research, development, manufacturing, 

and workforce development in the 

United States, which has led to 

additional investment by semiconductor 

manufacturers. The U.S. market share of 

memory chip production is projected to 

grow from less than 2 percent to up to 

10 percent over the next decade.26 27

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

EPA is proposing to renew the 

eligibility of entities using regulated 

substances for the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing sector 

to receive ASAs for the five-year period 

of calendar years 2026 through 2030. 

EPA is proposing to determine ‘‘that the 

requirements described in subclauses (I) 

and (II) of clause (i) are met’’ in 

accordance with the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(v)(II). Specifically, 

for the reasons outlined earlier in this 

section, EPA is proposing to determine 

that no safe or technically achievable 

substitute will be available for the 

etching of semiconductor material or 

wafers and the cleaning of CVD 

chambers within the semiconductor 

manufacturing sector for the entire fiveyear period. EPA is also proposing to 

determine that supply of the regulated 

substance that manufacturers and users 

are capable of securing from chemical 

manufacturers is insufficient to 

accommodate this application through 

calendar year 2030. As explained 

earlier, EPA is proposing to determine 

the supply criterion is met if supply of 

one HFC used by the application is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application. EPA proposes to determine 

that the supply of HFC–23 and HFC–41 

are insufficient to accommodate the 

application for the reasons outlined in 

the prior section. 

F. Mission-Critical Military End Uses 

EPA has been allocating ASAs for 

regulated substances used for MCMEU 

in accordance with subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(ee) of the AIM Act. In the 

Allocation Framework Rule, EPA 

defined ‘‘mission-critical military end 

uses’’ as ‘‘those uses of regulated 

substances by an agency of the Federal 

Government responsible for national 

defense which have a direct impact on 

mission capability, as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), 

including, but not limited to uses 

necessary for development, testing, 

production, training, operation, and 

maintenance of Armed Forces vessels, 

aircraft, space systems, ground vehicles, 

amphibious vehicles, deployable/ 

expeditionary support equipment, 

munitions, and command and control 

systems’’ (40 CFR 84.3). In the 

Allocation Framework Rule, EPA 

finalized an approach that treats the 

allocation of MCMEU allowances 

differently than the other applications 

given the ‘‘complex nature of the way 

DOD sources and uses HFCs for 

mission-critical applications,’’ (e.g., 

significantly larger networks of sites and 

users, including contractors, of HFCs 

than others covered by ASAs) (86 FR 

55116, 55153, October 5, 2021). EPA set 

up a system whereby DOD must provide 

the amount of HFCs needed for missioncritical military use and that the two 

agencies would ‘‘work together to 

ensure the amount necessary is 

available for mission-critical military 

applications’’ (86 FR 55116, 55153, 

October 5, 2021). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75921 

As the definition states, DOD has 

discretion to identify which uses of 

HFCs have a direct impact on mission 

capability. DOD is required to report to 

EPA ‘‘the broad sectors of use covered 

by current mission-critical military end 

uses in the next calendar year,’’ per 40 

CFR 84.31(h)(3)(iv). Given the complex 

nature of the way DOD sources and uses 

HFCs for mission-critical applications, 

EPA has always maintained that DOD 

should have discretion to request the 

amount of allowances necessary to meet 

its mission-critical end uses and the 

Agency is not altering that approach 

through this rulemaking. 

Recognizing the sensitive nature of 

the application, as well as the expert 

judgement that DOD has in identifying 

which uses of HFCs have a direct 

impact on mission capability, EPA 

consulted with DOD throughout 

development of this proposed rule, 

including in advance of interagency 

review, and received input to support 

EPA’s evaluation of the statutory criteria 

described in Section IV of this 

preamble. 

After analyzing information relevant 

to the statutory criteria, as outlined in 

this section, and based on input from 

DOD, EPA is proposing to determine 

that no safe or technically achievable 

substitute will be available for the 

MCMEU application and that the supply 

of the regulated substances that the 

application is capable of securing from 

chemical manufacturers is insufficient 

to accommodate the MCMEU 

application through calendar year 2030. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to renew the 

eligibility of the MCMEU application to 

receive ASAs for the five-year period of 

calendar years 2026 through 2030. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

As discussed earlier in the preamble, 

in situations where there are not safe 

and technically achievable substitutes 

available for the entirety of the 

application, EPA would consider the 

statutory criterion regarding substitutes 

as being met. In public technical reports 

DOD (included in the rulemaking 

docket), DOD identified mission-critical 

end uses that do not have safe and 

technically achievable substitutes 

available. For example, DOD uses a 

mixture of HFC–227ea and sodium 

bicarbonate dry chemical in automatic 

fire extinguishing systems that protect 

the crew compartments of ground 

vehicles. DOD has tested potential 

replacements but has not identified a 

viable alternative to date. There are 

distinct technical specifications for 

some mission-critical end uses that are 

distinct from civil standards for the 

same category of use (e.g., refrigerants 

and fire suppression agents). For 

example, automatic fire suppression 

systems in ground vehicles must meet 

unique military requirements for 

inhalation toxicity that allow personnel 

to stay within the protected space for at 

least five minutes after fire suppression. 

Furthermore, because Congress 

defined this application as what is 

‘‘mission-critical,’’ EPA has always 

acknowledged that this application is 

more fluid in terms of what particular 

HFC uses fall within the application. 

DOD may change which end uses it 

determines to be mission-critical over 

time. This further feeds into EPA’s 

proposed assessment that the Agency 

cannot determine at this time that there 

will be safe and technically achievable 

substitutes available for the entirety of 

the application. 

2. Supply 

In 2021, DOD sent a letter to EPA with 

information regarding mission-critical 

end uses at the time, including a list of 

six HFCs used in the application (HFC– 

125, –134a, –143a, –227ea, –236fa, and 

–32). EPA has determined through 

communications with DOD that at least 

some of these HFCs continue to be 

utilized in mission-critical end uses. As 

described in section IV.B of the 

preamble, EPA is proposing to 

determine that an application meets this 

criterion if EPA determines that any of 

the HFCs currently used to manufacture 

products or systems for use in the 

application have insufficient supply. 

In the analysis of other applications in 

this proposal, EPA has evaluated the 

supply of five out of six HFCs that DOD 

identified as using in 2021 (i.e., all but 

HFC–143a). EPA is proposing to 

determine that supply of some of these 

HFCs is insufficient to accommodate the 

application. For example, in the 

evaluation of supply for the onboard 

aerospace fire suppression application, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

supply of HFC–227ea and HFC–236fa is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application. This is in addition to the 

unique restrictions that apply to the 

Defense Logistics Agency and DOD 

purchasing requirements that impact the 

available supply of HFCs to DOD for 

MCMEUs. For example, there are Buy 

America requirements in Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 25.1 and 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) 225.1 which may 

restrict how DOD can procure goods, 

which may include HFCs. Furthermore, 

as noted in the substitutes discussion 

for the MCMEU application, EPA has 

always acknowledged that this 

application is more fluid in terms of 

what HFC uses fall within the 

application. DOD may change which 

end uses it determines to be missioncritical over time. The fact that DOD 

may determine that different HFCs and 

different annual quantities of those 

HFCs are necessary for mission-critical 

end uses further feeds into EPA’s 

proposed assessment that the supply of 

HFCs will be insufficient to 

accommodate the application. 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

EPA proposes to renew eligibility for 

DOD to receive MCMEU ASAs for the 

five-year period of calendar years 2026 

through 2030. EPA is proposing to 

determine ‘‘that the requirements 

described in subclauses (I) and (II) of 

clause (i) are met’’ in accordance with 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(v)(II). Specifically, for the 

reasons outlined earlier in this section, 

EPA is proposing to determine that no 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

will be available for the entirety of the 

application and that the supply of the 

regulated substance that manufacturers 

and users are capable of securing from 

chemical manufacturers is insufficient 

to accommodate the application through 

calendar year 2030. 

G. Onboard Aerospace Fire Suppression 

EPA has been allocating ASAs for 

regulated substances used for onboard 

aerospace fire suppression in 

accordance with subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I)(ff) of the AIM Act. In the 

Allocation Framework Rule, EPA 

defined ‘‘onboard aerospace fire 

suppression’’ as the ‘‘use of a regulated 

substance in fire suppression equipment 

used on board commercial and general 

aviation aircraft, including commercialderivative aircraft for military use; 

rotorcraft; and space vehicles. Onboard 

commercial aviation fire suppression 

systems are installed throughout 

mainline and regional passenger and 

freighter aircraft, including engine 

nacelles, auxiliary power units (APUs), 

lavatory trash receptacles, baggage/crew 

compartments, and handheld 

extinguishers’’ (40 CFR 84.3). At the 

time of this proposal, EPA is aware of 

only one area, lavatory trash receptacles, 

in which HFCs (specifically HFC–227ea 

and HFC–236fa) are used in commercial 

aviation. For military uses, HFC–125 

has been used in engine nacelles and 

APUs, and HFC–236fa has been used in 

a streaming application (i.e., a portable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

28See https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_

cache/files/d/1/d152a591-878f-4a4d-b9c1- 

dc7121c06eca/9D366FF1E61F7

EFFD6A71C37C92924A5.04.03.2020-boeing.pdf. 

extinguisher).28 In addition to HFC uses 

in commercial and military aviation, 

EPA is aware that HFCs have limited 

usage in general aviation, which 

consists of private and/or business 

aircraft. The Agency seeks additional 

information on how HFCs are used for 

general aviation and how widespread 

the use is. 

After analyzing information relevant 

to the statutory criteria, as outlined in 

this section and the TSD, EPA is 

proposing to determine that no safe or 

technically achievable substitute will be 

available for the entirety of onboard 

aerospace fire suppression and that 

supply of the regulated substance that 

manufacturers and users are capable of 

securing from chemical manufacturers 

is insufficient to accommodate the 

onboard aerospace fire suppression 

application through calendar year 2030. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to renew the 

eligibility of entities using regulated 

substances for onboard aerospace fire 

suppression to receive ASAs for the 

five-year period of calendar years 2026 

through 2030. 

1. Availability of Safe and Technically 

Achievable Substitutes 

Identification of available safe and 

technically achievable substitutes in 

this application requires considering a 

range of factors, including fire 

suppression effectiveness, toxicity, and 

space and weight considerations. EPA 

has not identified available substitutes 

that it would propose to deem safe and 

technically achievable for the entirety of 

the onboard aerospace fire suppression 

application. As discussed earlier in the 

preamble, in situations where there are 

not safe and technically achievable 

substitutes available for the entirety of 

the application, EPA would not 

consider this statutory criterion met. 

HFCs are used in onboard aerospace 

fire suppression in fixed systems for 

total flooding applications and in 

portable equipment for streaming uses 

(e.g., handheld fire extinguishers). Fire 

suppression agents must satisfy 

environmental and safety criteria, 

including but not limited to acceptable 

ODPs and GWPs, be effective 

extinguishants, and, for spaces where 

people would be present, have 

sufficiently low toxicity such that under 

normal use the discharge of agent in 

occupied spaces would not harm 

people. Other important features that 

are sometimes relevant for onboard 

aerospace fire suppression include 

being electrically non-conductive, and 

‘‘clean’’ in certain applications such as 

for high-value electronics, controls, or 

other critical systems in the protected 

spaces where it is important to leave no 

non-volatile residue that could damage 

the equipment. 

As noted at the start of this section, 

HFCs are used in limited areas within 

the application. Because there are 

potentially overlapping ASAs available 

for a military use of HFCs, EPA has 

focused its analysis of substitute 

availability primarily on commercial 

aviation. EPA is aware of only one 

application where HFCs are used in 

commercial aviation: lavatory trash 

receptacle fire extinguishing systems. 

Lavatory trash receptacle systems are 

total flooding systems; total flooding 

systems are designed to automatically 

discharge a fire extinguishing agent 

throughout a confined space. EPA has 

not identified any safe and technically 

achievable substitutes for lavatory trash 

receptacle systems. In coming to this 

proposed determination, EPA reviewed 

information from multiple sources 

including FAA, the EPA SNAP Program, 

FSTOC, and the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) which is 

outlined in greater detail in the TSD 

included in the docket for this proposed 

action. The FSTOC 2022 Assessment 

Report noted that it is not aware of any 

research to develop an HFC substitute in 

lavatory trash receptacle fire 

extinguishing systems. Furthermore, 

FSTOC noted that identifying 

substitutes for lavatory trash receptacles 

is a low priority for industry given that 

it makes up less than one percent of the 

installed fire suppression base on board 

aircraft. 

In developing its proposed 

determination, given the global effort to 

find viable halon alternatives, EPA did 

not consider halons in its proposed 

consideration of the availability of safe 

and technically achievable substitutes. 

However, both Halon 1301 and Halon 

1211 are technically achievable and 

continue to be used in onboard 

aerospace fire suppression. Although 

the onboard aerospace fire suppression 

industry has relied on halons for fire 

suppression for decades, the United 

States phased out the production and 

import of virgin halons in 1994 due to 

their high ODP. Recycled halons have 

been the only supply of halons in the 

United States for nearly 30 years and 

still comprise the majority of installed 

fire suppression capacity on most 

aircraft. Industry has made extensive 

efforts to identify alternatives to halons 

particularly with recent estimates from 

the TEAP’s FSTOC that the dwindling 

supply of recycled halons could lead to 

shortages in the next decade. 

In assessing whether there was a safe 

and technically achievable substitute 

available, EPA also considered what 

alternatives are listed for use under 

SNAP for fire suppression that would be 

relevant for these applications. EPA 

notes that 2-bromo-3,3,3- 

trifluoropropene (2–BTP) is listed as an 

acceptable substitute subject to use 

conditions for use as a streaming agent 

in handheld extinguishers and for 

certain total flooding applications (e.g., 

engine nacelles and APUs). FAA has 

approved the use of 2–BTP in handheld 

extinguishers, and commercial aircraft 

manufacturers have begun replacing 

Halon 1211 with 2–BTP extinguishers 

on newly designed aircraft. As noted 

above, the SNAP Program listed 2–BTP 

as acceptable as a total flooding agent in 

engine nacelles and APUs; however, 2– 

BTP has not been listed as acceptable in 

lavatory trash receptacles and the 

factors for consideration are different 

from other acceptable SNAP-listed uses. 

For examples, use in lavatory trash 

receptacles would be in a space 

occupied by people, whereas use in 

engine nacelles and APUs are in 

unoccupied spaces. Furthermore, FAA 

has not approved 2–BTP for any total 

flooding systems to date. 

As noted in the introduction to this 

section, in addition to the use of HFCs 

for lavatory trash receptacles in 

commercial aviation, HFC–125 has been 

used in engine nacelles and APUs on 

commercial-derivative aircraft for 

military use. Industry has explored 

several other fire suppression agents in 

engine nacelles and APUs, but none 

have proven to be a viable solution. For 

example, the industry previously 

explored FK–5–1–12 for use as a fire 

suppression agent in engine nacelles, 

but it failed an FAA-required live fire 

test. As a result, for the purposes of its 

evaluation under the AIM Act 

subsection (e), EPA has not identified 

safe and technically achievable 

substitutes that are available for use in 

engine nacelles or APUs. 

In addition to the areas in which 

HFCs are used in total flooding systems, 

HFC–236fa is used as a streaming agent 

in commercial-derivative aircraft for 

military use. As previously noted in this 

section, 2–BTP has been listed as 

acceptable by SNAP, is FAA-approved, 

and commercial aircraft manufacturers 

have begun transitioning to 2–BTP 

extinguishers on newly produced 

aircraft. While EPA analysis suggests 

that 2–BTP is available as a safe and 

technically achievable substitute, as 

explained elsewhere in this proposal, 

EPA would only determine the statutory 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75923 

criterion in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)(I) is 

not met if the Agency determines 

substitutes are available for the entirety 

of the application. 

If a substitute were identified for the 

entirety of the application, it would still 

take significant time for transition to the 

substitute to occur for this application. 

FAA has testing requirements and 

minimum performance standards that a 

new fire suppression agent must meet 

before it can be used commercially. 

While there is no prescribed amount of 

time it takes to meet these requirements, 

a stakeholder indicated to EPA in a 

November 2023 public stakeholder 

meeting that the certification process 

can take three to five years. Another 

stakeholder described the FAA process 

as arduous and noted that it could take 

many years to receive certification for a 

new fire suppression agent. There is no 

information before the Agency at the 

time of this proposal to suggest that 

there would be a safe and technically 

achievable substitute available prior to 

the next five-year review. 

2. Supply 

As previously discussed, HFC–227ea, 

HFC–236fa, and HFC–125 are all 

currently used in onboard aerospace fire 

suppression. As described in Section 

IV.B of the preamble, EPA is proposing 

to determine that the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(i)(II) are met for this 

application if EPA determines that any 

of the HFCs currently used in a 

commercial product or to manufacture 

products for use in the application have 

insufficient supply. 

HFC–227ea is the only regulated 

substance for which onboard aerospace 

fire suppression allowances have been 

expended to date. As previously stated, 

HFC–227ea is used in commercial 

aviation whereas HFC–236fa and HFC– 

125 are used in commercial-derivative 

aircraft for military use. As intended in 

the Allocation Framework Rule, there is 

overlap between the onboard aerospace 

fire suppression application and the 

MCMEU application. EPA is not 

reopening this approach through this 

rulemaking, so as long as DOD 

continues to classify the operation of 

Armed Forces aircraft as missioncritical, then DOD may use MCMEU 

allowances for fire suppression 

equipment installed on commercialderivative aircraft. Therefore, in 

addition to HFC–227ea being the only 

regulated substance for which onboard 

aerospace fire suppression allowances 

have been expended, the uses of HFC– 

227ea are the only uses for which the 

onboard aerospace fire suppression 

application is the sole pathway to 

receive allowances. In 2022, the sole 

domestic producer of HFC–227ea 

produced 1,324.7 MT of HFC–227ea, 

comprising one percent of U.S. HFC 

production on a mass basis. In addition, 

there were nine entities that imported 

HFC–227ea with the total amount of 

imports equaling 454.2 MT. Overall, 

HFC–227ea made up only 0.2 percent of 

all U.S. HFC consumption in 2022 on a 

mass basis. At the end of 2022, 

suppliers held 1,008.3 MT of HFC– 

227ea in domestic inventory, which is 

equivalent to about 323 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–227ea 

in 2022; as noted in the supply 

discussions for the other applications 

above (Sections B–E), not all of this 

HFC–227ea may be considered available 

supply, as the entities holding this 

material are broader than EPA’s 

interpretation of chemical 

manufacturers. As stated elsewhere in 

this proposed rule, EPA recognizes that 

there is inherent uncertainty regarding 

HFC production, and in particular for 

HFCs with a more limited number of 

production facilities and/or higher 

GWPs than other regulated HFCs, this 

uncertainty may be greater; HFC–227ea 

has one of the highest GWPs of the 

regulated HFCs. Additionally, EPA 

understands there will be changes to 

market conditions resulting from the 

domestic and global phasedown of HFC 

production and consumption that could 

affect future supply of HFC–227ea. 

Given the relative size of the market for 

HFC–227ea and the limited number of 

producers in the United States and 

abroad, the supply chain for HFC–227ea 

is potentially more fragile than other 

supply chains (e.g., HFC–134a). This 

makes it more likely that the supply of 

HFC–227ea available from chemical 

manufacturers will be insufficient 

during 2026–2030 for this application. 

The use of HFC–227ea in onboard 

aerospace fire suppression is small 

compared to the annual consumption of 

HFC–227ea. Allocated ASAs for this 

application in 2024 are equivalent to 0.8 

percent of calculated consumption of 

HFC–227ea in 2022. While this small 

usage could make it easier for suppliers 

to divert a fraction of their available 

supply to this application, the supply 

chain for HFC–227ea remains fragile for 

reasons mentioned earlier in this 

section, including low production and a 

limited number of suppliers. 

Another factor EPA is considering is 

the impact that other regulatory actions 

may have for the available supply of 

HFC–227ea. Specifically, the proposed 

Emissions Reduction and Reclamation 

Rule proposes requirements for the use 

of recycled HFCs for the initial charge 

(i.e., installation) and/or servicing in fire 

suppression systems generally, but not 

onboard aerospace fire suppression 

systems as long as the application 

continues to be eligible for ASAs. If this 

requirement is finalized as proposed, 

this could decrease the demand for 

virgin HFC–227ea. 

EPA also analyzed the supply of the 

other HFCs currently used in this 

application to determine whether 

supply of those HFCs was also 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application. HFC–236fa is used in 

portable extinguishers in commercialderivative aircraft. There is currently 

one producer in the United States of 

HFC–236fa, however, there was no 

domestic production reported in 2022. 

Globally, HFC–236fa is produced in 

even smaller quantities than HFC– 

227ea. In 2022, there were seven entities 

that imported HFC–236fa with the total 

amount of imports equaling 301.4 MT. 

Overall, HFC–236fa made up less than 

0.2 percent of all U.S. HFC consumption 

in 2022 on a mass basis. At the end of 

2022, suppliers held 127.5 MT of HFC– 

236fa in domestic inventory, which is 

equivalent to about 47 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–236fa 

in 2022; as noted for HFC–227ea and 

other HFCs discussed in this preamble, 

not all of this inventory may be 

considered available supply (see Section 

IV.B for more information). While 

onboard aerospace fire suppression 

allowance holders have not used 

allowances for HFC–236fa to date, 

allocated ASAs for this application in 

2024 are equivalent to 0.3 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–236fa 

in 2022. However, similar to the 

analysis for HFC–227ea, given the 

relative size of the market for HFC– 

236fa and the limited number of 

producers in the United States and 

abroad, the supply chain for HFC–236fa 

is potentially more fragile than other 

supply chains (e.g., HFC–134a). This 

makes it more likely that the supply of 

HFC–236fa available from chemical 

manufacturers will be insufficient 

during 2026–2030 for this application. 

Also, if finalized as proposed, the 

Emissions Reduction and Reclamation 

Rule (88 FR 72216, October 19, 2023) 

could result in similar changes for HFC– 

236fa as previously discussed with 

HFC–227ea. 

HFC–125 is used in engine nacelles 

and APUs in military use. HFC–125 is 

one of the most widely produced HFCs 

in the world with multiple producers in 

the United States and globally. In 2022, 

U.S. production of HFC–125 totaled 

19,175.7 MT, comprising 14 percent of 

U.S. HFC production on a mass basis. In 

addition, there were 19 entities that 

imported HFC–125 with the total 

amount of imports equaling 23,849 MT. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75924 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Overall, HFC–125 made up 

approximately 25 percent of total U.S. 

HFC consumption in 2022 on a mass 

basis. At the end of 2022, suppliers held 

56,208.2 MT of HFC–125 in domestic 

inventory, which is equivalent to about 

141 percent of calculated consumption 

of HFC–125 in 2022; for reasons 

explained elsewhere in this preamble, 

not all of this inventory may be 

considered available supply. Allocated 

ASAs for this application in 2024 are 

equivalent to 0.0059 percent of 

calculated consumption of HFC–125 in 

2022. The 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023) is 

restricting the use of HFCs and HFC 

blends above certain GWP limits in a 

number of sectors and subsectors as 

early as 2025. In all likelihood, demand 

for certain blends containing HFC–125 

will decrease. However, given HFC–125 

could be used in lower-GWP blends, 

including blends with GWPs that are 

less than the relevant GWP limits, there 

is uncertainty regarding how HFC–125 

demand will be impacted. A reduction 

in demand for HFC–125 in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

sectors could result in an increase in 

available supply for use in fire 

suppression equipment. 

3. What is EPA proposing regarding 

eligibility for application-specific 

allowances? 

EPA is proposing to renew the 

eligibility of entities using regulated 

substances for onboard aerospace fire 

suppression to receive ASAs for the 

five-year period of calendar years 2026 

through 2030. EPA is proposing to 

determine ‘‘that the requirements 

described in subclauses (I) and (II) of 

clause (i) are met’’ in accordance with 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(v)(II). Specifically, for the 

reasons outlined earlier in this section, 

EPA is proposing to determine that no 

safe or technically achievable substitute 

will be available for onboard aerospace 

fire suppression and that the supply of 

the regulated substance that 

manufacturers and users are capable of 

securing from chemical manufacturers 

is insufficient to accommodate onboard 

aerospace fire suppression through 

calendar year 2030. As explained 

earlier, EPA is proposing to determine 

the supply criterion is met if supply of 

one HFC used by the application is 

insufficient to accommodate the 

application. EPA proposes to determine 

that the supply of HFC–227ea and the 

supply of HFC–236fa are insufficient to 

accommodate the application for the 

reasons outlined in the prior section. 

VI. What are the proposed 

requirements associated with a petition 

to be listed as an application that will 

receive application-specific 

allowances? 

The Agency is proposing a procedural 

framework for a petition filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(ii) requesting 

the designation of an application as 

eligible for ASAs. Subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(ii) outlines requirements that 

apply if the Administrator receives a 

petition requesting consideration of 

eligibility for ASAs. In the event a 

complete petition is received, the 

Agency would make a determination on 

whether to designate the application as 

eligible for ASAs after considering the 

criteria listed in 42 U.S.C. 

7675(e)(4)(B)(i). The AIM Act specifies a 

timeline by which the Agency must 

consider these petitions. Within 180 

days, the Agency must make the 

complete petition available to the public 

and propose and seek comment on 

whether to designate the application as 

eligible for ASAs and if so, the requisite 

number of allowances. Within 270 days 

of receiving the petition, the Agency 

must take final action on the petition. 

In order to have sufficient information 

to evaluate a petition based on the 

criteria in subsection (e)(4)(B)(i), EPA is 

proposing to require that certain 

information must be included in order 

for a petition to be considered complete. 

The Agency envisions that petitions 

could be submitted by a single entity, 

such as a company or trade association, 

or a group of entities. The information 

listed as required is not meant to be a 

comprehensive list of what a petition 

may include, but rather a minimum 

threshold after which the Agency would 

consider a petition complete. EPA 

would only consider the statutory 

timeline triggered upon the filing of a 

complete petition. If the Agency were to 

receive a petition that did not include 

all required elements listed in this 

section, EPA proposes that it would 

consider that petition incomplete. In the 

event that an entity filed an incomplete 

petition, EPA would notify that entity 

that their petition was incomplete, but 

not process the petition any further. 

After a petition is submitted, if the 

petitioner supplements the petition, 

EPA would consider the petition to be 

re-submitted, and the statutory 

timelines for action would restart. New 

information may fundamentally alter 

the merits of a petition and therefore 

EPA would have to restart its review in 

order to account for new information 

holistically. Comments on EPA’s 

proposed determination would not 

restart the statutory timelines unless the 

petitioner formally requested to 

supplement or revise their petition. 

EPA proposes that a complete petition 

must include, at a minimum: 

• A description of the application, 

including an explanation of what the 

application is, what purpose or function 

it achieves, and what populations or 

commercial products benefit from the 

application; 

• A list of regulated substances and 

description of their use in the 

application and an explanation as to 

why HFCs are required in the 

application; 

• Evidence that no safe or technically 

achievable substitute, including not-inkind technologies, is or is expected to be 

available, and that the petitioner has 

conducted research to evaluate 

substitutes for the HFC(s). Examples of 

evidence that may be accepted include, 

but are not limited to, third-party 

analyses and technical reports by 

recognized experts in the field, test 

results evaluating potential substitutes 

on safety and technical achievability, 

decisions by EPA to list alternatives 

under the SNAP Program, or Federal 

regulatory standards that inhibit the 

ability of the application to transition to 

a substitute; 

• Evidence that supply of the 

regulated substance(s) used in the 

application is insufficient to 

accommodate the application. Examples 

of evidence that may be accepted 

include, but are not limited to, signed 

and notarized communication from 

responsible corporate officers at 

multiple representative suppliers and 

potential suppliers for the sector or 

related sectors that the application falls 

in stating that the currently used HFCs 

cannot be sourced; signed and notarized 

communication from responsible 

corporate officers at 10 or more 

allowance holders, including at least 

three of the 10 largest consumption 

allowances holders, stating that the 

currently used HFCs cannot be sourced; 

• A signed certification from a 

responsible corporate officer at the 

requesting entity that the application 

cannot use recovered and reprocessed 

HFCs in conjunction with or in place of 

virgin HFCs, either due to demonstrated 

lack of technical achievability or 

insufficient supply, and an explanation 

and evidence documenting why 

recovered and reprocessed HFCs cannot 

be used for the application; 

• Total quantity (in kg) of all 

regulated substances acquired for the 

application specified in the petition in 

each of the previous three years, 

including a copy of the sales records, 

invoices, or other records documenting 

that quantity; if multiple entities are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75925 

29Currently, most HFC reports under the AIM Act 

are submitted through the HAWK module in the 

electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (eGGRT). 

submitting a joint petition, they must 

each provide EPA with unaggregated 

entity-specific information, which may 

be transmitted jointly or individually; 

• The name of the entity or entities 

supplying regulated substances for and 

contact information for those suppliers 

over the past three years; if multiple 

entities are submitting the petition, they 

must each provide this information 

individually to EPA; 

• Total quantities (in kg) of regulated 

substances held in inventory as of the 

date the petition is submitted; if 

multiple entities are submitting the 

petition, they must each provide this 

information individually to EPA; 

• An estimate of the total quantity of 

HFCs the petitioner expects to purchase 

in the first year it would be eligible for 

ASAs; 

• Data on the proportion of the 

overall cost of the product or system 

that reflects the cost of regulated 

substances; if multiple entities are 

submitting the petition, they must each 

provide this information individually to 

EPA; 

• Historic and projected sales of the 

product or system; if multiple entities 

are submitting the petition, they must 

each provide this information 

individually to EPA; 

• Evidence of research into design 

changes to decrease the amount of HFCs 

used in the product or system; 

• An explanation regarding whether 

the use of the regulated substance is 

necessary for the health, safety, or is 

critical for the functioning of society 

(encompassing cultural, intellectual, 

and economic aspects); 

• An explanation regarding steps 

taken to minimize the use of the 

regulated substance and any associated 

emission of the HFC(s); and 

• Information on regulatory 

restrictions related to possible 

alternatives and substitutes. 

Requiring minimum information be 

included in order for the Agency to 

deem a petition complete and process 

that petition would help provide clarity 

for the Agency and ensure timeliness 

and transparency for the petitioner. If 

EPA does not take this approach, it 

could prevent EPA from having 

sufficient data to determine whether the 

application warrants receiving ASAs 

and would unnecessarily delay a 

response from the Agency. This would 

mean that a petitioner would have to 

wait longer to re-submit a petition if a 

necessary element were omitted from 

the original submission. EPA seeks 

comment on the proposed petition 

process, including all of these proposed 

elements and the associated burden 

with providing such information to the 

Agency. 

In addition to proposing to establish 

required elements of a complete 

petition, EPA is providing a nonexhaustive list of other elements that are 

optional, but the Agency may find 

compelling or helpful in making a 

determination on a petition: 

• Market research on the application, 

which could include: an estimate of the 

number of domestic entities within the 

application; an estimate of the amount 

of bulk HFCs used domestically within 

the application; an estimate of the 

projected annual growth rate for the 

duration of the period for which the 

application is seeking eligibility to 

receive ASAs, with supporting evidence 

by third-party sources; 

• Economic research on the elasticity 

of demand for products or systems 

within the application, with supporting 

evidence by third-party sources; 

• Research on whether products or 

systems in the application outside of the 

United States have had success in 

transitioning to substitutes or otherwise 

reducing use of HFCs; 

• Other information that may be 

relevant as the Agency evaluates the 

petition, based on the factors listed in 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(i). 

EPA notes that for an entity to be 

eligible to receive ASAs in a given 

calendar year, a complete petition 

should be submitted no later than 

January 31 two calendar years prior to 

provide the Agency sufficient time to 

review a petition and be able to issue 

allowances in advance of the statutory 

deadline of October 1 each year. For 

example, if an entity would like to 

receive allowances in calendar year 

2027, the entity should submit a 

complete petition no later than January 

31, 2025. EPA is setting this clear 

expectation so entities can factor this 

into their planning when deciding to 

petition EPA to be added to the list of 

eligible applications. This proposed 

timeline would allow the Agency the 

requisite time to review and take final 

action on the petition, consistent with 

the statutory timeline in subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(ii), and also issue a final rule to 

effectuate that decision in 40 CFR 84.13. 

EPA proposes to allocate allowances 

to entities in a new application through 

the same manner as other entities 

receiving ASAs, per 40 CFR 84.13 and 

40 CFR 84.31(h). EPA contends that 

allocating allowances based on the 

established regulatory approach would 

be the fairest and most transparent 

method of determining allowance 

allocations for entities in a new 

application. While EPA is proposing 

that a petition be required to include 

some of the information that would be 

necessary to determine an allowance 

allocation, it is possible that not all 

entities within an application would be 

involved in the submission of the 

petition. In other words, having entities 

within a new application request ASAs 

by July 31 like all other applications 

(per 40 CFR 84.13(b)) would ensure that 

all entities in a new application have 

equal opportunity to request 

allowances. This may mean that in cases 

where there is a final rule pending to 

add an application to the list of entities 

eligible for ASAs at 40 CFR 84.13, any 

entity wishing to be eligible for ASAs in 

the next calendar year would need to 

provide the information required at 40 

CFR 84.13(h)(2) by July 31. 

EPA proposes that if a petition is 

granted and a new application is listed 

as eligible to receive ASAs, that 

eligibility would apply until the end of 

the five-year review cycle during which 

its petition was granted. Per subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(v), EPA must review each ASA 

use receiving an allocation of 

allowances not less frequently than once 

every five years. EPA proposes that, at 

the end of each five-year review cycle, 

it will review any applications listed in 

40 CFR 84.13(a) at the time of review, 

regardless of how they were initially 

included on the list. For example, the 

five-year review period covered in this 

proposed rule includes calendar years 

2026 through 2030. If a petition were 

granted to receive ASAs starting for 

calendar year 2028, that application 

would be eligible for calendar year 

2028, 2029, and 2030 allowances, and 

then EPA would review the eligibility 

for that application to continue 

receiving ASAs starting with calendar 

year 2031 allowances. 

Consistent with the reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR 84.31(a), 

EPA is proposing that all reports, 

petitions, and any related supporting 

documents must be submitted 

electronically in a format specified by 

EPA; 29 and quantities of regulated 

substances must be stated in terms of 

kilograms unless otherwise specified. 

EPA is proposing that these records and 

copies of reports required by this 

section must be retained for three years. 

VII. Proposed Revisions to Existing 

Regulations 

EPA finalized an approach under the 

Allocation Framework Rule for issuing 

ASAs for the initial years after 

enactment of the AIM Act. EPA set up 

a framework to determine ASA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75926 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

allocations for calendar years 2022 

through 2025 for five of the six 

applications identified in the AIM Act: 

propellants in MDIs; defense sprays; 

SCPPU foam for marine use and trailer 

use; etching of semiconductor material 

or wafers and the cleaning of CVD 

chambers within the semiconductor 

manufacturing sector; and onboard 

aerospace fire suppression. As 

explained in more detail in the 

Allocation Framework Rule, EPA 

allocates ASAs differently for MCMEU, 

given the complex nature of the way 

DOD sources and uses HFCs in the 

mission-critical context (86 FR 55116, 

55153, October 5, 2021). 

The 2024 HFC Allocation Rule did 

not reopen the methodology for issuing 

ASAs but noted that the Agency had 

begun development of this proposed 

rule to review and consider whether to 

renew eligibility for each of the six 

applications for ASAs and would herein 

consider revisions to existing regulatory 

requirements (88 FR 46836, 46840, July 

20, 2023). As EPA foreshadowed in the 

2024 HFC Allocation Rule, the Agency 

is proposing targeted regulatory changes 

after considering whether any changes 

should be made to the existing 

regulatory requirements governing 

ASAs based on implementation over the 

past several years. EPA is also proposing 

one specific regulatory change to clarify 

how EPA’s regulations would apply to 

any illegally imported HFCs that are 

seized and auctioned by enforcement 

officials, proposing to require exporting 

companies to report ITNs quarterly, and 

proposing to simplify the ‘‘date of 

purchase’’ requirement for a RACA. 

Under the current regulations 

established in the Allocation 

Framework Rule, EPA issues ASAs 

based on multiplying the company’s 

HFC use in the prior year by the higher 

of: 

Æ The AAGR of use for the company 

over the past three years; or 

Æ The AAGR of use by all entities 

requesting that type of ASA (e.g., for 

MDIs) over the past three years. 

For the calculation of AAGR, EPA 

calculates the growth rate between the 

first and second year plus the growth 

rate between the second and third year, 

divided by two. The formula is as 

follows: 

EPA relies on activity from July 1 to 

June 30 for each of the three preceding 

years prior to the annual allocation 

because of the biannual reporting 

deadlines and to include the most 

recent year of data prior to the October 

1 allocation deadline in the allowance 

allocation determinations. EPA 

established the information an entity 

requesting ASAs must provide in 40 

CFR 84.31(h)(2). EPA is proposing to 

codify the existing practice such that 

entities reporting on or applying for 

ASAs provide supporting 

documentation to verify reported data 

on total quantities of HFCs acquired 

through conferring allowances, 

expending allowances for direct import, 

purchases without expending 

allowances, and quantity held in 

inventory. 

EPA also established that the Agency 

would consider unique circumstances 

that are not reflected by the rates of 

growth calculated in the methodology 

outlined above that are also factually 

documented when determining 

allowance allocations. EPA finalized the 

following circumstances as potentially 

meriting an increased allocation to an 

individual company beyond historical 

growth rates: (1) additional capacity will 

come on line in the next year, such as 

a new manufacturing plant or expanded 

manufacturing line, (2) a domestic 

manufacturer or some of its 

manufacturing facilities has been 

acquired, and (3) a global pandemic or 

other public health emergency increases 

demand for use of HFCs in an 

application, such as an increase in 

patients diagnosed with medical 

conditions treated by MDIs. These 

scenarios could provide reasons to 

increase allowance allocations to 

affected companies in the affected years. 

Furthermore, if a company wanted to 

make a claim that it qualifies for 

individualized treatment due to one of 

these unique circumstances, the 

company must sufficiently document in 

a verifiable way why it qualifies. 

Specific documentation includes, but is 

not limited to, recent invoices for new 

tools; permit documentation for new 

facilities, facility expansion, or 

installation of equipment related to 

retooling; agency or company press 

releases for the launch of new products; 

or Securities and Exchange Commission 

filings documenting facility acquisitions 

or expansions. Ultimately, 

accommodating unique circumstances 

that are fully documented and proven 

help the Agency fulfill Congress’s 

mandate that EPA ‘‘allocate the full 

quantity of allowances necessary’’ (86 

FR 55116, 55151, October 5, 2021). As 

a result of the multiple allocations 

between 2021 and 2023 and the lessons 

learned through this process, EPA is 

now proposing limited changes to these 

existing regulations. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing: to 

require companies provide the total 

expected amount of HFCs they intend to 

purchase in the calendar year, to expand 

permissible scenarios that could qualify 

as unique circumstances, a different 

allocation methodology for certain very 

small users of HFCs and entities with 

irregular purchasing history, how to 

account for inventory in allocation 

decisions, new requirements for 

conferrals of MCMEU allowances, to 

establish a pool of set-aside allowances 

for situations that meet the criteria for 

unique circumstances related to medical 

conditions treated by MDIs, and to 

allow ASA holders to return a portion 

of their allowances voluntarily if they 

do not intend to use them. EPA is 

proposing other specific regulatory 

changes to: clarify how EPA’s 

regulations would apply to any illegally 

imported HFCs that are seized and 

auctioned by enforcement officials, 

require exporting companies to report 

ITNs quarterly, and simplify the ‘‘date 

of purchase’’ requirement for a RACA. 

A. Expected Total HFC Purchases 

Under EPA’s current program, entities 

may voluntarily state the total amount 

of HFCs they expect to purchase for the 

next year. EPA has encouraged entities 

to provide this data on a voluntary basis 

to provide an additional data element 

for the Agency to consider in making 

allocation decisions. 

EPA proposes to amend the 

regulations to require all entities to 

provide their total expected HFC 

purchases for the next calendar year as 

a component of overall applications due 

July 31 for ASAs for the following 

calendar year. Under this proposed 

requirement, entities would be required 

to provide an estimate of the total 

quantity of HFCs they expect to 

purchase next year based on their 

expected eligibility for allowances. EPA 

will allocate at that level if it is lower 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16SE24.005</GPH>

((Application or Entity HFC Purchases in Year 2 _ 1) + (Application or Entity HFC Purchases in Year 3 _ 1)) 

Application or Entity HFC Purchases in Year 1 Application or Entity HFC Purchases in Year 2 

2 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75927 

30EPA is also proposing to define this term, 

which is used elsewhere under the HFC Allocation 

Program. For purposes of 40 CFR part 84, subpart 

A, EPA is proposing that responsible corporate 

officer and responsible official mean a person who 

is authorized by the regulated entity to make 

representations on behalf of, or obligate the 

company as ultimately responsible for, any activity 

regulated under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. 

than what that entity is eligible for 

based on the regulatory formula. 

EPA is proposing this approach to 

better understand each entity’s HFC 

needs in the next year. The regulatory 

allocation methodology established in 

the Allocation Framework Rule, and 

outlined at the start of this section, is 

designed to determine an allocation 

based on ‘‘projected, current, and 

historical trends.’’ However, this 

formula may not fully take into account 

other considerations that could impact 

an entity’s HFC needs in the next year. 

This proposed approach may also avoid 

overallocation at the expense of general 

pool allowance holders. 

B. Unique Circumstances 

Under EPA’s current regulations, 

entities may request that EPA consider 

unique circumstances that are not 

reflected by the rates of growth 

calculated. Entities ‘‘must provide 

additional information if requesting that 

EPA consider unique circumstances’’ 

under 40 CFR 84.13(b)(1). EPA is 

proposing to codify into the regulations 

the Agency’s existing practice of 

requiring entities to provide supporting 

documentation to verify any claimed 

need. EPA previously codified three 

situations that would be considered as 

unique circumstances (40 CFR 

84.13(b)(1)). After multiple allocations 

and many conversations with 

stakeholders, EPA is proposing to add to 

the list of unique circumstances under 

which EPA may allocate additional 

allowances beyond what is calculated 

from the regulatory allocation formula. 

EPA is also proposing to broaden the 

third unique circumstance related to 

MDIs. 

First, EPA is proposing to create a 

unique circumstance for economic 

disruption outside the immediate 

control of the entity applying for ASAs, 

such as an economy-wide recession or 

other documented short- to mediumterm market events that negatively 

impact a company’s operations, such as 

a strike that affects product demand or 

supply chain disruption. EPA proposes 

to consider this situation as a unique 

circumstance as such an event could 

lead to an increased need to purchase 

HFCs beyond what is reflected in the 

regulatory formula, but likely would not 

be captured under an existing scenario 

that EPA would consider as an 

acceptable unique circumstance. If 

finalized, entities would still have to 

submit documentation that verifies that 

this situation has taken place, the 

current status of the market event (e.g., 

whether it has concluded and demand 

for the HFCs has returned), and that this 

situation has materially impacted an 

entity’s HFC needs. The entity would 

also have to provide supporting 

documentation to justify the projected 

amount of HFCs needed, including 

explaining how projections compare to 

pre-market event use. 

EPA is also proposing to add building 

a stockpile of a specific HFC as a 

scenario which EPA would consider a 

unique circumstance in the event a 

major producer for an application 

announces they will be ceasing 

production of the HFC used by the 

application-specific entity in the near 

future. An entity could request 

additional allowances for the purpose of 

building inventory ahead of the cease in 

production. For an entity to be eligible 

for additional allowances under this 

unique circumstance, EPA proposes that 

the entity must provide EPA with a 

letter from their supplier signed by a 

responsible corporate officer 30 stating 

that the supplier is ceasing all 

production of the HFC at issue within 

three years. Further, EPA proposes that 

an eligible entity must certify that they 

have regulatory requirements beyond 

the 40 CFR part 84 requirements that 

limit its ability to switch suppliers or 

there are no other suppliers that could 

meet their needs (e.g., because there no 

other chemical manufacturers that can 

supply the needed HFC). EPA proposes 

to also require evidence that the entity 

has a restricted HFC supply chain, such 

as required purity requirements. If 

additional allowances were granted 

because of this requested unique 

circumstance, EPA proposes to require 

reporting specific to the building of 

inventory by the entity that would be 

allocated ASAs in advance of their 

supplier’s production facility ceasing 

production. Such inventory buildup 

must be held by the entity that is 

allocated allowances, and EPA would 

subtract those quantities from the 

entity’s purchase history such that it is 

not included in the regulatory formula 

to determine the entity’s allocation the 

following year. 

EPA is also proposing to expand the 

scope of the unique circumstance for a 

global pandemic or other public health 

emergency that increases patients 

diagnosed with medical conditions 

treated by MDIs to include ‘‘healthcare 

system needs.’’ EPA notes that the 

reference in the regulations to an ‘‘other 

public health emergency’’ is not limited 

to situations where the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) has 

officially declared a public health 

emergency. The proposed expansion of 

the unique circumstance is a direct 

outgrowth of experience over the past 

three years of implementing the 

phasedown and is designed to ensure a 

sufficient volume of HFCs is available to 

manufacture MDIs to treat asthma, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

and other respiratory diseases when 

unexpected market events occur. 

EPA proposes to define a healthcare 

system need as circumstances where an 

increase in demand for MDIs used to 

treat asthma, chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, and other 

respiratory diseases may occur because 

of a change in market conditions that 

otherwise would not be included in 

calculated rates of growth. If finalized, 

EPA intends to consult closely with the 

FDA and potentially HHS more broadly 

before allocating allowances for 

‘‘healthcare system needs.’’ 

Examples of the types of events that 

could fall into a healthcare system need 

include, but are not limited to: 

• A manufacturer that makes MDIs 

outside of the United States stops 

selling approved MDI products in the 

United States; 

• Major recall or suspension of 

production of alternative (non-MDI) 

emergency asthma treatments 

prompting increase in MDI demand; 

• Change in preferred products from 

pharmacy benefit managers or State 

Medicare programs to patients; 

• FDA compliance or enforcement 

actions that impact MDI market 

dynamics by reducing availability of 

generic drug products that; 

• Significant increase in respiratory 

infections in general population (e.g., 

respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), 

coronavirus disease (COVID)); and 

• Decrease in availability of active 

pharmaceutical ingredient or device 

component for one or more MDI 

manufacturers causing a supply 

shortage. 

C. Methodology for Entities With 

Irregular Purchasing History and Very 

Small Users 

EPA has observed that there are 

certain entities with purchase patterns 

for which the regulatory formula either 

is not able to calculate an allocation or 

applying the terms of the regulatory 

formula would produce absurd results. 

For these entities, EPA is proposing an 

alternative approach for calculating the 

quantity of allowances each entity is 

eligible to receive. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to create an alternative 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75928 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

method of allocating to entities that are 

either of the following: (1) Entity has 

small purchases of HFCs (<100 kg) at 

least one of the last three years where 

their purchase history would result in 

200 percent or higher AAGR of use for 

the company over the past three years, 

or (2) entity’s growth rate cannot be 

calculated because it had zero purchases 

in one of the last three years for reasons 

other than newly using HFCs. For 

entities that fall into either category, the 

Agency is proposing to allocate the 

highest, as measured in exchange value 

equivalent (EVe), verified purchase 

amount in the last three years. 

With respect to the first category, EPA 

is proposing these cutoff numbers to 

allow for some narrow flexibility in an 

entity’s purchasing patterns and to 

recognize the variability for entities that 

purchase relatively small quantities of 

HFCs. EPA is proposing to move away 

from applying the existing regulatory 

formula for entities where a relatively 

small fluctuation in purchasing 

measured on a mass basis would result 

in an extraordinarily large and 

nonsensical growth rate. EPA reviewed 

data from the past three October 1 

allocation cycles and found that the top 

three highest entity-specific AAGRs 

from each of the allocation cycles 

ranged from about 125 percent or 

higher, with the lowest ‘‘small use’’ of 

HFCs in a particular year of less than 5 

kg. Thus, the Agency is proposing 200 

percent as the AAGR cutoff and less 

than 100 kg as the ‘‘small use’’ cutoff. 

For the second category, it is 

mathematically impossible to calculate 

a growth rate based on zero purchases 

in a year under EPA’s existing 

regulatory formula. Entities that had 

zero purchases in one of the three years 

under consideration would also have to 

be determined to be an active purchaser 

prior to a year with zero purchases. It 

is not EPA’s intent to capture entities 

that are new in an application under 

this alternative pathway. 

EPA is separately proposing a 

different allocation approach for all very 

small purchasers of HFCs. EPA is 

proposing to define entities in this 

category as anyone whose HFC 

purchases add up to less than 100 kg in 

each of the previous three years. The 

Agency recognizes there are certain 

entities that purchase the same small 

quantities of regulated substances every 

year who may not follow a growthoriented use similar to that of entities 

that use HFCs in wide-scale, 

commercial operations. Examples of 

these uses could include those meant 

for small batch use in one of the eligible 

applications for research and 

development and/or entities that may 

not yet be manufacturing commercially 

if, for example in the case of MDIs, the 

entity is still in the product 

development phase, is only 

manufacturing small numbers of MDIs 

(e.g., for clinical trials), and is waiting 

for final FDA approval. For these 

entities, EPA proposes to allocate the 

highest, determined on an EVe basis, of 

an entity’s past three years’ worth of 

purchases, since their use stays 

relatively consistent over time. EPA is 

taking comment on whether the Agency 

should look back further at up to five 

years’ worth of purchase history. EPA 

based this number on the past three 

October 1 allocation cycles, and 

reviewed purchasing patterns for the 

smallest purchasers who are not new to 

the HFC market and would not be 

considered entities with irregular 

purchase histories. EPA is taking 

comment on the cutoff threshold on 

what size purchases would allow for an 

entity to be considered a ‘‘small user.’’ 

EPA is also soliciting comment on 

whether, combined with this approach 

or as an alternative to this approach, 

EPA should round allowance 

allocations for very small purchasers to 

account for purchase of a specific 

cylinder volume. In order to take this 

approach, EPA requests comment on the 

typical cylinder volume sizes used in 

these small purchases. EPA would also 

require eligible applicants to provide 

information on the cylinders being 

purchased in their biannual reporting. 

D. Average Annual Growth Rate 

Calculations 

EPA currently calculates AAGR on an 

MTEVe basis. This process involves 

converting the mass (e.g., kilogram) of 

each HFC into MTEVe and summing 

those MTEVe quantities across each 

year, before applying the AAGR formula 

described earlier in this section. The 

Agency is providing courtesy notice of 

a change going forward to calculate 

AAGR on a mass basis. This new 

process would be based on summing all 

HFCs together for each year to get a total 

quantity based on mass and using this 

mass quantity in the AAGR formula. 

AAGR calculations are not codified in 

the regulations, so this is not a 

regulatory revision, but EPA is 

providing this notice given broader 

methodology changes proposed in this 

rulemaking. 

EPA is modifying this calculation 

because we are concerned that as 

entities transition to lower-GWP HFCs, 

an AAGR calculated on an MTEVe basis 

will not appropriately reflect their 

projected demand for HFCs in the 

upcoming calendar year. For example, 

under an MTEVe-based AAGR 

calculation, an entity transitioning to a 

lower-GWP HFC, which has an 

associated lower EV, could have a 

negative AAGR while simultaneously 

experiencing a growth in actual HFC 

usage. In this situation, the entity would 

be allocated an amount of allowances 

lower than its current year’s HFC use. 

While entities will require fewer 

allowances to purchase these lowerGWP HFCs, until a company has a full 

three years of purchase data with this 

lower-GWP HFC, the calculated 

allowances may be substantially less 

than projected demand, either 

increasing by too small an amount or in 

some cases declining despite an actual 

increase in demand. It would be a 

perverse outcome for entities to receive 

an insufficient HFC allocation because 

they are transitioning to a lower-GWP 

alternative. 

In addition, growth calculated on a 

mass basis is more reflective of demand 

than MTEVe and is not impacted by any 

potential swings resulting from 

purchasing differing levels of HFCs with 

different EV values each year. For 

example, a company purchasing 20 kg 

of HFC–41 in one year and 40 kg of 

HFC–23, which has an EV 

approximately 160 times that of HFC– 

41, the following year would have the 

same growth rate as a company 

purchasing 20 kg of HFC–41 in one year 

and 40 kg of HFC–41 the next year (i.e., 

the growth rate for that year is 100 

percent for both companies versus 

32,000 percent for the first company and 

100 percent for the second company). 

E. Inventory 

EPA’s current regulations require 

entities receiving ASAs to provide, as 

part of their biannual reporting 

requirements, information on the 

quantities of HFCs left in their inventory 

at the end of the previous six-month 

reporting period (40 CFR 

84.31(h)(1)(iv)). Upon finalization of 

this rulemaking and heading into the 

allocation of calendar year 2026 

allowances, EPA will have several years 

of data on inventory, including how 

inventory levels have changed over 

time. In the Allocation Framework Rule, 

EPA noted its intent to account for 

changes in inventory in the allocation of 

ASAs (86 FR 55116, 55152, October 5, 

2021). 

EPA is proposing to include verified 

changes in inventory into the 

calculation of the quantity of HFCs an 

entity used over the 12-month period for 

all allocations except MCMEU. Changes 

in inventory are documented 

information as to how an entity used 

HFCs in a particular year. For example, 

if an entity purchased 100 kg of HFCs, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75929 

and their inventory grew by 50 kg, this 

would suggest that the entity used 50 kg 

in the manufacturing process under the 

applicable application. In this instance, 

consideration of purchases minus 

inventory buildup is a more accurate 

reflection of HFC use by the entity than 

HFC purchases would be alone. EPA 

proposes to factor in both drawdown 

and growth in inventory; a drawdown of 

inventory would be added to HFC 

purchases and a buildup of inventory 

would be subtracted from HFC 

purchases. 

EPA is proposing that this approach 

would not apply to calculation of 

MCMEU allowance allocations because 

DOD has a history of building up 

inventory and may need to do so for 

mission-critical or national security 

purposes. The Agency acknowledges 

that building inventories can be an 

important strategy for other entities to 

navigate changing market conditions, 

especially in advance of the 2029 

reduction step. Therefore, as part of this 

proposal, EPA is also including that 

entities may provide a rationale as to 

why a buildup in inventory should not 

be subtracted from the quantities of 

HFCs they annually acquire. An 

example of what the Agency would 

consider to be acceptable rationale 

would be if a producer announced that 

they would be ceasing production of an 

HFC that is used in a particular 

application, and the entity wanted to 

build up inventory of that HFC to 

continue manufacturing of their product 

while they figured out their transition 

timeline. Another example could 

include a situation where an entity had 

to purchase a minimum volume (e.g., a 

full ISO tank) and that last purchase 

resulted in an increase in inventory. 

In the alternative, EPA is proposing to 

not incorporate small amounts of 

growth in inventory in allocation 

decisions. EPA would propose to define 

a small amount of growth as below 20 

percent or, alternatively, growth in 

inventory for only a single year. EPA 

invites comment on this alternative 

pathway and also what the Agency 

should consider to be a small amount of 

inventory growth. 

F. Department of Defense Conferrals 

In the Allocation Framework Rule, 

EPA finalized that anyone conferring an 

ASA, except for the conferral of 

allowances for MCMEU, would be 

required to submit information about 

each conferral prior to conferring 

allowances (40 CFR 84.31(h)(4)). While 

DOD was not required to submit 

conferral information to EPA, DOD was 

required to maintain records 

documenting the conferral(s) of ASAs to 

other entities up to and including the 

producer or importer of the chemical 

(40 CFR 84.31(h)(7)(iv)). 

In order to ensure that certain imports 

are not delayed or denied, EPA is 

proposing to modify the 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A regulations to require that 

DOD report information consistent with 

the required reporting of conferral data 

from all other ASA holders. This would 

include the identity of each conferrer 

and conferee and the quantity in MTEVe 

of ASAs being conferred. This proposed 

regulatory change would not be a 

significant burden for DOD because 

DOD is already required to track this 

data internally (40 CFR 84.31(h)(7)). 

If finalized, this regulatory revision 

would bring the process for conferring 

MCMEU allowances in line with other 

entities receiving ASAs. The Allocation 

Framework Rule noted that one of the 

goals of this requirement was ‘‘to ensure 

EPA has the requisite information to 

track application-specific allowances’’ 

(86 FR 55116, 55189, October 5, 2021). 

When an HFC supplier reports to EPA 

that they have expended ASAs other 

than MCMEU allowances, conferral 

reports have allowed EPA to confirm 

whether that supplier was in possession 

of ASAs. With MCMEU allowances, 

given that DOD is not required to share 

information about the conferral of 

MCMEU allowances with EPA, the 

Agency has encountered difficulty 

verifying whether suppliers are in 

possession of MCMEU allowances. EPA 

is particularly concerned that without 

conferral information for MCMEU 

allowances, the Agency would 

recommend that U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) deny entry of 

an import of HFCs bound for MCMEU. 

This could cause unnecessary delays for 

DOD and extra costs for importers. 

Different reporting requirements for 

MCMEU allowances has resulted in 

unexpected confusion and delays in the 

approval of some producer and/or 

importer quarterly reports, increasing 

administrative burden for DOD, entities 

who are producing and importing on 

behalf of DOD, and EPA. If finalized, 

this regulatory change would help 

address these issues. 

In addition to bringing the process for 

conferring MCMEU allowances in line 

with other entities receiving ASAs, EPA 

is proposing one additional requirement 

for the conferral of MCMEU allowances, 

per a request from DOD. To enable 

clearer tracking of MCMEU allowances 

from initial conferral to expenditure, 

EPA is proposing to require that a 

certificate number, generated by DOD, 

be reported to EPA for each conferral 

and expenditure of MCMEU allowances. 

For example, if an intermediary receives 

a conferral of MCMEU allowances from 

DOD and then confers the allowances 

further to a supplier, both DOD and the 

intermediary must report the same 

certificate number as part of the 

conferral. Finally, when the supplier 

expends the conferred MCMEU 

allowances for production or import of 

HFCs, the supplier must report the 

certificate number in the same report in 

which the expenditure of MCMEU 

allowances is reported. This additional 

layer of tracking conferrals could further 

relieve any unexpected confusion. 

G. Limited Set-Aside for Unique 

Circumstances Related to MDIs 

Some stakeholders have expressed 

concern that an annual allocation 

decision is not always sufficient to meet 

the needs of the entities eligible for 

ASAs. Entities have noted that 

unanticipated events may arise after 

July 31, when requests for ASAs are 

due, that legitimately necessitate an 

increased need to purchase more HFCs 

than expected. EPA received a comment 

to the Allocation Framework Rule (86 

FR 55116, October 5, 2021) requesting 

that EPA create a separate additional 

pool of allowances to accommodate 

growth, new mid-year entrants, and 

‘‘under-allocation.’’ At the time of that 

rulemaking, EPA determined that 

establishing such a pool of allowances 

was unnecessary because the Agency 

had set up an allocation formula to 

allocate the full quantity of allowances 

necessary, and setting allowances aside 

just in case they were needed would 

reduce the allowances available to 

general pool allowance holders thereby 

reducing how many HFCs can be 

imported or produced if the set-aside 

allowances went unexpended. EPA also 

noted that a company can access HFCs 

from the open market; if a company 

used more HFCs in a given year, that 

increased use would be reflected in the 

next year’s allocation. However, EPA 

also noted that the Agency would learn 

from implementation of the program 

and consider adjusting the methodology 

(86 FR 55116, 55151, October 5, 2021). 

Based on the Agency’s observations in 

implementing the ASA allocations over 

the past three years, EPA is proposing 

to create a set-aside of allowances 

specifically for situations that meet the 

criteria for the unique circumstance 

established in 40 CFR 84.13(b)(1)(iii), 

including the proposed changes 

described in Section VII.B of this 

preamble. In other words, this would be 

a set aside to accommodate unforeseen 

need for regulated substances related to 

a global pandemic, other public health 

emergency, or other healthcare system 

needs related to increased patients 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75930 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

diagnosed with medical conditions 

treated by MDIs. EPA still sees 

significant downsides to creating a setaside of allowances for unforeseen 

demands in the eligible applications as 

outlined in the Allocation Framework 

Rule, but does see benefit in creating a 

set-aside for the singular narrow 

possibility of a public health emergency 

or other unforeseen event that would 

specifically affect availability of MDIs. 

As a result, EPA is proposing to set 

aside allowances that would be 

available for the use of HFCs as a 

propellant in MDIs if the requester 

meets the criteria for the unique 

circumstance as defined in in 40 CFR 

84.13(b)(1)(iii). Application-specific 

entities could apply to EPA for these 

allowances based on a demonstrated 

need to purchase more HFCs in the 

present calendar year in light of events 

that were unforeseen at the time of the 

entity’s application for ASAs for the 

calendar year at issue. For example, 

during the beginnings of the COVID–19 

pandemic in 2020, MDI manufacturers 

purchased nearly 40% more HFC–134a 

than they did in 2019, which is 

substantially more than they would 

have been allocated based on Year 3 

purchases and the application’s AAGR; 

this extra demand also could not have 

been predicted in July 2019, when 

manufacturers would have applied for 

calendar year 2020 allowances. EPA 

would consult with the FDA in 

determining whether the presented 

situation meets the criteria as defined, 

but scenarios could include a global 

pandemic. Other examples of situations 

that could qualify are described in 

Section VII.B. EPA is also taking 

comment on whether there are other 

analogous situations where an 

unexpected increased need for HFCs 

resulting from the other established and 

proposed unique circumstances could 

arise in which the facts would justify 

the potential use of another set-aside for 

ASA holders. If a commenter identifies 

such a situation, EPA requests that the 

commenter also provide information on 

how EPA would appropriately cabin 

requests to demand that was truly 

unexpected and unforeseeable and also 

information on what entities should 

have to provide as evidence when 

applying for set-aside ASAs. At a 

minimum, it seems appropriate to 

require a requesting entity to present 

EPA with information on how facts have 

changed that were unknowable at the 

time the entity applied for that year’s 

ASAs and also evidence that the entity 

has been unable to acquire needed HFCs 

from the open market or through 

allowance transfer. EPA seeks comment 

on the appropriate records that would 

need to be provided to EPA to document 

the entity’s unsuccessful efforts to 

acquire HFCs without additional 

allowances from EPA. EPA would likely 

require at least some of the records 

described in Section VI of this 

preamble. 

EPA is presenting a series of options 

for comment on how such a set-aside 

pool would be created. Under Option 1, 

which is EPA’s preferred option, EPA 

would form this pool by setting aside 10 

percent of the allocation of certain 

entities—those that produced or 

imported HFCs during 2011–2019 to 

serve the applications eligible for ASAs, 

except MCMEU. An entity that 

produced or imported HFCs in the time 

range of 2011–2019 for a separate entity 

now receiving ASAs is getting a current 

HFC allowance allocation based on 

those past purchases. At the same time, 

ASAs are being issued to entities for 

conferral to a producer or importer. This 

can be viewed as a double allocation. 

For example, if Entity A imported for an 

MDI manufacturer in 2011–2019, those 

historic imports are included in 

calculating Entity A’s allowance 

allocation. In other words, Entity A is 

getting a higher allowance allocation 

because of their imports for an MDI 

manufacturer. At the same time, the 

MDI manufacturer is being allocated 

ASAs, which can be conferred to Entity 

A to import HFCs for the MDI 

manufacturer. Therefore, Entity A has 

two sets of allowances available to them 

as a result of being an importer for MDI 

manufacturers. Because of this aspect of 

the design of EPA’s allocation system, if 

EPA were to create a set-aside of 

allowances for application-specific 

entities, EPA proposes to hold back 10 

percent of the allocation of entities that 

produced and imported for applicationspecific uses during 2011–2019. This 

appears more equitable than holding 

back a set amount of allowances from all 

general pool allowance holders, since 

only those that historically imported 

and produced for application-specific 

uses may have two sets of allowances 

now available to them. Of course, 

because a company that historically 

produced or imported for applicationspecific uses has two sets of allowances 

available to them, it seems that they 

should have sufficient production and/ 

or consumption allowances available to 

purchase additional HFCs for an 

application-specific entity if an 

unexpected need arises. EPA is 

soliciting comment on whether, because 

of this fact, a set-aside is not truly 

needed, or if a set-aside is necessary 

because historic importers and 

producers are requiring conferral of 

ASAs to meet the needs of applicationspecific entities. 

Under this proposed Option 1 

approach, EPA would withhold 10 

percent of the identified entities’ 

allowances until April 30. If no 

application-specific entity applied for 

the allowances by April 30, then the 

withheld allowances would be issued to 

the entities from which they were 

withheld. If a request is pending, EPA 

would withhold allowances until that 

request was evaluated and allowances 

were issued. Such issuance would be 

done in a proportionate fashion if some, 

but not all, of the set-aside allowances 

were allocated to application-specific 

entities. EPA seeks comment on 

whether April 30 is late enough in the 

year to provide the appropriate safety 

value for unforeseen public health 

emergencies and other healthcare 

system needs. 

Alternatively, Option 2 would be that 

EPA would create a set-aside pool for 

application-specific entities in the event 

of a public health emergency or other 

healthcare system need from any 

revoked allowances, including from 

administrative consequences already 

finalized. In the Allocation Framework 

Rule, EPA created administrative 

consequences whereby EPA can adjust 

allowance allocations if EPA determines 

that a person failed to comply with 

certain requirements relating to the HFC 

allowance allocation and trading 

program. Under the administrative 

consequence tool, a revoked allowance 

is one that EPA takes back from an 

allowance holder and redistributes to all 

other allowance holders (86 FR 55116, 

55169, October 5, 2021). Under this 

second option, instead of redistributing 

revoked allowances to all other 

allowance holders, EPA would put the 

revoked allowances into a set-aside pool 

in case additional ASAs were needed as 

a result of a public health emergency. 

One potential flaw with this proposed 

approach is that to date, entities could 

expend ASAs to either produce or 

import HFCs. EPA created ASAs to 

function this way because end users in 

the identified applications may not 

know in advance how they will procure 

HFCs, and this method provides 

flexibility to ensure that end users 

receive the ‘‘full quantity of allowances 

necessary,’’ (86 FR 55148). To ensure 

that these ASAs are provided within the 

overall annual production and 

consumption caps, EPA subtracts the 

amount of ASAs allocated from both the 

production and consumption general 

allowance pools (40 CFR 84.9(a)(3); 

84.11(a)(3)). However, to date, EPA has 

only revoked consumption 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75931 

31See https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcsreduction/administrative-consequences-under-hfcallocation-rule. 

32The sales provision in 40 CFR 84.5 does not 

apply to other government personnel or contractors 

that need to move the HFCs for eventual disposition 

consistent with the regulatory requirements, such as 

through an auction with verification by EPA prior 

to sale. 

allowances.31 EPA would likely need to 

hold back some amount of production 

allowances under this option, up to 

1,000,000 MTEVe, to ensure sufficient 

allowances were available. 

A third, less preferred option, would 

be to hold back a set amount of 

allowances. This set-aside would be 

created from all general pool allowance 

holders. EPA proposes that the Agency 

could hold back allowances in the range 

of 500,000 to 1,000,000 MTEVe 

production and consumption 

allowances. If no application-specific 

entity applied for the allowances by 

April 30, then the withheld allowances 

would be issued to the entities from 

which they were withheld. If a request 

is pending, EPA would withhold 

allowances until that request was 

evaluated and allowances were issued. 

As explained previously, this approach 

seems less equitable than Option 1. This 

approach also does not allay the 

concerns identified by EPA in the 

Allocation Framework Rule for 

establishing a set-aside for ASAs. 

However, EPA is interested in 

stakeholder input regarding this option. 

Finally, as an alternative to creating a 

set-aside at all, EPA is taking comment 

on the possibility of allowing conferral 

of ASAs from other applications in the 

event an unforeseen event that meets 

the unique circumstance outlined in 40 

CFR 84.13(b)(1)(iii). Under EPA’s 

current regulations, conferred ASAs 

may only be used to produce or import 

HFCs for the application-specific use 

associated with the allowance(s) (40 

CFR 84.13(h)). Under this alternative, 

EPA would amend the regulations such 

that if an unforeseen event meeting 40 

CFR 84.13(b)(1)(iii), ASAs could be 

conferred and expended to produce or 

import HFCs for application-specific use 

different from the application associated 

with the allowance. For example, if EPA 

agreed that there was a public health 

emergency that created an unexpected 

need to purchase more HFCs for MDI 

manufacturing, under this approach 

ASAs allocated for aerospace fire 

suppression could be conferred to 

import or produce HFCs for use in MDI 

manufacturing. 

EPA seeks comment on these 

proposals, in particular on the scope of 

the need, the number of allowances that 

are expected to need to be set aside, the 

date by which requests must be received 

to be considered, and all other aspects 

of the proposal. 

H. Return of Unneeded Allowances 

EPA is aware that some applicationspecific entities are allocated more 

allowances than are necessary to 

accommodate their needs for a given 

calendar year. This may be because for 

that specific year, the regulatory formula 

overestimated that individual entity’s 

need. It is also possible that the entity’s 

expectations for the year did not match 

reality because of unexpected 

intervening events, such as a drop in 

demand for the entity’s products or 

supply chain difficulties. In light of 

these considerations, EPA is proposing 

to allow ASA holders to return their 

allowances voluntarily if they do not 

intend to use them. ASA holders could 

return allowances up to and including 

June 30 of the year for which the 

allowances can be expended (e.g., 

calendar year 2025 allowances would 

have to be returned by June 30, 2025). 

This would be completely optional and 

intended to be used at the discretion of 

the ASA holder. EPA proposes to use 

any returned allowances to either: (1) 

fulfill unexpected higher demand of 

another ASA holder (see proposal in 

Section VII.G of this preamble); or (2) 

return the allowances to the general 

pool of allowance holders proportionate 

to respective market shares. EPA sees 

benefit of redeploying allowances that 

would go unused into the overall HFC 

market for smoother transition and to 

ease the overall HFC phasedown. 

EPA is soliciting comment on this 

proposal, including whether it is needed 

if EPA finalizes other proposals outlined 

in this notice. EPA is particularly 

interested in whether this proposed 

approach is needed if EPA finalizes the 

requirement for entities to include in 

their application for allowances their 

anticipated need for the following 

calendar year. EPA is also interested in 

stakeholder input on whether codifying 

an ability for entities to return unneeded 

allowances would have unintended 

negative effects, including limiting the 

availability of allowances for transfer to 

another application-specific entity that 

has an unanticipated need for more 

allowances during the calendar year. 

I. Enabling Auctions of Illegally 

Imported HFCs 

In addition to the proposed changes to 

EPA’s application-specific regulations 

outlined in this section, EPA is also 

proposing a targeted change to the 

regulations related to the enforcement 

and compliance provisions EPA 

finalized in the Allocation Framework 

Rule. As explained in the Allocation 

Framework Rule, EPA established a 

comprehensive system of mechanisms 

that together and by themselves 

discourage and prevent illegal 

production, import, and subsequent 

sales of illegally produced or imported 

HFCs. Since the requirement came into 

effect that entities must expend 

allowances to produce or import HFCs, 

EPA has been working with partner 

agencies across the Federal government 

to implement a comprehensive 

enforcement and compliance program. 

One issue that EPA has been 

grappling with is what to do with HFCs 

that an entity imports or attempts to 

import without expending the requisite 

number of allowances. Among other 

things, the Federal government has been 

considering reexport, destruction, and 

auctions as potential available pathways 

for such HFCs. EPA is in the process of 

working with partner Federal agencies, 

particularly CBP, to consider the 

feasibility of an auction of HFCs that 

have been stopped or seized by CBP as 

was done in the past with illegally 

imported ODS. As part of this process, 

EPA has identified a provision in the 

existing 40 CFR part 84 regulations that 

could be read to inhibit some auctions 

of HFCs, although there is nothing in 40 

CFR part 84 that prohibits auctions. In 

order to ensure auctions are an option, 

if the Federal government otherwise 

chooses to pursue them, EPA in this 

rulemaking is proposing to amend the 

prohibition relating to the sale and 

prohibition of illegally imported HFCs 

in 40 CFR 84.5 to clarify that a person 

may sell or distribute, or offer for sale 

or distribution, a regulated substance 

purchased at an auction authorized by 

CBP if the buyer expended consumption 

allowances or ASAs in a quantity equal 

to the EV-weighted equivalent of the 

illegally imported regulated substances. 

This proposed change would provide 

explicit clarity to an entity that 

purchases HFCs at such an auction that 

the HFCs they purchase can be sold as 

if they were initially imported with 

allowances.32

EPA is also proposing targeted 

changes to the reporting requirements to 

provide clarity in the regulations for 

how such purchases would be reported. 

EPA proposes that entities purchasing 

HFCs at auction would need to report 

the import of those HFCs (that was done 

by another entity prior to the auction 

purchase) under 40 CFR 84.31(c)(1) and 

maintain records consistent with 40 

CFR 84.31(c)(2). EPA proposes that 

entities would use the date that entry 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75932 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

33EPA is not reopening nor proposing to revisit 

the methodology for issuing general pool 

production and consumption HFC allowances in 

this rulemaking. 

34 Given that the prohibition of (j)(1) does not take 

effect until 2033, and EPA is proposing to make 

allowances available to Iofina through 2030, EPA 

does not consider this restriction related to 

subsection (j)(1) as relevant to this rulemaking. 

was filed for the HFCs purchased at 

auction for purposes of 40 CFR 

84.31(c)(1) reporting and maintain 

records of that purchase under 40 CFR 

84.31(c)(2). This would provide a date 

that can be easily verified and would 

align with when the entity formally 

expressed intent to CBP to enter the 

HFCs into U.S. commerce. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing that 

entities who purchase HFCs at auction 

would not be subject to the advance 

notification requirement in 40 CFR 

84.31(c)(7) for HFCs purchased via an 

auction authorized by CBP, as the 

window for the notification would have 

already passed and EPA would be 

verifying whether a prospective 

purchaser has sufficient allowances as 

part of any auction. However, EPA 

proposes that entities would still have 

to provide notification to EPA via a 

CBP-authorized electronic data 

interchange system, such as the 

Automated Broker Interface, prior to the 

HFCs entering U.S. commerce and 

provide the same data elements as in 40 

CFR 84.31(c)(7). If a certificate of 

analysis (see 40 CFR 84.31(c)(7)(xvi)) is 

not available at the time of filing entry, 

EPA is proposing that the entity would 

need to do any required sampling and 

testing prior to sale in U.S. commerce. 

J. Quarterly Exporter Reporting of 

Internal Transaction Numbers 

ITNs uniquely identify shipments 

being exported from the U.S. to another 

country. EPA currently requires 

companies to report ITNs when they 

request additional consumption 

allowances after exporting bulk HFCs. 

EPA is proposing to require companies 

to additionally report ITNs quarterly for 

all HFC exports. It is EPA’s 

understanding that reporters can obtain 

ITNs from either CBP or their broker 

with relative ease, once they have a 

process to do so in place. Many 

reporters already gather ITNs on a 

regular basis for the purpose of 

submitting RACA reports. 

Under CBP regulations, there are 

some instances in which exporters may 

acquire ITNs but are not required to do 

so. These instances may include exports 

to Canada and lower-value exports, for 

example. EPA proposes that exporters 

would not be required to report ITNs for 

shipments that are exempt from needing 

ITNs under CBP regulations. EPA is not 

proposing any changes to the existing 

regulations related to RACAs, so 

reporters would still need to obtain 

ITNs for any exports listed in RACA 

submissions (e.g., exports to Canada). 

EPA is proposing to require exporters 

to report ITNs quarterly to better enable 

EPA to perform quality assurance and 

integrity checks between exports 

reported to the Agency under the 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 84.31 

with Customs records. This, in turn, 

will enable EPA to better ensure the 

accuracy of the overall volume of HFCs 

that are exported, which is a critical 

component of the overall calculation of 

the HFC phasedown, in addition to 

being communicated for transparency to 

stakeholders and being a key part of the 

Agency’s international reporting 

obligations under the Montreal Protocol. 

K. Date of Purchase for Requests for 

Additional Consumption Allowances 

(RACAs) 

EPA is proposing to change the 

existing requirement in 40 CFR 

84.17(a)(5) to report the date HFCs were 

purchased as part of a RACA. Instead, 

EPA would require an entity to only 

report whether the HFCs exported were 

purchased before January 1, 2022, or 

after that date. EPA has received 

feedback from entities requesting 

RACAs that it is difficult to report the 

date HFCs were purchased because the 

information can be difficult to obtain. 

For example, a company may purchase 

several batches of HFCs over the course 

of several months and combine these 

batches into a homogenous mixture in 

an on-site holding tank. These batches 

of HFCs could come from multiple 

suppliers. The contents of the holding 

tank are then siphoned off into smaller 

containers and exported to a foreign 

country, at which point the company 

seeks a RACA for those exported HFCs. 

In this scenario, it is difficult to 

determine what the ‘‘date of purchase’’ 

was for any given container of HFCs that 

was exported. 

When EPA initially codified the 

requirement to provide the date 

purchased as part of a RACA, the 

primary purpose of this data element 

was to track how much material is being 

exported out of pre-2022 inventory, 

before the phasedown program was in 

effect. This, in turn, helps the Agency 

understand certain market trends (e.g., 

how many containers are being sold out 

of older inventory as opposed to more 

recently purchased inventory). 

However, EPA can track this trend with 

a simpler data element. Accordingly, 

EPA proposes to change the existing 

requirement to provide the date HFCs 

were purchased to whether the HFCs 

were purchased before or after January 

1, 2022. 

VIII. Authorization To Produce for 

Export 

In previous rulemakings, i.e., the 

Allocation Framework Rule and the 

2024 Allocation Rule, some commenters 

expressed concern that under EPA’s 

methodology for issuing production and 

consumption allowances, certain 

producers were not allocated sufficient 

allowances to meet the demands of their 

international customers working in 

applications for which ASAs were 

allocated to the domestic manufacturers. 

Commenters said that foreign 

semiconductor manufacturing remains 

important even while domestic 

semiconductor manufacturing increases 

under the CHIPS Act. 

This issue was generally beyond the 

scope of prior rulemakings, but EPA 

recognizes that under the methodology 

for issuing general pool production and 

consumption HFC allowances 33 in 

tandem with how ASAs have 

historically been issued, domestic HFC 

producers that manufacture low EV 

HFCs with proportionally smaller 

market shares may face challenges due 

to a combination of the phasedown 

itself, EPA’s allocation methodology, 

and that EPA does not allocate ASAs for 

entities’ operations outside the United 

States. 

Subsection (e)(5) of the AIM Act 

provides that the Administrator may 

authorize an entity to produce a 

regulated substance in excess of the 

number of production allowances 

otherwise allocated to that entity, 

subject to several conditions including: 

• The authorization is valid for a 

renewable period of not more than five 

years; 

• Authorization must be established 

via notice and opportunity for public 

comment; and 

• The production is solely for export 

to, and use in, a foreign country that is 

not subject to the prohibition in 

subsection (j)(1); 34 and 

• The production so authorized 

would not violate the production or 

consumption limits. 

EPA has received a request from 

Iofina Chemical (Iofina) to authorize 

additional production of HFCs under 

subsection (e)(5) that can be exported to 

supply semiconductor manufacturers 

outside of the United States. Iofina has 

informed EPA that it has experienced 

challenges acquiring HFC allowances 

via a transfer from another allowance 

holder so it can produce low-EV, HFC– 

41, to sell to semiconductors 

manufacturers abroad. Iofina has flagged 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75933 

35See EPA HFC Data Hub at https://

www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/hfc-data-hub. 

36Percent = (Number of Production of 

Allowances Issued)/(Production Cap)*100. 

this challenge for EPA for several years. 

The company has also noted that even 

if it were able to secure a transfer for a 

single year, Iofina could not plan over 

multiple years. 

EPA has considered Iofina’s specific 

situation, the limited number of 

allowances that would be needed to 

accommodate its request, and its stated 

intent to export HFCs for use in an 

application that Congress specified in 

subsection (e)(4)(B) of the AIM Act, and 

is proposing to authorize Iofina to 

undertake additional production for 

export as contemplated by AIM Act 

subsection (e)(5). To operationalize this 

subsection of the AIM Act, EPA is 

proposing to establish a production for 

export category of allowances and 

associated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. EPA is proposing that this 

new category of allowances would be 

nontransferable. Consistent with 

language in subsection (e)(5) of the AIM 

Act that EPA may ‘‘authorize an entity’’ 

(emphasis added), the Agency is 

proposing that these production for 

export allowances would be available 

only to Iofina to supply regulated HFCs 

to application-specific end users located 

abroad, specifically and only for the 

etching of semiconductor material or 

wafers and cleaning of CVD chambers 

within the semiconductor 

manufacturing sector. EPA is proposing 

to issue 3,000.0 MTEVe of allowances 

annually to Iofina for the stated purpose 

for each of the calendar years 2026 

through 2030. 

EPA proposes to determine that 

authorization of production for export to 

Iofina in this instance is appropriate and 

consistent with subsection (e)(5) of the 

AIM Act. EPA proposes that this is 

particularly true where the ASA 

requirements of subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) 

provide priority access to HFCs for 

defined applications. This proposal is 

intended to address a need that has been 

voiced consistently and exclusively by 

Iofina, for which Iofina has provided 

supporting information to substantiate 

the request. 

EPA is proposing to allocate 3,000.0 

MTEVe non-transferrable production for 

export allowances exclusively to Iofina 

on an annual basis for each of the 

calendar years 2026 through 2030. A 

detailed discussion of the rationale for 

the Agency’s proposal follows. 

A. To what entities is EPA proposing to 

allocate production for export 

allowances? 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to only allocate production for export 

allowances to Iofina. The Agency has 

determined that the company has 

demonstrated their need for production 

for export allowances. Iofina has made 

good faith efforts to acquire allowances 

via an inter-company transfer and has 

had difficulty finding another allowance 

holder willing to transfer production 

and consumption allowances to them in 

order to produce regulated HFCs for 

export. Iofina has documented foreign 

customer demand in an applicationspecific end use for the HFC they 

produce. Iofina has committed to 

conduct extensive due diligence to 

verify and ensure that the HFCs they 

sell abroad are only sold to an entity 

that will use the HFC for the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

cleaning of CVD chambers within the 

semiconductor manufacturing sector 

and are not going to be diverted for 

some other use (e.g., destroyed for 

carbon credits, sold to another entity 

that will use the HFCs for another end 

use). 

EPA has also considered how this 

authorization supports the HFC 

phasedown overall. Iofina produces 

only one HFC, HFC–41, one of the 

lowest EV HFCs controlled by the AIM 

Act with an EV of 92, at its facility in 

Covington, Kentucky. Iofina produced 

HFCs during the 2011–2019 timeline 

and in subsequent years, and 

accordingly have been allocated 

allowances for calendar years 2022, 

2023, and 2024. Because Iofina has 

always produced a low EV HFC, their 

allocation is smaller than companies 

that have historically produced higher 

EV HFCs, which now have flexibility to 

transition into a lower EV HFC at higher 

volumes. HFC–41 comprises a small 

portion of overall U.S. HFC calculated 

production 35 (0.02 percent in 2022 on a 

mass basis and approximately 0.001 

percent on an EVe basis), and Iofina is 

the only U.S. producer of HFC–41 for 

consumptive use. Further, HFC–41 has 

a lower EV than all other regulated 

substances used in the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector. Coupled with the extremely 

small volume of allowances that this 

production would require, EPA sees 

authorizing this additional flexibility as 

appropriate to support continued U.S. 

production of HFC–41. 

EPA recognizes that upon reviewing 

this proposed rulemaking, there may be 

other HFC producers who would be 

interested in receiving production for 

export allowances for applicationspecific uses abroad. At this time, EPA 

has only assessed the appropriateness of 

proposing an allocation for Iofina in 

light of the specific circumstances 

presented by that entity. The Agency is 

not proposing, nor creating a 

mechanism to finalize, production for 

export allowances for any other entity 

through this rulemaking. If other 

producers were to express a similar 

interest, EPA would consider whether to 

act in a separate rulemaking under 

subsection (e)(5), but we emphasize that 

this action is dependent on facts 

specific to Iofina, including the 

relatively small size of Iofina’s 

production and the modest impacts on 

the overall market for HFCs that will 

result. 

B. How many production for export 

allowances is EPA proposing to issue to 

Iofina on an annual basis, and for how 

many years is EPA proposing to issue 

these allowances? 

EPA is proposing to issue Iofina nontransferrable production for export 

allowances in the amount of 3,000.0 

MTEVe on an annual basis. The Agency 

arrived at this proposed amount based 

on an evaluation of a combination of 

factors including: Iofina’s request; 

supporting information from the 

company explaining and demonstrating 

the need for production for export 

allowances; Iofina’s relative market 

share of production allowances and 

recent yearly allocations from EPA; 

recent conferral activity where Iofina is 

the recipient; and, the general effect to 

other producers of issuing Iofina 

production for export allowances in the 

proposed amount. 

The production cap for calendar year 

2024 through 2028 (the current 

phasedown step) is 229,521,263 MTEVe 

and the production cap for calendar 

year 2029 through 2033 (the next 

phasedown step) is 114,760,632 MTEVe. 

The proposed number of production for 

export allowances the Agency would 

issue Iofina would be approximately 

0.001 percent of the overall production 

cap for 2026 through 2028 and 0.003 

percent for 2029 and 2030.36

Accordingly, the Agency does not 

envision any shortage of production 

allowances for these years as a result of 

the proposal to issue Iofina 3,000.0 

MTEVe of production for export 

allowances. In essence, the proposed 

3,000.0 MTEVe of production for export 

allowances issued to Iofina would not 

materially affect any other domestic 

producer even in light of the next 

phasedown step. 

Consistent with the provisions in 

subsection (e)(5)(A)(i), EPA is proposing 

that if finalized, Iofina would be issued 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75934 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

production for export allowances on an 

annual basis for a five-year period 

between 2026 through 2030. 

C. Would Iofina need to expend 

consumption allowances for materials 

produced with production for export 

allowances and subsequently exported? 

Subsection (e)(5) of the AIM Act 

allows EPA to ‘‘authorize a person to 

produce’’ for export if such production 

would not violate the yearly cap 

described in subsection (e)(2)(B). To 

operationalize this statutory 

requirement, EPA proposes to require 

that any material produced with 

production for export allowances must 

be exported in the same year it was 

produced. The AIM Act defines 

‘‘consumption’’ as the amount of HFCs 

produced and imported minus the 

quantity of HFCs exported. Therefore, 

production of an HFC in a given year 

would be ‘‘netted out’’ when calculating 

consumption if that HFC is exported in 

that same year. Because HFCs produced 

with production for export allowances 

would be exported in the same year and 

therefore would be ‘‘netted out’’ when 

evaluating the United States’ calculated 

yearly consumption, EPA is proposing 

that when Iofina produces for export 

using this specific category of 

allowances, it is not required to expend 

consumption allowances in an 

equivalent amount. Relatedly, EPA is 

also proposing that Iofina’s materials 

produced with production for export 

allowances are not eligible for 

additional consumption allowances 

through the RACA provisions in 40 CFR 

84.17. 

D. How will this process affect the 

issuance of other types of allowances? 

Under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A, EPA 

first issues ASAs. Because the Agency is 

proposing an annual finite number of 

production for export allowances for 

Iofina, EPA proposes to issue these nontransferrable allowances immediately 

after ASAs are issued. As a result, EPA 

is proposing small modifications to 40 

CFR 84.9 to reflect that the number of 

available general pool production 

allowances is the difference between the 

yearly production cap and the sum of 

ASAs issued and the number of 

production for export allowances. It 

should be noted that because 

production for export allowances is a 

separate category from general pool 

production allowances, Iofina would be 

eligible for both of these types of 

allowances beginning in 2026 through 

2030 if the production for export 

allowance provisions are finalized. EPA 

is not proposing any changes to how 

general pool consumption allowances 

are issued on an annual basis and is 

neither revising nor reopening the 

methodology codified in 40 CFR 84.11. 

E. What are the proposed recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for 

production for export allowances? 

In order to maintain overall 

stringency while allowing for the 

flexibilities in the AIM Act described in 

this general information section of the 

preamble, EPA is proposing that Iofina 

comply with recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in addition to 

what is already required of the entity as 

a domestic producer under 40 CFR 

84.31(a) and (b) and as an exporter 

under 40 CFR 84.31(d). 

1. Annual Certifications 

EPA is proposing that Iofina secure 

signed certifications by a responsible 

corporate officer from their overseas 

application-specific customers attesting 

that any regulated HFCs produced using 

production for export allowances will 

only be used in application-specific 

uses (i.e., only for the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

the cleaning of CVD chambers within 

the semiconductor manufacturing 

sector). EPA is proposing that Iofina 

must provide such written and signed 

certification for each of their overseas 

customers, accompanied by a 

description of how the foreign use 

aligns with the definitions in 40 CFR 

84.13(a) and 40 CFR 84.3. If the 

regulated HFCs produced by Iofina 

using product for export allowances are 

to be held at an intermediary prior to 

receipt by the semiconductor 

manufacturer, the intermediary must 

also submit the same certification. As 

part of the yearly written certification, 

EPA is proposing that the name and 

address of the foreign entity, and the 

contact person’s name, email address, 

and phone number are included. 

Further, EPA is proposing that Iofina 

must provide copies of these signed 

certifications with its end of year fourth 

quarter report due February 14 (i.e., 

certifications for calendar year 1 are due 

on February 14 of year 2). 

2. Quarterly Export and Inventory 

Reporting 

In addition to submitting the quarterly 

exporter reports currently required 

under 40 CFR 84.31(a) and (b), the 

Agency is proposing that Iofina must, as 

part of these quarterly exporter reports, 

document the amounts exported that 

were produced using production for 

export allowances. Iofina would also be 

required to document the country to 

which HFCs were exported. As part of 

this documentation and to help ensure 

that EPA can quickly locate exports of 

regulated HFCs produced by Iofina, the 

Agency is proposing that an ITN be 

provided for each shipment regardless 

of monetary value, destination country, 

or other characteristics that could 

otherwise exempt or preclude an 

exporting entity from obtaining an ITN. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing that 

Iofina report quarterly no later than 45 

days after the applicable quarterly 

control period on inventory of regulated 

HFCs produced with production for 

export allowances so EPA can 

effectively track their use. Inventory of 

regulated HFCs produced with 

production for export allowances must 

be zero as of December 31 for that 

calendar year; otherwise, EPA may 

pursue actions including but not limited 

to allowance adjustments, i.e., 

administrative consequences, or 

enforcement action. All reports 

described in this section would be 

subject to EPA’s auditing provisions 

under 40 CFR 84.33 if finalized as 

proposed. 

3. Recordkeeping 

EPA is proposing that Iofina 

maintains for a period of five years the 

certifications from all of its customers 

and any intermediaries attesting that the 

regulated HFCs they are receiving are 

only to be used for the etching of 

semiconductor material or wafers and 

cleaning of CVD chambers within the 

semiconductor manufacturing sector. 

The Agency is also proposing that Iofina 

maintain for a period of five years 

records demonstrating that Iofina has 

conducted extensive due diligence to 

verify and ensure that the HFCs they 

sell abroad are only sold to an entity 

that will use the HFC for an applicationspecific use and are not going to be 

diverted for some other use (e.g., 

destroyed for carbon credits, sold to 

another entity that will use the HFCs for 

another end use). 

IX. How will EPA handle 

confidentiality for newly reported 

information? 

Consistent with EPA’s commitment to 

transparency in program 

implementation, as well as to 

proactively encourage compliance, 

support enforcement of program 

requirements, and enable third-party 

engagement to complement EPA’s 

enforcement efforts, EPA is proposing 

several ways it intends to release data 

that would be collected if this proposed 

rule is finalized as proposed. 

EPA has reviewed the data elements 

that are proposed to be reported under 

this rulemaking. Based on that review, 

EPA is proposing certain confidentiality 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75935 

37This approach of making categorical 

determinations for a class of information is a wellestablished Agency practice. Prior examples of rules 

where EPA has made such categorical 

determinations include Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Required Under the 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 

Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain 

Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act (76 

FR 30817) (May 26, 2011); Control of Air Pollution 

From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 

Vehicle Standards (88 FR 4296) (January 24, 2023); 

and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS 

Annual Rules (87 FR 39600) (July 1, 2002). 

38 ‘‘Exemption 4 After the Supreme Court’s Ruling 

in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media 

and Accompanying Step-by-Step Guide,’’ Office of 

Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (October 4, 2019), 

available at https://www.justice.gov/oip/exemption4-after-supreme-courts-ruling-food-marketinginstitute-v-argus-leader-media. 

39See id.; see also ‘‘Step-by-Step Guide for 

Determining if Commercial or Financial 

Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential 

under Exemption 4 of the FOIA,’’ Office of 

Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (updated October 7, 

2019), available at https://www.justice.gov/oip/stepstep-guide-determining-if-commercial-or-financialinformation-obtained-person-confidential. 

determinations in advance through this 

notice and comment rulemaking for 

individual reported data elements that 

EPA would be collecting through this 

rulemaking. This proposal identifies 

certain information that must be 

submitted to EPA that may be subject to 

disclosure to the public without further 

notice because the Agency proposes to 

find that the information does not meet 

the standard for confidential treatment 

under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). EPA is also 

proposing to identify certain other 

categories of information that would be 

entitled to confidential treatment. For 

data elements for which EPA is not 

making a confidentiality determination 

in this action, EPA will apply the 40 

CFR part 2 process for establishing caseby-case confidentiality determinations. 

The confidentiality determinations in 

this proposed action are intended to 

increase the efficiency with which the 

Agency responds to FOIA requests and 

to provide consistency in the treatment 

of the same or similar information. 

Establishing these determinations 

through this rulemaking will provide 

predictability for both information 

requesters and entities submitting 

information to EPA. The confidentiality 

determinations are also proposed to 

increase transparency around this 

program’s implementation. 

A. Background on Determinations of 

Whether Information Is Entitled to 

Treatment as Confidential Information 

Exemption 4 of the FOIA exempts 

from disclosure ‘‘trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person [that is] 

privileged or confidential’’ (5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4)). In order for information to 

meet the requirements of Exemption 4, 

EPA must find that the information is 

either: (1) a trade secret, or (2) 

commercial or financial information 

that is: (a) obtained from a person, and 

(b) privileged or confidential. 

Generally, when we have information 

that we intend to disclose publicly that 

is covered by a claim of confidentiality 

under FOIA Exemption 4, EPA has a 

process to make case-by-case or class 

determinations under 40 CFR part 2 to 

evaluate whether such information 

qualifies for confidential treatment 

under the exemption. 40 CFR 2.205.37 In 

this action, EPA is proposing to make 

categorical confidentiality 

determinations in advance through this 

notice and comment rulemaking for 

some information that must be 

submitted to EPA under the proposed 

requirements. If EPA finalizes these 

determinations, that information could 

be disclosed to the public without 

further notice. 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in 

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus 

Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) 

(Argus Leader) addresses the meaning of 

‘‘confidential’’ within the context of 

FOIA Exemption 4. The Court held that 

‘‘[a]t least where commercial or 

financial information is both 

customarily and actually treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the 

government under an assurance of 

privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ 

within the meaning of Exemption 4.’’ 

Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. at 2366. The 

Court identified two conditions ‘‘that 

might be required for information 

communicated to another to be 

considered confidential.’’ Id. at 2363. 

Under the first condition, ‘‘information 

communicated to another remains 

confidential whenever it is customarily 

kept private, or at least closely held, by 

the person imparting it.’’ Id. (internal 

citations omitted). The second condition 

provides that ‘‘information might be 

considered confidential only if the party 

receiving it provides some assurance 

that it will remain secret.’’ Id. (internal 

citations omitted). The Court found that 

the first condition necessary for 

information to be considered 

confidential within the meaning of 

Exemption 4, but did not address 

whether the second condition must also 

be met. 

Following the issuance of the Court’s 

opinion in Argus Leader, the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) issued 

guidance concerning the confidentiality 

prong of Exemption 4, articulating ‘‘the 

newly defined contours of Exemption 

4’’ post-Argus Leader.38 Where the 

Government provides an express or 

implied indication to the submitter 

prior to or at the time the information 

is submitted to the Government that the 

Government would publicly disclose 

the information, then the submitter 

generally cannot reasonably expect 

confidentiality of the information upon 

submission, and the information is not 

entitled to confidential treatment under 

Exemption 4.39 In this proposed rule, 

EPA intends to clearly assert that certain 

information would not be kept 

confidential and may be disclosed 

publicly, if it is determined to not be 

entitled to confidential treatment in the 

final version of this rulemaking. This 

assertion aligns with the Supreme 

Court’s decision, and the subsequent 

DOJ guidance that the government’s 

assurances that a submission will be 

treated as not confidential should 

dictate the expectations of submitters. If 

EPA were to finalize these 

determinations, submitters would be on 

notice before they submit any 

information that EPA has determined 

that the identified information outlined 

in the memorandum provided in the 

docket for this action titled Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data 

Elements in the Proposed Rule, will not 

be entitled to confidential treatment 

upon submission and may be released 

by the Agency without further notice. 

As a result, submitters will not have a 

reasonable expectation that the 

information will be treated as 

confidential; rather, they should have 

the expectation that the information will 

be disclosed. 

As described further below, EPA is 

proposing to make categorical 

confidentiality determinations as some 

of the proposed data elements that 

would be submitted to EPA contain 

information that is not entitled to 

confidential treatment. For data 

elements not explicitly listed in the 

document in the docket, EPA will apply 

the 40 CFR part 2 process for 

establishing case-by-case confidentiality 

determinations. 

There may be additional reasons not 

to release information determined to not 

be entitled to confidential treatment, for 

example if it is personally identifiable 

information (PII). The Agency will 

separately determine whether any data 

should be withheld from release for 

reasons other than business 

confidentiality before data is released. 

EPA requests comment on the proposed 

confidentiality determinations. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75936 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

40For example, EPA is proposing that (1) data on 

the proportion of the overall cost of the product or 

system that reflects the cost of regulated 

substance(s) and (2) historic and projected sales for 

the product or system would not be treated as 

confidential business information, as these are 

important elements for the public to consider when 

EPA is taking action on a petition for applicationspecific allowances. 

B. Data Elements Associated With a 

Petition To Be Listed as an Application 

That Will Receive Application-Specific 

Allowances 

In light of the statutory requirement in 

subsection (e)(4)(B)(ii) to make a 

complete petition available to the 

public, and consistent with EPA’s 

commitment to transparency in program 

implementation, EPA has reviewed the 

data elements EPA has proposed would 

be required for a petition to be listed as 

an application that will receive ASAs. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to not 

provide confidential treatment to, and 

may release without further process, all 

required elements of the petition, except 

for a subset of the elements for which 

EPA has proposed that multiple entities 

could submit information individually 

to EPA; 40 and all information submitted 

to EPA that does not correspond to a 

required element. The memorandum to 

the docket lists each individual element 

of a complete petition, as proposed by 

EPA, with an accompanying proposed 

determination on whether that element 

would be entitled or not to confidential 

treatment. EPA is proposing that 

through this rulemaking, entities are put 

on notice of data release in line with the 

Argus Leader decision. EPA is providing 

an express indication to all potential 

petitioners prior to the time information 

is submitted to EPA that EPA will 

publicly disclose the information 

without further process. Therefore, 

potential future submitters cannot 

reasonably expect confidentiality of the 

information upon submission, and the 

information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment under Exemption 

4. EPA invites comment on this 

proposed determination. 

C. Data Elements Related to Proposed 

Revisions to Existing Regulations 

To maximize program transparency, 

EPA is proposing to release several data 

elements associated with the proposed 

limited changes to existing regulations, 

including specific data elements 

associated with the following proposed 

regulatory revisions: (1) a pool of setaside allowances for situations that meet 

the criteria for unique circumstances 

related to the propellants in MDIs 

application; (2) allowing ASA holders to 

return their allowances voluntarily if 

they do not intend to use them; and (3) 

the ‘‘date of purchase’’ requirement for 

a RACA. The memorandum to the 

docket lists each individual element 

EPA has proposed related to these 

regulatory revisions with an 

accompanying proposed determination 

on whether that element would be 

entitled or not to confidential treatment. 

EPA is proposing that through this 

rulemaking notice, entities are put on 

notice of data release in line with the 

Argus Leader decision. EPA is providing 

an express indication to all entities prior 

to the time information is submitted to 

EPA that EPA will publicly disclose the 

information without further process. 

Therefore, potential future submitters 

cannot reasonably expect confidentiality 

of the information upon submission, 

and the information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment under Exemption 

4. EPA invites comment on this 

proposed determination. 

EPA is proposing to regulatorily 

determine that certain other information 

would be entitled to confidential 

treatment. EPA is proposing that 

supporting documentation verifying a 

need to purchase regulated substances 

in the present calendar year for 

purposes of the proposed set aside 

because it is likely to include the type 

of information that submitters 

customarily keep private or closely 

held. EPA is also proposing that data 

elements associated with the following 

proposed regulatory revisions would be 

entitled to confidential treatment: (1) 

requiring companies provide the total 

expected amount of HFCs they intend to 

purchase in the calendar year; (2) new 

requirements for the conferral of 

MCMEU allowances; and (3) requiring 

exporters to report ITNs quarterly. 

These data elements constitute the type 

of information that submitters 

customarily keep private or closely 

held. Furthermore, in the case of ITNs 

reported by exporters, it is EPA’s 

understanding that the ITN, as part of 

the Electronic Export Information (EEI) 

contained in the Automated Export 

System (AES), is considered 

confidential by the Department of 

Commerce. Additional information on 

the proposed determinations for specific 

data elements associated with the 

proposed regulatory revisions is 

provided in the memorandum in the 

docket for this action. EPA invites 

comments on these proposed 

confidentiality determinations, 

including information on whether the 

listed elements are the type of 

information customarily kept private or 

closely held. 

D. Data Elements Reported to EPA 

Related to Production for Export 

EPA is proposing to establish a 

production for export category of 

allowances as described in Section VIII. 

If EPA were to finalize the proposal for 

production for export allowances, EPA 

is proposing to release several data 

elements that a production for export 

allowance holder would be required to 

submit, including: (1) quantity of 

allowances expended for each regulated 

substance; (2) quantity of each regulated 

substance produced for export; (3) 

quantity of each regulated substance, 

produced using production for export 

allowances, that was exported; (4) 

quantity of each regulated substance 

held in inventory at the end of the 

quarter; and (5) the country to which 

regulated substances, produced using 

production for export allowances, were 

exported. The memorandum to the 

docket lists each individual element 

EPA has proposed related to the 

production for export allowances with 

an accompanying proposed 

determination on whether that element 

would be entitled or not to confidential 

treatment. EPA is proposing that 

through this rulemaking, entities are put 

on notice of data release in line with the 

Argus Leader decision. EPA is providing 

an express indication to all entities prior 

to the time information is submitted to 

EPA that EPA will publicly disclose the 

information without further process. 

Therefore, potential future submitters 

cannot reasonably expect confidentiality 

of the information upon submission, 

and the information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment under Exemption 

4. EPA invites comment on this 

proposed determination. 

EPA is proposing that the ITNs 

submitted for all exports of regulated 

substances produced using production 

for export allowances would be entitled 

to confidential treatment for the same 

rationale described earlier in this 

section for the proposed requirement 

that exporters report ITNs on a quarterly 

basis. EPA requests comment on this 

proposed determination, including 

comments on why this information may 

not be entitled to confidential treatment. 

EPA is proposing that the signed 

certifications would be entitled to 

confidential treatment because it is 

EPA’s understanding that these 

certifications could have the potential to 

reveal confidential business 

relationships (i.e., the relationship 

between the allowance holder, overseas 

customer, and any intermediaries). EPA 

requests comment on this proposed 

determination, including comments on 

why this information may not be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75937 

entitled to confidential treatment. 

Specifically, EPA requests comment on 

whether the existence of a business 

relationship between an HFC producer 

and customer is information that is 

customarily closely held. 

X. What are the costs and benefits of 

this action? 

The changes proposed in this 

proposed rule would not result in any 

significant changes to the phasedown 

program as a whole, and thus do not 

fundamentally change the assumptions 

made in the Allocation Framework Rule 

RIA and subsequent RIA addenda. The 

Allocation Framework Rule RIA 

estimated benefits and costs for the HFC 

phasedown between 2022 and 2050, 

including assuming for analytical 

purposes that the allocation system 

would continue unchanged for years 

past the initial period (i.e., for 2024 and 

beyond). This action would not change 

the total number of allowances issued 

each year or the associated 

environmental impacts. Further, the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule RIA 

Addendum quantified the costs and 

benefits associated with the transitions 

necessary for compliance based on the 

sector- and subsector-specific 

restrictions finalized in that rule. Given 

that the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule promulgated restrictions for sectors 

that encompass both defense sprays and 

SCPPU foams (aerosols and foam 

blowing sectors, respectively), the 

compliance costs associated with the 

proposals described in Section V of this 

proposed rule to restrict the use of 

certain HFCs in defense sprays and 

SCPPU foams have already been 

accounted for in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule RIA Addendum. 

Therefore, EPA is not developing an 

update to the RIA for this proposed rule; 

however, given that some elements 

proposed in this rulemaking could 

result in incremental impacts for a 

subset of entities, the Agency did 

analyze potentially salient costs and 

benefits considerations associated with 

this proposed rulemaking. A summary 

of this analysis is included below, and 

additional details are presented in 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits for 

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Review and Renewal of Eligibility for 

Application-specific Allowances, which 

is available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0196). 

This analysis is intended to provide 

the public with information on the 

relevant costs and benefits of this action 

and to comply with Executive Orders. 

The analysis does not form a basis or 

rationale for any of the actions EPA is 

proposing in this rulemaking. 

For entities in applications for which 

EPA is co-proposing an option to not 

renew eligibility for ASAs, the biggest 

drivers for any costs would be no longer 

being exempted from the restrictions 

promulgated under the Technology 

Transitions Program. However, entities 

within those applications that currently 

receive ASAs would also avoid 

recordkeeping and reporting costs 

associated with being an ASA holder 

because they would no longer receive 

ASAs and thereby no longer need to 

comply with related recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions, resulting in 

burden relief. 

General pool allowance holders may 

receive benefits in the form of 

additional allowances if EPA finalized 

one or more applications no longer 

being eligible for ASAs. However, EPA 

anticipates that the number of 

additional allowances would be 

insignificant, totaling well under one 

percent of consumption allowances in a 

given year. For example, the number of 

allowances allocated in calendar year 

2024 to the two applications for which 

EPA is co-proposing an option to not 

renew is equivalent to 0.1 percent of 

calendar year 2024 consumption 

allowances. In addition, as these 

marginal benefits constitute a transfer 

from one group to another and do not 

change the total number of allowances 

issued, there is no net societal impact. 

EPA estimates that there may be costs 

related to the proposed requirements for 

ASA petitions and revisions to existing 

regulations. For example, in a scenario 

in which EPA does not renew the 

defense sprays and SCPPU foam for 

marine and trailer uses applications, the 

estimated costs of this proposed rule 

would be $19,052 in one-time costs and 

$54,310 in annual costs. More 

discussion of this scenario is included 

in the costs and benefits memo available 

in the docket that is referenced above. 

Other than these costs, EPA has not 

identified additional costs or benefits 

beyond those estimated in the 

Allocation Framework Rule RIA and 

subsequent RIA addenda. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 

12866 review. Documentation of any 

changes made in response to the 

Executive Order 12866 review is 

available in the docket. EPA prepared 

an economic analysis of the potential 

impacts associated with this action. 

This analysis, ‘‘Discussion of Costs and 

Benefits for Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Review and 

Renewal of Eligibility for Applicationspecific Allowances,’’ is available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2024–0196) and is briefly summarized 

in Section X of this preamble, titled, 

‘‘What are the costs and benefits of this 

action?’’. The high end costs of this 

proposed rule are estimated in the table 

below: 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF COSTS IN SCENARIO IN WHICH DEFENSE SPRAYS AND SCPPU FOAM FOR MARINE AND TRAILER

USES APPLICATIONS ARE NOT RENEWED

Activity One-time 

costs Annual costs 

Application-specific allowance recordkeeping and reporting burden relief for entities no longer eligible for ASAs ........................ $(189,728) 

Technology Transitions recordkeeping and reporting burden for entities no longer eligible for ASAs .................. 19,052 221,462 

Petitions requesting eligibility for ASAs ................................................................................................................... ........................ 12,758 

Other regulatory revisions ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ 9,818 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 19,052 54,310 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75938 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2685.05. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this proposed 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

Subsection (d)(1)(A) of the AIM Act 

specifies that on a periodic basis, but 

not less than annually, each person that, 

within the applicable reporting period, 

produces, imports, exports, destroys, 

transforms, uses as a process agent, or 

reclaims a regulated substance shall 

submit to EPA a report that describes, as 

applicable, the quantity of the regulated 

substance that the person: produced, 

imported, and exported; reclaimed; 

destroyed by a technology approved by 

the Administrator; used and entirely 

consumed (except for trace quantities) 

in the manufacture of another chemical; 

or, used as a process agent. EPA collects 

such data regularly to support 

implementation of the AIM Act’s HFC 

phasedown provisions. EPA requires 

quarterly reporting to ensure that annual 

production and consumption limits are 

not exceeded. It is also needed for EPA 

to be able to review allowance transfer 

requests, of which remaining 

allowances is a major component of 

EPA’s review. In addition, EPA collects 

information to calculate allowances, to 

track the movement of HFCs through 

commerce, and to require auditing. 

Collecting these data elements allows 

EPA to confirm that the entity has not 

exceeded its allowed level of production 

and consumption and that the 

aggregated annual quantity of 

production and consumption in the 

United States does not exceed the cap 

established in the AIM Act. As 

described above in this preamble, EPA 

is proposing a procedural process for 

submitting a petition to designate a new 

application as eligible for priority access 

to allowances; reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements relevant for 

narrow revisions to the methodology 

used to allocate allowances to ASA 

holders for calendar years 2026 and 

beyond; and other limited reporting and 

recordkeeping revisions, such as for the 

proposal to authorize an entity to 

produce regulated substances for export. 

All information sent by the submitter 

electronically is transmitted securely to 

protect information that is CBI or 

claimed as CBI consistent with the 

confidentiality determinations made in 

the Allocation Framework Rule and the 

proposed confidentiality determinations 

described in Section IX of this 

preamble, if finalized as proposed. The 

reporting tool guides the user through 

the process of submitting such data. 

Documents containing information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted in an 

electronic format, in accordance with 

the recordkeeping requirements. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Respondents and affected entities will 

be individuals or entities that produce, 

import, export, reclaim, recycle for use 

as a fire suppressant, distribute, destroy, 

transform, use HFCs as a process agent, 

or produce for export, certain HFCs that 

are defined as a regulated substance 

under the AIM Act. Respondents and 

affected entities will also be any entity 

issued or conferred ASAs. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (AIM Act). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

342. 

Frequency of response: Quarterly, 

biannual, annual, and as needed 

depending on the nature of the report. 

Total estimated burden: 36,248 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $5,486,236 (per 

year), includes $1,038,450 annualized 

capital or operation & maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this proposed rule. The 

EPA will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. You may 

also send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs using the interface at 

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

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. OMB must 

receive comments no later than October 

16, 2024. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) under the RFA. The small 

entities subject to the requirements of 

this action are entities that hold HFC 

allowance allocations (including 

production, consumption, and 

application-specific allowances), 

entities that applied for but did not 

receive set-aside allowances in 2022, 

entities that previously imported HFCs 

between 2017 and 2019 but did not 

receive 2022 allowance allocations, and 

entities that recover and reprocess 

HFCs. Given there are co-proposals for 

two applications, EPA conducted this 

preliminary screening analysis based on 

the pathway that could lead to the 

highest cost burden on small entities; 

therefore, this analysis assumes for 

analytical purposes that the defense 

sprays and SCPPU foam for marine and 

trailer uses applications will not be 

renewed. The Agency has determined 

that four of the 276 affected small 

businesses—or 1.4 percent of all 

affected small businesses—could incur 

costs in excess of one percent of annual 

sales, and three of those four small 

businesses—or 1.1 percent of all 

affected small businesses—could incur 

costs in excess of 3 percent of annual 

sales. The four entities that could incur 

costs in excess of one percent of annual 

sales are all entities that currently 

receive ASAs in the defense sprays and 

SCPPU foam for marine and trailer uses 

applications. These costs are primarily 

driven by these entities no longer being 

exempted from Technology Transition 

Program restrictions. Further details of 

this analysis are presented in Economic 

Impact Screening Analysis for 

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Review and Renewal of Eligibility for 

Application-specific Allowances, which 

is available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0196). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate of $100 million 

(adjusted annually for inflation) or more 

(in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 

2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

Tribal governments and the costs 

involved in this action are estimated not 

to exceed $183 million in 2023$ ($100 

million in 1995$ adjusted for inflation 

using the GDP implicit price deflator) or 

more in any one year. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75939 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. EPA is not aware of Tribal 

businesses engaged in activities that 

would be directly affected by this 

action. Based on the Agency’s 

assessments, EPA also does not believe 

that potential effects, even if direct, 

would be substantial. Accordingly, this 

action will not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA periodically updates Tribal 

officials on air regulations through the 

monthly meetings of the National Tribal 

Air Association and has shared 

information on this rulemaking through 

this and other fora. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not concern an environmental health 

risk or safety risk. Since this action does 

not concern human health, EPA’s Policy 

on Children’s Health also does not 

apply. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action applies to certain regulated 

substances and certain applications 

containing regulated substances, none of 

which are used to supply or distribute 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that this type of 

action does not concern human health 

or environmental conditions and 

therefore cannot be evaluated with 

respect to potentially disproportionate 

and adverse effects on communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

This proposed rule does not change the 

HFC phasedown schedule. 

Although this action does not concern 

human health or environmental 

conditions, the EPA identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns associated with the HFC 

phasedown within the Allocation 

Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 

5, 2021) and the 2024 Allocation Rule 

(88 FR 46836, July 20, 2023). In these 

rulemakings, EPA identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns by assessing available 

information to analyze baseline human 

health or environmental conditions, 

conducting updated analyses based on 

more recently available data, and 

providing meaningful participation 

opportunities for communities with 

environmental justice concerns. EPA 

carefully evaluated available 

information on HFC production 

facilities and the characteristics of 

nearby communities. Based on EPA’s 

analysis, EPA found evidence of 

environmental justice concerns near 

HFC production facilities from 

cumulative exposure to existing 

environmental hazards in these 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 84 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Climate Change, Emissions, Imports, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 84 as follows: 

PART 84 PHASEDOWN OF 

HYDROFLUOROCARBONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 84 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, Division S, 

Sec. 103. 

■ 2. Amend § 84.3 by adding the 

definitions ‘‘Healthcare system need’’, 

‘‘Responsible corporate officer’’, and 

‘‘Responsible official’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 84.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Healthcare system need means 

circumstances where an increase in 

demand for MDIs used to treat asthma, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

and other respiratory diseases may 

occur because of a change in market 

conditions that otherwise would not be 

included in calculated rates of growth. 

* * * * * 

Responsible corporate officer means a 

person who is authorized by the 

regulated entity to make representations 

on behalf of, or obligate the company as 

ultimately responsible for, any activity 

regulated under 40 CFR part 84, subpart 

A. 

Responsible official means a person 

who is authorized by the regulated 

entity to make representations on behalf 

of, or obligate the company as 

ultimately responsible for, any activity 

regulated under 40 CFR part 84, subpart 

A. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 84.5 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), adding ‘‘, 

unexpended production for export 

allowances,’’ after the phrase 

‘‘unexpended production allowances 

and consumption allowances’’. 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(2). 

■ c. In paragraph (d), adding 

‘‘production for export,’’ after ‘‘All 

production, consumption,’’ and adding 

‘‘production for export,’’ after the phrase 

‘‘confer a production, consumption,’’. 

■ d. Revising paragraph (f). 

■ e. Adding paragraph (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 84.5 Prohibitions relating to regulated 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) No person may use a regulated 

substance produced or imported by 

expending application-specific 

allowances for any purpose other than 

those for which the application-specific 

allowance was allocated, and as set 

forth in this paragraph (c). Applicationspecific allowances are apportioned to a 

person under §§ 84.13 and 84.15 for the 

production or import of regulated 

substances solely for the individual 

application listed on the allowance. 

* * * * * 

(f) Sale and distribution. No person 

may sell or distribute, or offer for sale 

or distribution, any regulated substance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75940 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

that was produced or imported in 

violation of paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section, except: 

(1) for such actions needed to reexport the regulated substance; or 

(2) if the regulated substance was 

purchased at a government auction 

authorized by the United States 

Customs and Border Protection and 

consumption allowances were 

expended in the requisite quantity to 

cover the regulated substances at issue. 

Every kilogram of a regulated 

substance sold or distributed, or offered 

for sale or distribution, in contravention 

of this paragraph constitutes a separate 

violation of this subpart. Sale or 

distribution, or offer for sale or 

distribution, of less than one kilogram of 

regulated substance in contravention of 

this paragraph constitutes a separate 

violation of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(k) Production for export allowances. 

No person may use a regulated 

substance produced by expending 

production for export allowances for 

any purpose other than those for which 

the production for export allowance was 

allocated, aligning with the applications 

as listed in § 84.13(a). 

■ 4. Amend § 84.9 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(3) adding ‘‘and 

3,000.0 MTEVe allowances to be 

allocated pursuant to § 84.18,’’ after 

‘‘§ 84.13’’. 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d). 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (c). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 84.9 Allocation of calendar-year 

production allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) Starting with the allocation of 2026 

calendar year allowances, the relevant 

Agency official will withhold ten 

percent of production allowances 

otherwise calculated under paragraph 

(b) of this section from any entity that 

produced regulated substances in any 

calendar year 2011 through 2019 for a 

separate entity that is being issued 

application-specific allowances in 

accordance with § 84.13, except for 

mission-critical military end uses. If 

there are remaining production 

allowances after distribution from the 

set-aside under § 84.15, the relevant 

agency official will distribute such 

allowances to the entity from which 

they were withheld. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 84.11 by: 

■ a. Redesignating the second paragraph 

(c) as paragraph (e). 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d). 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (c). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 84.11 Allocation of calendar-year 

consumption allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) Starting with the allocation of 2026 

calendar year allowances, the relevant 

Agency official will withhold ten 

percent of consumption allowances 

otherwise calculated under paragraph 

(b) of this section from any entity that 

imported regulated substances in any 

calendar year 2011 through 2019 for a 

separate entity that is being issued 

application-specific allowances in 

accordance with § 84.13, except for 

mission-critical military end uses. If 

there are remaining consumption 

allowances after distribution from the 

set-aside under § 84.15, the relevant 

agency official will distribute such 

allowances to the entity from which 

they were withheld. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 84.13 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing ‘‘2022, 

2023, 2024, and 2025’’ and adding in 

their place ‘‘as designated’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(1), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2030’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘metered dose inhalers’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(2), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2025’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘defense sprays’’. 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(3), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2030’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘trailer use’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (a)(4), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2030’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘semiconductor manufacturing 

sector’’. 

■ f. In paragraph (a)(5), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2030’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘end uses’’. 

■ g. In paragraph (a)(6), adding ‘‘for 

calendar years 2022–2030’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘fire suppression’’. 

■ h. In paragraph (b)(1), adding ‘‘, 

including supporting documentation 

that verifies this need’’ after the phrase 

‘‘this section’’. 

■ i. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii) remove ‘‘or’’ 

after the phrase ‘‘facility or facilities;’’. 

■ j. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing ‘‘A 

global pandemic or other public health 

emergency that increases’’ and adding 

in their place ‘‘A global pandemic, other 

public health emergency, or other 

healthcare system needs related to 

increased’’ and removing ‘‘inhalers.’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘inhalers;’’. 

■ k. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and 

(v). 

■ l. Adding paragraph (b)(2). 

■ m. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as 

paragraph (c)(7). 

■ n. Adding new paragraph (c)(1). 

■ o. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) through 

(6). 

■ p. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(7) introductory text. 

■ q. Removing paragraph (e). 

■ r. Redesignating paragraphs (f) 

through (h) as paragraphs (e) through 

(g), respectively. 

■ s. Adding new paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 84.13 Allocation of application-specific 

allowances. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Economic disruption outside the 

immediate control of the applicant; or 

(v) Buildup of a stockpile of a specific 

regulated substance in the event of a 

production cessation. Requests for this 

unique circumstances must include: a 

letter from the applicant’s supplier 

signed by a responsible corporate officer 

stating that the supplier is ceasing all 

production of the regulated substance at 

issue within three years; certification 

that the applicant has regulatory 

requirements beyond this part that limit 

ability to switch suppliers or there are 

no other suppliers that could meet their 

needs; and evidence that the applicant 

has a restricted HFC supply chain. 

(2) Entities must provide an estimate 

of the total quantity of regulated 

substances they expect to purchase in 

the following calendar year based on 

their expected eligibility for allowances. 

(c) * * * 

(1) Accounting for verified changes in 

inventory in calculating growth rates 

and purchase amounts, except: 

(i) for applications for mission-critical 

military end uses; and 

(ii) if the applying entity provides a 

rationale deemed acceptable by the 

relevant agency official as to why 

inventory buildup should not be 

accounted for; 

* * * * * 

(4) Subtracting out quantities reported 

under § 84.31(h)(1)(x) in calculating 

growth rates and purchase amounts; 

(5) Allocating allowances equivalent 

to the highest verified purchase amount 

measured in exchange value equivalent 

from the prior three years for entities 

that meet any of the following criteria: 

(i) entity purchased less than 100 

kilograms of regulated substances in at 

least one of the last three years, and the 

average growth rate of use for the 

company over the past three years 

calculated under paragraph (7)(i) is 

equal to or greater than 200 percent; 

(ii) entity had zero purchases in one 

of the last three years for reasons other 

than newly using regulated substances; 

or 

(iii) entity purchased equal to or less 

than 100 kilograms of regulated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75941 

substances in each of the past three 

years; 

(6) For the application of structural 

composite preformed polyurethane 

foam for marine use and trailer use, 

utilizing the exchange value for HFC– 

152a in calculating the allowance 

allocation, regardless of what regulated 

substance was used by an entity; 

(7) For all other entities, multiplying 

the use of regulated substances by the 

company in the specific application in 

the prior year by the higher of: 

* * * * * 

(h) Any entity receiving an allocation 

of allowances pursuant to this section 

may voluntarily choose to return any 

quantity of allowances to EPA up to, 

and including, June 30 of the calendar 

year in which the allowances can be 

expended. If any allowances are so 

returned, those allowances will be 

distributed to the persons who meet the 

criteria listed in §§ 84.9 and 84.11 

proportionate to entities’ market share 

as calculated in §§ 84.9(b)(2) and 

84.11(b)(5). 

■ 7. Add § 84.14 to read as follows: 

§ 84.14 Petition for designation of an 

application as eligible for applicationspecific allowances. 

(a) Petitions filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e)(4)(B)(ii) must include: 

(1) A description of the application, 

including an explanation of what the 

application is, what purpose or function 

it achieves, and what populations or 

commercial products benefit from the 

application; 

(2) A list of regulated substance(s) and 

description of their use in the 

application and an explanation as to 

why regulated substances are required 

in the application; 

(3) Evidence that no safe or 

technically achievable substitute is or is 

expected to be available, and that the 

petitioner has conducted research to 

evaluate substitutes for the regulated 

substance(s); 

(4) Evidence that supply of the 

regulated substance(s) used in the 

application is insufficient to 

accommodate the application; 

(5) A signed and notarized 

certification from a responsible 

corporate officer at the requesting entity 

that the application cannot use 

recovered and reprocessed regulated 

substance in conjunction with or in 

place of virgin regulated substance, 

either due to demonstrated lack of 

technical achievability or insufficient 

supply, and an explanation and 

evidence documenting why recovered 

and reprocessed regulated substance 

cannot be used for the application; 

(6) Total quantity (in kilograms) of all 

regulated substances acquired by each 

entity submitting the petition for the 

application specified in the petition in 

each of the previous three years, 

including records documenting that 

quantity; 

(7) The name of the entity or entities 

supplying regulated substances and 

contact information for those suppliers 

over the past three years; 

(8) Total quantity (in kilograms) of 

each regulated substance held in 

inventory by each entity submitting the 

petition as of the date the petition is 

submitted; 

(9) An estimate of the total quantity of 

regulated substances the petitioner 

expects to purchase in the first year it 

would be eligible for ASAs; 

(10) Data on the proportion of the 

overall cost of the product or system 

that reflects the cost of regulated 

substances for each entity; 

(11) Historic and projected sales for 

the product or system for each entity; 

(12) Evidence of research into design 

changes to decrease the amount of 

regulated substance used in the product 

or system; 

(13) An explanation regarding 

whether the use of the regulated 

substance(s) is necessary for the health, 

safety, or is critical for the functioning 

of society (encompassing cultural and 

intellectual aspects); 

(14) An explanation regarding steps 

taken to minimize the use of the 

regulated substance and any associated 

emission of the HFC(s); and 

(15) Information on regulatory 

restrictions related to possible 

alternatives and substitutes. 

(b) If the petition does not include the 

required information listed in paragraph 

(a), the petition will be deemed 

incomplete, and EPA will notify the 

entity submitting the petition. 

(c) In the event that an application 

becomes eligible to receive applicationspecific allowances: 

(1) EPA will allocate allowances to 

entities in a new application in 

accordance with § 84.13; and 

(2) A new application would be 

eligible to receive application-specific 

allowances for no longer than the latest 

calendar year included in § 84.13(a). 

■ 8. Amend § 84.15 by adding paragraph 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 84.15 Set-aside of application-specific 

allowances, production allowances, and 

consumption allowances. 

* * * * * 

(h) Consumption and production 

allowances from § 84.9(c) and § 84.11(c) 

are available in the form of applicationspecific allowances to entities that 

request them no later than April 30 of 

the calendar year in which the 

allowances may be expended that: 

(1) qualify for application-specific 

allowances under § 84.13; 

(2) provide supporting documentation 

that verify a need to purchase regulated 

substances in the present calendar year 

beyond what is reflected by the rates of 

growth calculated in § 84.13(c)(1); 

(3) are facing a situation that qualifies 

as a unique circumstance as defined in 

§ 84.13(b)(iii); and 

(4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the relevant agency official that the 

situation described in paragraph (3) was 

unknowable at the time the entity made 

its request for application-specific 

allowances pursuant to § 84.13(b). 

■ 9. Amend § 84.17 by: 

■ a. In the introductory text, adding the 

language ‘‘, except for the export of 

regulated substances produced with a 

production for export allowance’’ to the 

end of the first sentence. 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(5). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 84.17 Availability of additional 

consumption allowances. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) The source of the regulated 

substances and whether the date 

purchased was before or after January 1, 

2022; 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Add § 84.18 to read as follows: 

§ 84.18 Authorization of production for 

export allowances. 

(a) EPA will allocate 3,000.0 MTEVe 

of production for export allowances to 

Iofina Chemical by October 1 of the 

calendar year prior to the year in which 

the allowances may be used for calendar 

years 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030. 

(b) Production for export allowances 

cannot be transferred. 

(c) Any regulated substances 

produced with production for export 

allowances must be exported in the 

same calendar year it was produced. 

■ 11. Amend § 84.31 by: 

■ a. In the introductory text of 

paragraph (a), removing the phrase ‘‘in 

the six applications listed in subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv) of the AIM Act’’. 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(vii) 

and (d)(1)(viii) as paragraphs (d)(1)(viii) 

and (d)(1)(ix), respectively. 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (d)(1)(vii). 

■ d. In paragraph (h)(1)(i), adding ‘‘, 

including a copy of the sales records, 

invoices, or other records documenting 

that quantity’’ after the word ‘‘months’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii), adding ‘‘, 

including a copy of the sales records, 

invoices, or other records documenting 

that quantity’’ after the word ‘‘months’’. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75942 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ f. In paragraph (h)(1)(iii), adding ‘‘, 

including a copy of the sales records, 

invoices, or other records documenting 

that quantity’’ after the parenthetical 

‘‘(i.e., from the open market)’’. 

■ g. In paragraph (h)(1)(iv), adding ‘‘, 

including a copy of inventory records 

documenting that quantity;’’ after the 

word ‘‘use’’. 

■ h. In paragraph (h)(1)(viii), removing 

the last ‘‘and’’ after the phrase 

‘‘additional need’’. 

■ i. In paragraph (h)(1)(ix), removing 

‘‘allowances.’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘allowances; and’’. 

■ j. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(x). 

■ k. In paragraph (h)(2)(iv), adding ‘‘, 

including a copy of inventory records 

documenting that quantity;’’ after the 

phrase ‘‘current year’’. 

■ l. In the introductory text of paragraph 

(h)(4), removing ‘‘, except for the 

conferral of allowances for missioncritical military end uses,’’. 

■ m. In paragraph (h)(7)(i), removing 

‘‘annual’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘biannual’’. 

■ n. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(7)(iii) 

through (h)(7)(vi) as paragraphs 

(h)(7)(iv) through (h)(7)(vii), 

respectively. 

■ o. Adding new paragraph (h)(7)(iii). 

■ p. Redesignating paragraph (l) as 

paragraph (n). 

■ q. Adding new paragraphs (l) and (m). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 84.31 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Internal Transaction Numbers for 

all shipments, except shipments where 

an exemption from the requirements for 

the filing of Electronic Export 

Information (EEI) is provided in 15 CFR 

part 30 Subpart D; 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(x) If allowances are allocated for a 

unique circumstance under 

§ 84.13(b)(1)(v), the quantity (in 

kilograms) of each regulated substance 

purchased with the intent to build 

inventory during the prior six-month 

period, including a copy of records 

documenting that quantity. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iii) A copy of confirmation notices 

when conferring allowances for 

application-specific use; 

* * * * * 

(l) Holders of production for export 

allowances. Any person allocated 

production for export allowances must 

comply with the following 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements: 

(1) Quarterly Reporting. Within 45 

days after the end of each quarter, each 

holder of production for export 

allowances must submit to the relevant 

Agency official a report containing the 

following information: 

(i) The quantity (in exchange value 

equivalent) of production for export 

allowances expended for each regulated 

substance and the quantity (in 

kilograms) of each regulated substance 

produced for export; 

(ii) The quantity (in kilograms) of 

each regulated substance produced 

using production for export allowances 

that was exported; 

(iii) The quantity (in kilograms) of 

each regulated substance produced with 

production for export allowances held 

in inventory at the end of the quarter; 

(iv) Internal Transaction Numbers for 

all exports of regulated substances 

produced with production for export 

allowances; 

(v) The country or countries to which 

regulated substances produced using 

production for export allowances were 

exported. 

(2) Annual Reporting. Within 45 days 

after the end of the fourth quarter, each 

holder of production for export 

allowances must submit to the relevant 

Agency official a report containing the 

following information: 

(i) Signed certifications by a 

responsible corporate officer from all 

foreign customers and supply 

intermediaries attesting that any 

regulated substances produced using 

production for export allowances will 

only be used in an application as listed 

in § 84.13(a). Each certification must 

include the name and address of the 

foreign entity, and a contact person’s 

name, email address, and phone 

number; 

(ii) A description of how the use 

identified in the signed certifications 

provided pursuant to paragraph (i) 

aligns with the applications as listed in 

§ 84.13(a). 

(3) Recordkeeping. Entities who 

receive production for export 

allowances must maintain the following 

records for three years: 

(i) A copy of all certifications reported 

pursuant to paragraph (2)(i); and 

(ii) Records demonstrating due 

diligence undertaken to verify and 

ensure that all regulated substances 

produced with production for export 

allowances and exported are being used 

in an application as listed in § 84.13(a). 

(m) Purchasers of HFCs at a 

government auction. Any entity 

purchasing regulated substances at a 

government auction authorized by the 

United States Customs and Border 

Protection must report such purchase as 

if they were an import consistent with 

the applicable provisions under this 

section, except for the following 

adjustments. 

(1) Quarterly reporting. The date that 

filing for that entry was accepted by a 

United States Customs and Border 

Protection-authorized electronic data 

interchange system, such as the 

Automated Broker Interface, must be 

reported as the date on which the 

regulated substances were imported for 

purposes of paragraph (c)(1)(v). Unless 

otherwise unavailable, all requirements 

of paragraph (c)(1) must be reported. If 

a data element is unavailable, the 

auction purchaser must contact EPA 

and state that fact in writing by the time 

they make their filed report. 

(2) Recordkeeping. In addition to the 

records specified in paragraph (c)(2), the 

auction purchaser must maintain 

records of the auction purchase, 

including the accepted bid, 

confirmation of payment, certification 

by the entity that they expended 

allowances, container composition 

testing to verify the regulated substances 

contained within the cylinder, and all 

other final documentation of the auction 

purchase. Unless otherwise unavailable, 

all requirements of paragraph (c)(2) 

must be met. If a data element is 

unavailable, the auction purchaser must 

contact EPA and state that fact in 

writing by the time they make their filed 

report. 

(3) Advance notification. The auction 

purchaser must report the information 

specified in paragraph (c)(7) prior to the 

HFCs entering U.S. commerce. The 

requirement in paragraph (c)(7)(xvi) 

does not apply if a certificate of analysis 

is not available at the time of submitting 

the information in paragraph (c)(7). The 

entity must complete all required 

sampling and testing required in this 

subpart prior to sale in U.S. commerce 

and maintain such records consistent 

with 84.31. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 84.54 by revising 

paragraph (a)(16)(i)(O) and adding 

paragraph (a)(16)(i)(P) to read as 

follows: 

§ 84.54 Restrictions on the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons. 

(a) * * * 

(16) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(O) Products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin; and 

(P) Defense sprays as defined at 

§ 84.3. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 75943 

■ 13. Amend § 84.60 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 84.60 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Effective [DATE], this paragraph 

shall apply to defense sprays as defined 

at § 84.3 and structural composite 

preformed polyurethane foam as 

defined at § 84.3. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Effective [DATE], this paragraph 

shall apply to defense sprays as defined 

at § 84.3 and structural composite 

preformed polyurethane foam as 

defined at § 84.3. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20602 Filed 9–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2