In response to a statement in the proposal that purity sampling might be among the information the Agency might request in considering a petition to import used ODS, the Agency received comments from HRC requesting that the EPA not request purity sampling of used ODS for import as a method of determining whether an ODS is new or used. The commenter states that requesting this information for halons would be ineffective and in the case of used system cylinders possibly dangerous. HRC describes how used halons are often imported in the original system cylinders (some of which can be 20 to 40 years old). These cylinders may have actuation methods that are explosive in nature as they are intended to release the contents of the cylinder in ten seconds or less. They also have pressures as high as 600 pounds per square inch and if actuated accidentally can be extremely dangerous. HRC states that there is no safe way to sample these cylinders for purity testing without completely emptying the contents of the cylinder. HRC acknowledges that halon stored in bulk tanks can be sampled and purity information could be provided but asserts that this would not be an effective method to distinguish between new and used halons because in some cases used halons are imported in bulk after being reclaimed to industry specifications, and purity sampling could result in these halons being deemed to be new when they are actually used.
The Agency has considered the comments from HRC and agrees that requiring halon purity testing in some cases could unintentionally cause the inadvertent release of halons. As a result of the comments, the Agency now understands that purity sampling of halon held in bulk containers is almost always available and could be useful in limited situations in combination with other information to help verify the material is used. Therefore, the EPA intends to limit any purity testing requests to halon that is in bulk containers or in other situations where the purity testing should not result in unintended releases of halons.
      HRC also commented on the Agency's proposal to allow for an application for an export license in lieu of an actual export license. The commenter states that some national governments do not provide such licenses and requests that the EPA remove the provision in 40 CFR §82.13(g)(2)(xii). For example, as noted in the proposal Canada, the largest exporter of used ODS to the United States, requires the EPA to approve the export before they issue an export license. As such, petitioners are only able to provide the submitted application for an export license with their petition. Considering this, as noted in the proposal, the Agency has worked with Canada to accept the submitted application in lieu of the export license. However, as HRC notes, there may be other countries that also require approval prior to export from the importing country such as a non-objection notice.
      The EPA recognizes that some countries, including the United States, do not require or provide export licenses. However, most governments do provide some form of acknowledgement, such as a letter from a national ozone unit noting the ability to export or even an email acknowledgement. The Agency does not find it appropriate to remove all forms of acknowledgement from the exporting government in the petition process and disagrees with the suggestion to remove 40 CFR §82.13(g)(2)(xii). An official communication from the government acknowledging the export helps ensure the petitioned amount is equal to or less than the amount that arrives at the United States port of entry. This process also allows for the government of the exporting country to evaluate the effects of the export on their own fire suppression sector and hold consultations ahead of concurring with the export. Therefore, the Agency is amending 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(2) and 82.24(c)(3) to allow importers of used class I and class II substances, respectively, to provide in lieu of an export license, as is required under the existing regulations, either an application for an export license or an official communication from the appropriate government agency. The option of providing an official communication is a change from the proposal, resulting from the information provided by the commenter highlighting for the EPA that some governments do not require or provide export licenses. As proposed, the EPA is also finalizing a requirement for an English translation of the export license application, export license, or official communication to facilitate the Agency's review.
      The Agency also received a comment from American Pacific, which states they could better meet the servicing demand for the HCFC-123-based fire suppression agent Halotron[(R)] I if the Agency establishes a streamlined petition process for importing recycled HCFC-123. American Pacific asserts that source requirements for class II substances in 40 CFR §82.24(c)(3)(iv) are disproportionally burdensome and hinder any recycled HCFC-123 import opportunity. Based on American Pacific's consultations with major recyclers and reclaimers of HCFC-123, the commenter states that many reclaimers find the source information requirements to be extremely burdensome. In response to comments supporting waiving source information for class II substances, the EPA notes that it did not propose to relax the import petition requirements for class II ODS. The Agency concludes that it would not be appropriate to extend this exemption to class II substances at this time because of continued global production of these substances and thus the greater likelihood that virgin material may be illegally imported into the United States under the guise of being used. Source information requirements help to ensure that the imported substance is used by documenting for example the name, make, and model numbers of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment from which the class II substance was removed. The Agency has consistently taken measures to avoid illegal imports of virgin ODS and has typically only considered relaxing any import requirements for used material after production and consumption phaseouts. The EPA may consider proposing to extend exemptions for source requirements in 40 CFR §82.24(c)(3)(iii)  -  (vi) for class II substances or otherwise providing flexibility for these requirements to make the process less burdensome in a subsequent rulemaking potentially closer to the global production and consumption phaseout for HCFCs.
      National Refrigerants suggests that the EPA include a provision to facilitate the import and reclamation of used HFCs that contain a trace amount of class I ODS. The EPA responds that establishing a process for importing used HFCs for reclamation is not necessary as no allowances are needed to import HFCs. In this circumstance, the importer would need to petition for the used ODS portion of the mixture. The EPA did not propose to establish a separate process for importing mixed gases that contain ODS.
      For other aspects of the proposed changes to the import petition process for used ODS, the EPA did not receive adverse comment. The EPA is finalizing those proposed changes to the petition process to ensure accuracy, speed review, and facilitate the import of used ODS, while maintaining requirements that help assure that the material being imported is used. In particular, the EPA is updating the requested contact information by requiring email addresses and removing fax numbers. The EPA is also requiring that petitioners provide the commodity code associated with the ODS to be imported. The commodity codes are classifications for goods and services traded among countries. This will match the Agency's other import and export requirements in 40 CFR §§82.13(g) and (h) and 82.24(c) and (d) and help to ensure that the data are correctly entered in Customs and Border Protection's Automated Commercial Environment and International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS).
      As proposed, the EPA is also updating the commodity codes for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 in Appendix K. The U.S. International Trade Commission is responsible for periodically updating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA). The HTSA provides the applicable tariff rates and statistical categories for all merchandise imported into the United States. It is based on the international Harmonized System, the global system of nomenclature that is used to describe most world trade in goods. This action conforms the commodity codes for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 in the appendix with those currently in effect and in use by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
      The existing regulations for petitions for imports of used material also require that if the imported substance is intended to be sold as a refrigerant, the petition must include contact information for the U.S. reclaimer who will bring the material to the standard required under section 608 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 82 subpart F, if it is not already reclaimed to those specifications. The EPA is finalizing its proposal to add "EPA-certified" to the description of reclamation facilities in the provisions containing this requirement, 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(2)(xiii) and 82.24(c)(3)(xiii). This will highlight the existing expectation for petitions to import used material to be sold as a refrigerant that the reclamation facility that will receive the material in the United States must be EPA-certified.
      Finally, the Agency is allowing flexibility for the timing of the import, which is particularly useful when the Agency issues non-objection notices towards the end of the year. The EPA previously required the import to occur in the same control period (i.e., calendar year) that the non-objection notice was issued. However, this can result in petitioners postponing their requests until the start of the next year. To avoid that unnecessary delay, the EPA proposed to provide importers one year from the date stamped on the non-objection notice to import that shipment. The EPA received one comment, from HRC, in support of providing flexibility on the timing of imports. The commenter states that the requirement that the import occur in the same calendar year can cause logistical challenges. To avoid such delays and logistical problems, the EPA is finalizing this change as proposed.
ii. Changes to the Exemption for the Import Petitions Process for Hydrostatic Testing
	As noted above, the EPA proposed to exempt aircraft halon bottles containing halon 1211 from the import petitions process when being imported for hydrostatic testing. The proposal would allow the same exemption for aircraft halon bottles containing halon 1211 as already exists for halon 1301 aircraft halon bottles. The EPA received supportive comments on this proposal from The Alliance and HRC and no adverse comments; it also received comments suggesting that the exemption be extended to aircraft halon bottles imported for other purposes. For the reasons discussed below, the Agency is finalizing the changes as proposed.
	The existing regulations at 40 CFR §82.3 defined "aircraft halon bottle" as a vessel used as a component of an aircraft fire suppression system containing halon 1301. To facilitate the import and testing of more types of aircraft halon bottles for hydrostatic testing, the EPA is extending the definition of "aircraft halon bottle" in 40 CFR §82.3 to also include vessels containing halon 1211, as proposed. Because the existing regulations in 40 CFR §82.13(g)(2) exempt aircraft halon bottles that are imported for hydrostatic testing from the import petition process, revising this definition would extend this exemption to such vessels containing halon 1211. This exemption facilitates proper maintenance of bottles containing halon 1211 and allows transit and testing to occur more quickly for such bottles. Promoting proper maintenance of these additional fire suppression devices helps ensure the bottles operate correctly to extinguish fires on aircraft. Proper maintenance of the storage vessels also prevents the accidental emission of this high-ODP compound. The EPA notes that the exemption of imports of aircraft halon bottles containing halon 1211 for hydrostatic testing only exempts them from the petition process. Recordkeeping and reporting are currently required, and will continue to be required, for the import and export of aircraft halon bottles. Importers of such bottles also still need to maintain import records, as set forth in 40 CFR §82.13(g)(1) and submit quarterly reports within 30 days of the end of the applicable quarter in accordance with 40 CFR §82.13(g)(4).
	HRC comments that halon bottles supplied by aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to service global aircraft fleets are sometimes imported into the United States for purposes other than hydrostatic testing (e.g., spares restocking, customer returns, etc.). HRC states that such additional purposes tend to be intermittent, involve limited quantities, and in most cases involve equipment that was originally exported from the United States by the aerospace OEM. As such, HRC states they should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as other used ODS imports.
	The EPA is not making the revisions suggested in this comment as it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the EPA does not have enough information about restocking or customer returns of aircraft halon bottles to support such a change. For example, the EPA currently lacks information on what type of containers would be imported for restocking or customer returns. Controlled products as defined in 40 CFR §82.3, which include fire extinguishers, are exempt from the petitions process because they are not controlled substances, as defined in 40 CFR §82.3. Aircraft halon bottles are not considered controlled products because they do not function unless connected to the onboard fire suppression system. Rather they are components of larger fire suppression systems used on aircraft (see 74 FR 10185, March 10, 2009). The EPA also lacks information on how these vessels are currently being imported, such as whether the imports have historically been approved through the import petition process, what the quantity of aircraft halon bottles imported for this purpose might be, and the frequency of petitions by the aviation industry to determine the burden reduction opportunity. The EPA also lacks a description of restocking and customer returns and how this contributes to safety and maintenance of these aircraft halon bottles. All of this information would be useful in considering whether to consider proposing a change to the exemption for aircraft halon bottles in a future rulemaking.
iii. Imports for destruction
      This portion of the notice discusses two sets of changes to the import process for ODS specifically imported for destruction, which were proposed and are being finalized. First, the EPA is establishing a streamlined approach for importing used ODS for destruction called the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction. Second, the EPA is extending that approach to virgin ODS, as there was no existing mechanism defined in the regulations for the EPA to pre-approve import of virgin ODS for destruction. The EPA received three comments on its proposal to create this process for both used and virgin ODS. The Agency received supportive comments on a streamlined approach and extending the approach to virgin material, but one commenter expresses concern about the potential for illegal imports. After considering the comments, the Agency is finalizing many of these provisions as proposed and is also adding requirements to obtain more information on the chain of custody after ODS is imported under this process.
       ODS from decommissioned equipment, unwanted stockpiles, and mixtures that are contaminated and cannot be reclaimed are often imported into the United States for destruction. Facilitating the destruction of ODS is beneficial to the environment since it averts ODS emissions into the atmosphere and thus supports the overarching goal of Title VI to protect stratospheric ozone. The Montreal Protocol's Scientific Assessment Panel estimated that capture and destruction of CFC, halon, and HCFC banks in 2015 could avoid 1.8 million ODP-weighted metric tons of future emissions through 2050 and return stratospheric chlorine levels at mid-latitudes to 1980 levels more than six years sooner than in the baseline scenario. The EPA recognizes that there is ongoing commercial demand for certain substances, as discussed earlier in this notice with respect to halons and other ODS. Some ODS may, however, be unwanted and thus susceptible to release; this risk may be higher when they are stored in countries that do not have adequate capability to properly reclaim or destroy them. A process for the import of ODS for destruction helps facilitate the destruction of such ODS and reduces the risk of such releases. Destruction of unwanted ODS in the United States supports the ongoing availability of destruction options of ODS worldwide and may also generate revenue for domestic destruction facilities. More information on the destruction facilities that destroy ODS and their technologies is available in the report in the docket titled "U.S. Destruction in the United States and Abroad."
       As discussed above, the EPA's petition process for the import of used ODS is designed to allow the Agency to verify prior use of the material so that virgin ODS are not entering the United States under the pretense of being "used." Under the existing regulations at 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(2) and 82.24(c)(4), anyone wishing to import used class I or class II ODS, respectively, for destruction must submit a petition providing the same information as for any other petition to import used ODS. It is then the obligation of the second-party destruction facility to provide a verification report to the importer or producer that the material was destroyed (40 CFR §§82.13(k) and 82.24(e)). Importers are required to keep records on imports for destruction of ODS under 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(1) and 82.24(c)(2) and to submit quarterly reports, in accordance with 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(4) and 82.24(c)(1). The regulations contain an exception to the prohibition on import of virgin ODS without consumption allowances in the case of imports for destruction but do not provide a specific process for such imports.
      To facilitate the importation of used ODS for destruction, the EPA proposed to create a new petition process for the import of used and virgin ODS for destruction, called a Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction, in 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(5) and 82.24(c)(6). Under this proposed process, the importer would submit the petition at least 30 working days before the shipment's departure from the foreign port. After review, the EPA would send either a non-objection notice or an objection notice. The proposed period was shorter than the corresponding period for the import petition process, which is 40 working days from departure, because the petition would contain less information for the EPA to review and verify. The proposal was based on the expectation that 30 working days is enough for the EPA to review the petition and that this timeframe will not impede the import. The Agency proposed to use the same objection notice conditions as in the existing petition process for importing used ODS for reuse, such as if the petition provides insufficient information or if it contains false or misleading information. The EPA also proposed to require that the petitioner submit a destruction verification 30 days after destruction under 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(6) and 82.24(c)(7). The Agency is finalizing the supporting prohibitions in 40 CFR §§82.4(j)(2) and 82.15(b)(3) to prohibit the import of ODS for destruction without having received a non-objection notice consistent with the new Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction.
      After considering the public comments received, as described below, the EPA is finalizing this process largely as proposed. The Agency is also making some changes to what was proposed based on its consideration of public comments. In general terms, this new process omits collecting the detailed source information that is required in import petitions, as that information is not necessary if the ODS is to be destroyed. Instead, it is more important for the EPA to collect information from the petitioner about the destruction. In particular, the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction finalized in this rulemaking does not include the following elements (which are included in the existing import petition process): information about all previous source facilities from which the ODS was recovered; a detailed description of the previous use at each source facility and a best estimate or documents indicating when the specific controlled substance was put into the equipment at each source facility; a list of the name, make and model number of the equipment from which the material was recovered at each source facility; contact information of all persons to whom the material was transferred or sold after it was recovered from the source facility; or a description of the intended use of the ODS.
      The EPA is omitting these information elements because they are collected for import petitions to verify that the material is used, and the Agency concludes it is not necessary to verify that ODS is used if it is being imported for destruction. Simplifying the information requirements decreases the regulatory burden on existing importers who followed the import petition process to import used ODS for destruction. In addition, the information requirements for petitions to import used ODS had the potential to hinder imports for destruction if petitioners were unable to provide all the necessary information. Certain elements, such as information about each piece of equipment or each source facility from which the controlled substance was removed, might have been particularly difficult for petitioners to provide because used controlled substances intended for disposal are often part of a mixture of chemical waste recovered from a variety of systems and detailed information pertaining to each system may not be available. Although the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction relaxes the information requirements for importing used ODS for destruction compared to the existing import petition process, the EPA concludes that this relaxation benefits the environment because companies wishing to import used ODS into the United States for destruction will be able to do so more easily, and therefore more used ODS may be destroyed. This is consistent with the overarching goal of Title VI to protect stratospheric ozone.
      To better ensure that the ODS is destroyed, the EPA is adding provisions 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(9) and (g)(10) and 82.24(c)(10) and (c)(11) to require importers and intermediaries that aggregate ODS for destruction to keep certain records about the destruction of the ODS. In particular, the EPA is requiring that importers of ODS for destruction maintain: a copy of the certificate of intent to import for destruction; a copy of the non-objection notice; a copy of the export license, export license application, or official communication from the appropriate government agency; Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry documents for the import that must include the commodity codes; records of that date, amount, and type of controlled substance sent for destruction per shipment; an invoice from the destruction facility verifying shipment was received; and a copy of the destruction verification. The EPA is requiring that intermediaries maintain: transactional records that include the name and address of the entity from whom they received the ODS and to whom they sent the ODS; records that include the date and quantity of controlled substances received and sent for destruction; and a copy of the destruction verification if they are the final aggregator.
      The EPA is also extending the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction to imports of virgin ODS for destruction. While modeled in large part on the petition to import used ODS, there are also benefits to facilitating the import of virgin ODS for destruction. Virgin ODS that are to be destroyed may be imported without consumption allowances (see 40 CFR §§82.4(d) and 82.15(b)). However, under existing regulations there was no established regulatory mechanism for the EPA to review and pre-approve those imports. As such, shipments may have been held at the port while the EPA determined whether the import is in fact bound for destruction. In some instances, proactive importers have petitioned the Agency to import virgin ODS for destruction and the EPA has allowed these imports on a case-by-case basis. However, the absence of an established regulatory mechanism for such approvals has created some uncertainty for these imports. Moreover, establishing regulatory requirements for such imports creates a mechanism to ensure that imports of virgin ODS for destruction are destroyed.
      Providing an established mechanism to import virgin ODS for destruction is beneficial to importers and the EPA. Having a transparent process that allows approval to occur before the shipment reaches the port facilitates such imports and reduces potential delays and costs associated with the prior approach to imports of virgin ODS for destruction, as well as providing more certainty as to which imports can proceed. In turn, this encourages imports of unwanted virgin ODS for destruction, potentially avoiding the emission of such ODS. As noted above, this is consistent with an overarching goal of Title VI, to protect stratospheric ozone. The extension also closes a gap in regulatory provisions for the import of virgin material for destruction. As discussed previously in this notice, the EPA originally established the import petition process for used ODS to verify that virgin ODS was not being imported under the pretext of being used to circumvent the regulatory requirements for expending consumption allowances. In the same way, the EPA concludes that a mechanism is needed to verify that virgin ODS imported for destruction are destroyed and that claims of importing for destruction are not used to circumvent the requirement to expend consumption allowances. In addition, the EPA has historically used the petition process as a mechanism to approve imports of used material for destruction and has applied an analogous but simpler process to imports of virgin material for destruction on a case-by-case basis. Based on this experience and these common goals for imports of used and virgin ODS for destruction, the EPA concludes that having the same process for imports for destruction of both used and virgin ODS is both feasible and appropriate. Furthermore, establishing a consistent regulatory process for used and virgin ODS simplifies the administration of this approach because the same requirements generally apply regardless of the type of ODS to be imported for destruction. Thus, the EPA is finalizing the proposal to have the same requirements for both used and virgin ODS in this new process.
      The EPA is also revising the definitions of "individual shipment" and "non-objection notice" at 40 CFR §82.3, both of which previously referred only to the import of used material. As proposed, the EPA is amending these definitions by removing references to "used" controlled substances, so that "individual shipment" and a "non-objection notice" may apply to shipments of virgin ODS imported for destruction under a Certification of Intent to Import for Destruction, as well as to shipments of used ODS.
      As for the import petitions process, the Agency is finalizing revisions that provide for flexibility for the timing of imports for destruction. In the previous petitions process, the EPA required the import to occur in the same control period (i.e., calendar year) that the non-objection notice was issued. The EPA is finalizing a provision that non-objection notices issued for the Certification of Intent to Import for Destruction allow a year from the date of the notice to import the material. Therefore, once a non-objection notice is issued, the person receiving the non-objection notice is permitted to import the individual shipment within a year of the date stamped on the non-objection notice. For instance, if a non-objection letter is date-stamped October 1, the import of that material could occur up to and including September 30 of the following year but not thereafter. This provides flexibility to imports for destruction that may not operate on a calendar year basis.
      As noted above, the EPA received three supportive comments for the portions of the proposed rule addressing the Certification of Intent to Import for Destruction. The Agency also received one comment suggesting changes to the proposed provisions. The first commenter suggesting changes to the proposal requests that the Agency require imports for destruction be sent directly to the destruction facility, instead of allowing for it to be sent to intermediaries. Specifically, ClimeCo, a company that assists in projects that destroy class I substances, states that several destruction facilities and offset project developers have imported ODS into the United States for destruction but have not shipped it directly to the destruction facility. They state that the ODS was shipped to intermediate facilities before being "bulked up," in other words aggregated with other ODS, and sent to a destruction facility. The commenter states this could create opportunities for bad actors to manipulate, re-direct, or re-sell the imported ODS. ClimeCo suggests that the EPA require the ODS entering the United States be shipped directly to a destruction facility without any intermediate handling, processing, or other activities.
      The EPA agrees that it is important to minimize the possibility that an ODS imported for destruction is diverted and sold illegally rather than being destroyed. The EPA notes that the importer has an obligation to ensure that it identifies a destruction facility for all ODS imported for destruction, obtains a destruction verification once the destruction is complete, and submits that verification to the EPA. It is ultimately the importer's responsibility to ensure the imported ODS is destroyed in the required time frame, regardless of whether they engage an intermediate aggregator to facilitate the destruction. In light of these responsibilities, the EPA disagrees that it is necessary to prohibit intermediaries from aggregating ODS in a manner that facilitates destruction. However, after considering this comment, the EPA concludes that additional provisions are appropriate to address the concerns about the potential for material being diverted during the aggregation process. As discussed previously in this notice and in the proposal, a mechanism is needed to verify that virgin ODS imported for destruction are destroyed and that claims of importing for destruction are not used to circumvent the requirement to expend consumption allowances and it also discussed the benefits of establishing the same process for imports of used and virgin ODS for destruction. (see 84 FR 41533, August 14, 2019). EPA is therefore requiring importers to provide in the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction the contact information of all persons who will aggregate ODS prior to it being sent to the destruction facility. Thus, the entire chain of custody from import to destruction must be known by the importer and the EPA prior to the EPA authorizing the import. Providing this information to the EPA helps the Agency track the chain of custody of imported ODS for destruction and ensure that it is destroyed. Providing this information is less burdensome to an importer than not allowing aggregation of imported ODS for destruction, as the commenter suggests. Thus, the EPA is finalizing provisions at 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(5), 82.13(g)(10), 82.24(c)(6), and 82.24(c)(11).
      To ensure accountability and allow for the Agency to verify, as needed, the material that intermediaries receive is transferred for destruction, the EPA is finalizing additional requirements in 40 CFR §§82.13(g)(10) and 82.24(c)(11). Intermediaries aggregating ODS after it is imported, but prior to destruction, must keep records of the name, address, date, and amount of imported ODS bound for destruction that they receive from another entity and transfer to another entity. These records could include sales or other transactional records already generated during the normal course of business, so long as they include the required information. Additionally, the intermediary must maintain a record of the destruction verification if they are the final intermediary to receive the ODS prior to destruction. These additional provisions are intended to address the concern raised in comments on the proposal about the potential for material being diverted during the aggregation process. Further, establishing mechanisms to ensure that key information from both importers and intermediaries is available to the EPA helps meet the Agency's ability to fully track the chain of custody of imported ODS for destruction and ensure that it is destroyed, consistent with the goals described in the proposal. The EPA concludes that these provisions combined will allow for the EPA to check compliance and determine whether ODS imported for destruction is actually destroyed, even if it is aggregated prior to destruction.
iv. Prohibiting the Sale of Illegal Imports
      The EPA proposed to prohibit the sale of illegal imports. The Agency received supportive comments on this proposal and no adverse comments. However, one commenter requested that the EPA prohibit the sale of disposable cylinders. For the reasons described in below, the Agency is finalizing the prohibition as proposed.
      Based on the EPA's experience with the CFC phaseout, the incentive to illegally import class II substances will continue to increase after the allocation for HCFC-22 reaches zero in 2020. HCFC-22 is the most widely used HCFC in the United States and the EPA anticipates continued demand for HCFC-22 beyond 2020. In addition, there continues to be risk of illegal imports of class I substances. To allow for better enforcement of these requirements, the EPA proposed to add to 40 CFR §§82.4(s) and 82.15(g)(8) an express prohibition against the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any class I or class II substance, respectively, that the seller knows, or has reason to know, was illegally imported into the United States.
      In finalizing this proposal, the EPA is relying primarily on its authority under sections 604(c) and 605(c) of the CAA. Section 604(c) directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations to "insure that the consumption of class I substances in the United States is phased out and terminated" in accordance with the applicable schedules for the phaseout and termination of production of class I substances under the CAA. Similarly, section 605(c) directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations to "insure that the consumption of class II substances in the United States is phased out and terminated" in accordance with the applicable schedules for the phaseout and termination of production of class II substances under the CAA. "Consumption" is defined in section 601 of the CAA as the amount of a substance produced in the United States, plus the amount of that substance imported, minus the amount exported.
      The EPA remains concerned about the potential for illegal import of ODS. This concern is based largely on the risk that such illegal imports would interfere with the already-completed phaseout of consumption of class I substances and the ongoing phaseout of consumption of class II substances. ODS that is imported without allowances generally counts toward the United States' consumption cap unless additional action is taken to remove the ODS from the U.S. market (e.g., the illegally imported ODS is destroyed or re-exported in the same year). There are no allowances for class I ODS as they have all been phased out. Furthermore, following the 2020 stepdown, there is a greater risk that illegal imports of HCFC-22 not destroyed or re-exported could cause an exceedance of the cap set forth under the Montreal Protocol and CAA.
      To address this concern, as proposed, the EPA is strengthening its ability to enforce the phaseout of ODS by adding at 40 CFR §§82.4(s) and 82.15(g)(8) an express prohibition against the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any class I or class II substance, respectively, that the seller knows, or has reason to know, was imported into the United States in violation of the import regulations. These revisions to the regulations clarify that it is illegal to sell or distribute any material that the seller knows or had reason to know was imported into the United States without expending the appropriate consumption allowances or otherwise qualifying for an exemption provided for in the regulations (e.g., for transformation or destruction, or for used ODS). The revisions also explicitly state that every kilogram of illegally imported material sold or distributed, or offered for sale or distribution, constitutes a separate violation. They also include an exception for actions that are needed to re-export the controlled substance in such a situation.
      The intent of this change is to strengthen the EPA's ability to enforce against illegal trade, which in turn helps ensure that consumption remains under the Montreal Protocol and CAA caps. This change also increases the EPA's compliance and enforcement options where the Agency is not able to identify the importer. For example, these provisions facilitate the EPA's ability to pursue investigations where distributors or other sellers of CFCs attempt to sell virgin CFCs in the domestic market knowing that they were imported into the United States after the phaseout of CFCs, which occurred in 1996, without qualifying for any exemption from the consumption phaseout. Actions taken against such distributors not only address their violations but could also allow the Agency to gather the necessary information to identify the smuggler who illegally imported the material in the first place and to pursue compliance and enforcement action against them under existing authorities in 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.15, which will help deter illegal imports. Avoiding illegal imports helps to maintain the complete phaseout of class I ODS and achieve the phaseout of class II ODS, which is consistent with sections 604(c) and 605(c) of the CAA, as well as with the overarching goals of Title VI of the CAA.
      This change also encourages distributors to be more cautious when purchasing ODS that seem suspiciously priced or packaged. Since the phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA has warned distributors of the risk of purchasing black market ODS and provided information on ways to identify illegally-imported material. While the incentive to circumvent the import controls will always exist, the EPA intends for these provisions to reduce the market for smuggled ODS, which will reduce illegal imports.
      The Agency received supportive comments from The Alliance and National Refrigerants. EIA submitted supportive comments also requesting that the EPA prohibit the sale of disposable cylinders. EIA states that the majority of known ODS smuggling cases are facilitated by the use of disposable cylinders, also referred to as "non-refillable containers." Disposable cylinders are containers charged with refrigerant, sold, used for servicing or commissioning equipment, and then discarded. The Agency responds that EIA's suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking because it was not included in the proposed rule and that the Agency does not believe it prudent at this time to act on the suggestion without soliciting input from refrigerant distributors and other affected stakeholders. The Agency may consider in the future whether a ban on disposable cylinders could guard against illegal import of refrigerants and may consider proposing such a prohibition in a future rulemaking.
      EIA also commented that the EPA should work more closely with other agencies to help prevent illegal imports. The EPA responds that the Agency has worked closely with other agencies and in particular with CBP to ensure compliance with the phaseout of ODS under sections 604, 605, and 606 of the CAA. Historically, the Agency has participated on interagency tasks forces to address potential illegal imports of ODS. Recent illegal imports have demonstrated to the Agency that additional regulatory clarity is needed to address the potential for domestic distribution of illegally imported material, as such material would generally be considered consumption. After considering all the comments on this issue, the Agency is finalizing its proposal to prohibit the sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution of illegally imported ODS in 40 CFR §§82.4(s) and 82.15(g)(8), for the reasons discussed above.
I. Electronic Reporting and Updates to Other Provisions of the Production and Consumption Control Program
	The EPA proposed to require the use of an electronic reporting system for producers, importers, exporters, transformers, and destroyers of ODS in 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.13, 82.14, 82.23, and 82.24 and to clarify the certification requirements for methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment uses in 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.13. The EPA did not receive any adverse comments on these proposals. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is finalizing these provisions as proposed.
i. Electronic Reporting and Changes to Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.13, 82.14, 82.23, and 82.24
      The EPA proposed to require that reports, petitions, and related reports be submitted through Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Agency proposed to consolidate and harmonize requirements for class I and II substances for ease or reporting. The Agency received supportive comments on this proposal and no adverse comments. For the reasons described below, the Agency is finalizing these requirements as proposed.
      The EPA is finalizing as proposed the requirements for the use of the Agency's CDX to submit reports electronically. The compliance date for this requirement is 30 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, in part to ensure that stakeholders have adequate time to register in CDX. To achieve this, the EPA is updating the definition of "Administrator" in 40 CFR §82.3, defining "Central Data Exchange" in §82.3, adding a new section at §82.14 with instructions on the process for electronic reporting, and revising provisions at §§82.13(c) and 82.24(a)(1) to indicate that reporters must comply with the requirement to report electronically through CDX. Thus, the EPA is amending the definition of "Administrator" to note that electronic reporting is required for the reports and petitions that are available in CDX, which includes the majority of reports under subpart A, as well as the import petitions and the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction. The EPA is also adding the definition of "Central Data Exchange" in §82.3 and providing instructions on how to register in CDX and submit information electronically in §82.14.
      The Agency has provided the option of electronic reporting for most submissions since 2008, and many stakeholders have transitioned to an electronic reporting system. The regulatory changes reflect the current practices of the vast majority of reporting entities. Electronic reporting allows for faster review and transmission of submissions to the EPA. Additionally, all information submitted electronically is linked in an improved tracking system, which facilitates document management and allows companies to more easily manage past and future submissions.
      The EPA monitors company compliance, in part, through the recordkeeping and reporting regulations at 40 CFR §§82.13 and 82.24. The regulatory changes in this final rule will ease the reporting burden. For example, the EPA is removing reporting elements in 40 CFR §§82.23(a)(i)(F), 82.24(b)(1)(iv), and 82.24(c)(1)(vi) that require the reporter to calculate values from data already provided. Requiring this is unnecessary because the requirement to report electronically through CDX means these values can automatically be calculated and populated. This will save reporting entities time in reporting and reduce errors in submissions. The EPA is also finalizing a change in 40 CFR §§82.13(h)(1)(iii) and 82.24(d)(1)(iii) to report the quantity (rather than the percentage) of used, recycled, or reclaimed class I and class II substances. This change improves consistency with the importer reporting requirements and corresponds with the way companies report their annual data. It also streamlines the exporter reporting forms by eliminating the need for an entity to calculate a percentage. The EPA is also removing references to expended and unexpended production and consumption allowances at 40 CFR §82.13(f)(3)(iv) and (g)(4)(vii), as they can be calculated automatically with the use of electronic reporting forms.
      Other regulatory changes to the recordkeeping and reporting provisions harmonize the requirements for class I and class II substances. For example, under the existing regulations, the timeframe that submitters have to make revisions to forms for class I and class II substances is not the same. The EPA is adding a provision for reports for class I substances under 40 CFR §82.13 that revisions can be made within 180 days of the end of the applicable reporting period. This change is consistent with the previously established regulations in 40 CFR §82.24 for revisions to reports for class II substances. Likewise, the EPA is revising 40 CFR §§82.13 and 82.24 to clarify that forms for both class I and class II ODS must be submitted electronically through CDX within 45 days of the end of the control period to harmonize the reporting timeframes for the two classes of ODS.
      The EPA is amending 40 CFR §82.24(d)(1) to clarify that exporters who submit a Request for Additional Consumption Allowances (RACA) must still include that export on their quarterly exporter report. Under 40 CFR §82.20, companies may submit a request for additional consumption allowances if they export class II substances that were previously produced in or imported into the United States using consumption allowances. The existing regulatory text at 40 CFR §82.24(d)(1) excluded quarterly reporting for those RACAs even though exporters do typically include those exports in their quarterly reporting. Thus, for ease of review by the EPA, and for consistency of reporting by exporters, the Agency is finalizing a requirement that all exports be included in the quarterly export report even if the EPA had issued additional consumption allowances to the exporter for that export. The EPA is also amending the reporting requirements at 40 CFR §82.13(v) to add the contact information for the source company from which the material was purchased and the laboratories to whom the material is sold. Lastly, the EPA is revising class I reporting requirements for exporters by replacing the term "Employee Identification Number" with the correct term "Employer Identification Number" in 40 CFR §82.13(h).
ii. Changes to Methyl Bromide Provisions in 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.13
      As discussed in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed several changes to the QPS provisions under section 604(d)(5) of the CAA. In part, these changes were proposed in response to the misuse of QPS methyl bromide by applicators and distributors in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, which led to human exposures and life-altering illnesses for some of the people exposed. Methyl bromide is highly toxic. Studies in humans indicate that the lung may be severely injured by the acute (short-term) inhalation of methyl bromide. Acute and chronic (long-term) inhalation of methyl bromide can lead to neurological effects in humans. To help prevent future exposures stemming from misuse of QPS methyl bromide and protect human health, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the QPS provisions to: (1) clarify that it is a violation to sell or use methyl bromide produced under the QPS exemption for any uses other than QPS applications; (2) extend the existing certification requirement to all purchasers of QPS methyl bromide; and (3) make non-substantive changes to 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.13 to improve readability. The Agency did not receive any comments on these proposed provisions. For the reasons discussed below, the Agency is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
      The EPA's regulations implementing section 604(h) of the CAA set January 1, 2005 as the production and import phaseout date for methyl bromide (40 CFR §82.4(b), (d)). Certain exceptions apply, including an exemption for methyl bromide produced or imported for quarantine and preshipment applications. Quarantine applications and preshipment applications are both defined at 40 CFR §82.3. Quarantine applications are treatments to prevent the introduction, establishment, and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their official control. These can include commodities entering or leaving the United States or any State (or political subdivision thereof). Preshipment applications are those non-quarantine applications applied within 21 days before export to meet the official requirements of the importing country or existing official requirements of the exporting country. The recordkeeping and reporting regulations relating to QPS methyl bromide appear at 40 CFR §82.13 and establish specific requirements for producers, importers, distributors, and applicators, including in some instances a written certification that the methyl bromide will be used only for QPS applications in accordance with the definitions in 40 CFR §82.3.
      First, the Agency is adding an express statement at 40 CFR §82.4(r) that no person may sell or use QPS methyl bromide for any purpose other than QPS applications. The existing regulations at 40 CFR §82.13(y)(1) and (z)(2) require certification statements from distributors, applicators, commodity owners, shippers or their agents that methyl bromide "will be used only for quarantine and preshipment applications." Similarly, 40 CFR §82.13(f)(2)(xviii) and (xix) describe the exempted quantities of methyl bromide as "produced solely for quarantine and preshipment applications." The EPA interprets this existing text as already prohibiting the use of methyl bromide produced or imported under the QPS exemption for any uses other than QPS applications. However, the EPA is adding an express statement of the prohibition at 40 CFR §82.4(r) to provide clarity to this prohibition; this revision does not change the existing requirements. The revisions at 40 CFR §82.4(r) also explicitly state that every kilogram of methyl bromide produced or imported under the authority of the QPS exemption and sold or used for a use other than QPS is a separate violation.
      Second, the EPA is finalizing as proposed the extension of the existing certification requirement to all purchasers of QPS methyl bromide, including purchasers who purchase for further distribution. Under the existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 40 CFR §82.13(f)(2)(xviii), producers of methyl bromide must maintain certifications that methyl bromide produced for QPS applications has been purchased by distributors or applicators to be used only for QPS applications. Under 40 CFR §82.13(y), distributors of QPS methyl bromide must certify when they purchase or receive QPS material from producers and importers that the controlled substances will be used only for QPS applications. Applicators of QPS methyl bromide must also certify to distributors that the controlled substance will only be used for QPS applications under the existing regulation at 40 CFR §82.13(z).
      The purpose of this certification requirement when established was to ensure that anyone selling or purchasing QPS methyl bromide verified that they will comply with requirements under Title VI of the CAA (see 66 FR 37760, July 19, 2001). However, the EPA identified a gap in this certification chain when the material is sold through multiple distributors before reaching the applicator. When one distributor sells to a second distributor, neither distributor was required to certify or maintain a certification that the material will be used only for a QPS application. The sales and misapplications of QPS methyl bromide in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands demonstrate that distributors may not have been aware of, or may have ignored, the limitations on the use of this material. The EPA is extending the certification requirement to all purchasers of QPS methyl bromide. This is meant to help ensure that distributors are knowledgeable about the requirements for the sale of QPS methyl bromide. Distributors are more likely to make themselves aware of those requirements, and to be mindful of the fact that QPS methyl bromide can be used only for QPS applications, if they are required to sign a certification addressing these requirements and to provide it before each purchase. This will fill the gap in the distribution chain and ensure the original intent of the regulation is implemented.
      More specifically, the EPA is extending the existing requirement in 40 CFR §82.13(y) that every distributor of QPS methyl bromide certify to the producer or importer from whom the distributor purchased or received the material that quantities purchased or received will be sold only for quarantine applications or preshipment applications. The EPA is extending this requirement to also require such a certification when the material is purchased or received from a distributor. Likewise, the EPA is extending the existing requirement that such distributors receive from any applicator, to whom they sold or delivered the methyl bromide, a certification, prior to delivery of the quantity, stating that the quantity will be used or sold solely for quarantine or preshipment applications in accordance with definitions in subpart A. The EPA is extending this requirement to sales and deliveries to any exporter or distributor. The Agency is not making parallel revisions for exporters because the invoice or sales agreement required in 40 CFR §82.13(h)(2)(viii) is adequate for this purpose.
      The EPA is also finalizing a revision that the distributor certify that the distributor is selling the material for a QPS application rather than certify that it will be used for a QPS application, as is required in the existing regulations. This will better align the rule text with the distributor's role. The proper sale of the material is within the distributor's control whereas the use may not be, given that the material may be resold by another distributor and applied by an end user or third-party applicator.
      Third, the EPA is finalizing as proposed non-substantive changes to 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.13 that improve readability and clarity. The EPA is editing 40 CFR §82.13(h)(2), which contains the recordkeeping requirements for exporters of certain "types" of methyl bromide by companies that did not produce the material. The EPA is making edits to clarify what is meant by "type" of methyl bromide. The final rule more clearly states that the provision requires reporting of the quantity of methyl bromide exported for transformation, destruction, critical use, and QPS uses. These are the only exempted uses of methyl bromide, and this statement matches the information requested in the existing reporting forms. The EPA is removing the requirement in the existing provision that exporters state how much of the exports are of "used, recycled or reclaimed material." Unlike other ODS, methyl bromide is a product that is registered and controlled under FIFRA and thus is not sold "used" or "recycled" or "reclaimed." Therefore, these adjectives are not applicable to methyl bromide and this phrase is not needed.
      Lastly, the EPA is replacing references to "class I, Group VI controlled substances" with "methyl bromide" where appropriate for readability throughout 40 CFR §§82.4 and 82.13. "Class I, Group VI controlled substances" is how methyl bromide is classified under the EPA's regulations in appendix A to subpart A, but methyl bromide is the only compound within this category. Using the common name will improve the readability of the QPS regulations.
J. Addition of Polyurethane Foam Systems Containing CFCs to the Nonessential Products Ban
      The EPA proposed to add polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs to the list of nonessential products at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C. The Agency received supportive comments from The Alliance and EIA and is finalizing as proposed for the reasons discussed below. This provision has the effect of prohibiting the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any polyurethane foam system containing CFCs in interstate commerce.
      Historically, CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 were used as foam blowing agents, but CFC production has been globally phased out since 2010. Nevertheless, an unexpected increase of CFC-11 emissions has been detected in the atmosphere. Recent reports indicate that this is the result of new production of CFC-11 in China likely for use in foams., , , ,  Except for feedstock applications, production and import of CFCs has been prohibited in the United States and many other countries since 1996 and globally production and consumption of CFCs have been phased out since 2010 under the Montreal Protocol. The nonessential products ban implemented under section 610 of the CAA already prohibits sale or distribution, and the offer for sale or distribution, of certain products manufactured with or containing CFCs, including most plastic foam products. After reviewing the EPA's import restrictions and the nonessential product ban, the Agency identified the potential for sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of imported polyurethane foam systems containing illegally-produced CFCs. The EPA is not currently aware of any imports of CFC-11 polyurethane systems into the United States, but the Agency is finalizing revisions to amend the list of nonessential products in 40 CFR §82.66 to address this gap and to ensure that the United States does not inadvertently contribute to demand for CFCs and prevent CFC emissions in the United States. The EPA is also adding a definition of "polyurethane foam systems" in 40 CFR §82.62 to correspond with the amendment to the list of nonessential products.
      The EPA is also adding in 40 CFR §82.64(h) a prohibition on the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of the products identified as being nonessential in §82.66(f). While the EPA did not include specific text for the prohibition at 40 CFR §82.64(h) in the proposal, the Agency discussed in the proposal that the proposed changes would prohibit the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs (see, e.g., 84 FR 41535, August 14, 2019). In order to ensure that the regulatory revisions fully implement the objective described in the preamble to the proposal, the EPA is revising 40 CFR §82.64(h) in this final action to include the prohibition described above. This revision is wholly consistent with the description of the EPA's intent for this regulation as set forth in the preamble to the proposal.
      With respect to the added definition, the EPA is defining "polyurethane foam systems" in 40 CFR §82.62 as an item consisting of two transfer pumps that deliver ingredients (polyisocyanate or isocyanate from one side and a mixture including the blowing agent, catalysts, flame retardants, and/or stabilizers from the other side) to a metering/mixing device which allows the components to be delivered in the appropriate proportions. In such systems, the components are sent to a mixing gun and dispensed as foam directly to a surface such as a roof or tank, usually to provide thermal insulation. These polyurethane foam systems are packaged and sold as complete systems, containing all the ingredients including the polyisocyanate and the blowing agent.
      A polyurethane foam system is not a bulk ODS because the ODS is contained in a system and packaged as a product. Under the regulations in subpart A, bulk CFCs are a "controlled substance" and thus are subject to import controls such as the consumption allowance regime under 40 CFR §82.4. However, the definition of "controlled substance" in 40 CFR §82.3 excludes "any such substance or mixture that is in a manufactured product other than a container used for the transportation or storage of the substance or mixture." Because the CFCs in a polyurethane foam system are contained in a system that is sold as a product, they are not subject to the same import controls as bulk CFCs. If polyurethane foam systems are imported and sold through distribution chains in the United States, they could result in emissions of CFCs during their use. These foam systems are also distinct from a plastic foam product in that the foam product has already been blown. Plastic foam products manufactured with or containing a CFC are already listed as a nonessential product at 40 CFR §82.66(c) and are banned from sale or distribution, and from being offered for sale or distribution, in interstate commerce at 40 CFR §82.64(c).
      The revisions to the nonessential product ban in this rulemaking are made under section 610 of the CAA, titled "Nonessential products containing chlorofluorocarbons." That statutory section directs the EPA to issue regulations identifying nonessential products that "release class I substances into the environment (including any release occurring during manufacture, use, storage, or disposal)" and "prohibit[ing] any person from selling or distributing any such product, or offering any such product for sale or distribution, in interstate commerce." Section 610(b)(1) and (2) specify that this prohibition shall apply to "chlorofluorocarbon-propelled plastic party streamers and noise horns" and "chlorofluorocarbon-containing cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic and photographic equipment." Section 610(b)(3) provides that the prohibition shall apply to other consumer products determined by the EPA to release class I substances into the environment (including releases during manufacture, use, storage, or disposal) and to be nonessential.
      Section 610 further states that in determining whether a product is nonessential, the EPA shall consider the following criteria: "the purpose or intended use of the product, the technological availability of substitutes for such product and for such class I substance, safety, health, and other relevant factors." The CAA requires the EPA to consider each criterion listed in section 610 but does not establish either a ranking or a methodology for comparing their relative importance, nor does it require that any minimum standard within each criterion be met. Thus, section 610 provides the EPA discretion in determining how to consider the listed criteria and the relative weight to give to each. In addition, section 610 gives the EPA latitude to consider "other relevant factors" beyond the specific criteria set forth in the statute.
      As indicated above, polyurethane foam systems are products that release blowing agent to the environment during use. If CFCs are used as the blowing agent, they would be emitted during the use of such systems. In taking this final action to add polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs as a nonessential product, the EPA considered the purpose or intended use of these systems, the technological availability of substitutes, and safety and health considerations. The first criterion, the purpose or intended use, relates to the importance of the product, in terms of benefits to society, specifically whether the product is sufficiently important that the benefits of its continued production outweigh the associated danger from the continued use of a class I ODS in it, or alternatively, whether the product has little benefit, such that even a lack of available substitutes might not prevent the product from being considered nonessential. While foam products, particularly closed-cell rigid polyurethane foams, have provided benefits to society, for more than two decades U.S. manufacturers have replaced the use of CFCs in foam production without compromising these benefits.
      The intended use of polyurethane foam systems is often for insulation in buildings and residences. While insulation has benefits, such as reducing energy use and costs associated with heating and cooling, in previous rulemakings the EPA's consideration of this criterion has also been informed by consideration of whether use of the class I substance in the product is nonessential (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993 and 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). For example, use of a class I substance in a product may be considered nonessential where substitutes are readily available, even if the product itself is important (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993, and 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). This is reasonable because if the social benefits from a product can be provided by a similar product without use of the class I substance, that tends to support the conclusion that the product using the class I substance is nonessential. U.S. manufacturers successfully transitioned from using class I substances for foam products more than two decades ago, meaning that they were able to also replace the use of class I substances in foam blowing systems. Moreover, the same U.S. industry also replaced the use of class II substances in these plastic foam products. There are alternative foam blowing agents that can be used in foam systems as well as alternative methods and products for insulating buildings and residences that do not use class I substances. For instance, there are a variety of insulation types that can be applied throughout the building envelope to save energy and reduce leaks in buildings and homes with a similar R-value as a polyurethane foam system intended for use in insulation. The R-value refers to an insulating material's resistance to conductive heat flow and is measured or rated in terms of its thermal resistance. Alternative non-polyurethane foam insulation products with similar R-values include fiberglass, cellulose, and rigid foam boards.
      For the criterion of technological availability of substitutes, the EPA considers the existence and accessibility of alternative products or alternative chemicals for use in, or in place of, products releasing class I substances. As first explained in 1993, the EPA interprets this criterion to include both currently available substitutes and potentially available substitutes (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993). There are numerous substitutes for CFCs in polyurethane foam systems that are listed as acceptable under the SNAP program and have been widely used by the foam industry since the mid-1990s. As the EPA stated in the initial class I nonessential products rule, in sectors where the great majority of manufacturers have already shifted to substitutes, the use of a class I substance in that product may very well be nonessential (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993). As in previous considerations of this criterion, in this rulemaking the EPA is examining sectors where the market has previously switched to substitutes. The class I nonessential products ban that included plastic foam products was promulgated more than two decades ago and there were also subsequent restrictions on the use of class II substances for polyurethane foam systems. All U.S. manufacturers have therefore switched from CFCs to non-ODS alternatives such as hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and other compounds listed as acceptable substitutes under SNAP in foam blowing.
      For the criteria of safety and health, as in prior rules related to the nonessential product ban (see 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002), the EPA interprets these criteria to mean the effects on human health and the environment of products releasing CFCs or their substitutes. As in past rules, in evaluating these criteria, the EPA considered the direct and indirect effects of product use, and the direct and indirect effects of alternatives, such as ODP, flammability, toxicity, corrosiveness, energy efficiency, ground-level air hazards, and other environmental factors (see 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). The ODPs of CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 are 1. For the purposes of evaluating other direct and indirect effects for foam systems, there is not a substantive difference between foam systems and plastic foam products, given that the former is a precursor for the latter. In developing the initial class I nonessential products ban, the Agency provided information in the docket concerning the known alternatives at that time. Subsequently, alternatives that were already in use, as well as additional alternatives for foam-blowing, have been evaluated and listed as acceptable under the SNAP program, such as hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, and water. The current SNAP list of acceptable substitutes is more expansive than what was considered in the initial class I nonessential products ban. The range of alternatives includes those that have ODPs ranging from zero to between 0.00024 and 0.00034, significantly lower than the ODPs of CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114, all of which are 1. The Montreal Protocol's TEAP also provides a quadrennial global assessment of alternatives for foam blowing, including information concerning many of the direct and indirect factors identified above. The EPA considered all these sources of information when deciding whether to add to the list of banned products foam systems that contain phased-out CFCs and considered that U.S. industry has already successfully transitioned away from using CFCs.
      Considering all these factors together, the EPA concludes that polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs meet the criteria in section 610 of the CAA for listing as a nonessential product and is adding them to the list of nonessential products in 40 CFR §82.66(f) and prohibiting their sale in 40 CFR §82.64(h).
K. Updates to 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.104, and 82.270 Related to Destruction
      The EPA proposed to update and harmonize definitions related to ODS destruction in 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.104, and 82.270, by adding to the list of destruction technologies and amending the definition of "destruction" to allow inclusion of destruction technologies that incidentally result in commercially useful end products. The EPA received supportive comments from The Alliance on the proposal to update the list of destruction technologies consistent with the Montreal Protocol, and no adverse comments on this aspect of the proposal. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
      The EPA added a definition of the term "destruction" to 40 CFR §82.3 in 1993 (see 58 FR 65047-65048, December 10, 1993). The existing regulatory definition of "destruction" includes a limited list of technologies that may be used for destruction. When the EPA established the initial list of destruction technologies, the Agency also noted that it intended to propose authorizing use of additional destruction technologies through future rulemakings, as such technologies are approved by the Parties (see 58 FR 65049, December 10, 1993). Revising the definition of destruction to include these technologies will not affect the applicability of other regulatory requirements relating to use of these technologies.
      In the revisions finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency is updating the definition of "destruction" in 40 CFR §82.3, as proposed, to add destruction technologies that have been approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol since the issuance of the 1993 rule. The Agency is adding these destruction technologies so that industry in the United States has a greater variety of technology options for the destruction of ODS. All of these technologies are capable of destroying ODS or converting them into byproducts and can be grouped into three broad categories: incineration, plasma, and other non-incineration technologies. The EPA is adding the following incineration technology: porous thermal reactor. Porous thermal reactors are high-temperature systems with a porous layer that facilitates the decomposition of ODS and other industrial waste gases. Destruction takes place in an oxidizing atmosphere with a continuous supply of an auxiliary gas. For plasma, the EPA is adding nitrogen plasma arc, portable plasma arc, argon plasma arc, microwave plasma, and inductively coupled radio frequency plasma to allow for greater industry flexibility for using plasma destruction technologies. Although they reach higher temperatures than incineration technologies, plasma technologies are considered to be non-incineration technologies because they involve the thermo-chemical decomposition of organic material in a limited oxygen environment. Lastly, the EPA is also adding four non-incineration technologies: chemical reaction with hydrogen and carbon dioxide, gas phase catalytic de-halogenation, superheated steam reactor, and thermal reaction with methane.
      The EPA is also amending the definition of "destruction" to modify the statement that the process must not result in a commercially useful end product. The EPA is finalizing revisions to harmonize the definitions of the term "destruction" at 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.104, and 82.270. These two existing definitions are intended to convey the same meaning but are slightly different. For instance, the definition in 40 CFR §82.104 refers to a code of good housekeeping contained in a United Nations Environment Programme report while the definition in 40 CFR §82.3 does not. In addition, both provide a list of destruction technologies approved under decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The list at 40 CFR §82.3 contains seven technologies while the list at 40 CFR §82.104 contains five. Both lists are out of date in that they fail to include certain technologies that can destroy ODS or convert them into byproducts and have been approved under more recent decisions of the Parties. Similarly, the existing prohibition on disposing of halons in 40 CFR §82.270 includes an exception for destruction that also provides an outdated list of destruction technologies. The EPA is therefore harmonizing these three definitions of destruction and updating the list of destruction technologies to allow the use of more destruction technologies in the United States. An explanation of these technologies appears in the EPA's report on destruction "ODS Destruction in the United States and Abroad," which is available in the docket.
      The EPA is also revising the definition of "destruction" in 40 CFR §82.104 and the prohibition in 40 CFR §82.270 by removing the outdated lists found in those provisions and adding a cross reference to the list of destruction technologies in 40 CFR §82.3. This conforms the list of destruction technologies that can be used across subparts A, E, and H of 40 CFR part 82. The destruction technologies finalized through this action in §82.3 are also applicable to these other subparts, although the EPA notes that the listing of municipal waste incinerators in the existing regulations at 40 CFR §82.3 is limited to the destruction of foams, and thus the added cross reference to 40 CFR §82.3 in §82.270 does not make that technology available for the exception for the destruction of halons at 40 CFR §82.270.
      As noted above, the EPA is also amending the definitions of "destruction" at 40 CFR §§82.3 and 82.104 to modify language regarding commercially useful end products. The EPA is also editing provisions in 40 CFR §82.104 (Subpart E "The Labeling of Products Using Ozone-Depleting Substances") and 40 CFR §82.270 (Subpart H "Halon Emissions Reduction") to conform with the changes in this definition. The previously existing definition contained a restriction that a destruction technology cannot result in a commercially useful product. The EPA is revising that restriction in part because one of the destruction technologies that this action adds to the definition of destruction breaks down ODS into substances that have commercial viability. The process "Chemical Reaction with hydrogen and carbon dioxide" converts fluorinated compounds to hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide, chlorine, and water. The reaction technology separates and collects the byproducts at a high purity allowing for them to be sold, potentially improving the economics of using this technology. Because the EPA has concluded that a process that would otherwise qualify as "destruction" should not fail to qualify simply because one of the outputs is a commercially useful end product, it is revising the definition of "destruction" so that the mere existence of such an end product does not bar the technology from being used. The revisions further clarify that for destruction processes, the commercial usefulness of the end product is secondary to the act of the ODS destruction. Thus, the changes to the definition of destruction recognize that while production of a commercially useful end product is not the primary purpose of a destruction process, the destruction process may nevertheless result in a commercially useful product.
      The clarification that the usefulness of an end product should be secondary to ODS destruction is intended to maintain a distinction between the terms "destruction" and "transformation." The EPA established the definitions of "destruction," "production," and "transformation" in the 1993 rule (see 58 FR 65048-65049, December 10, 1993). Among other things, the Agency excluded from the definition of "production": (1) amounts of controlled substances that are destroyed using approved destruction technologies and (2) the manufacture of a controlled substance that is subsequently transformed. Similarly, the regulatory import prohibitions excluded both amounts destroyed, and amounts transformed. The definition of "destruction" noted that it does not result in a commercially useful end product whereas the definition of "transformation" noted that it occurs in a process specifically for the manufacture of other chemicals for commercial purposes. Thus, the original distinction in the definitions of these two terms related to whether the process was undertaken to intentionally result in a commercially useful end product or not. The distinction mattered (and is still relevant) because as explained in the 1993 rule, if a portion of the ODS remained after destruction, the destroyed portion could be excluded from production under the destruction exclusion, but the material had to be entirely consumed in the process (except for trace quantities) to qualify for the transformation exclusion (see 58 FR 65048, December 10, 1993).
      Intent has been an important aspect of the distinction between "destruction" and "transformation" since the EPA first promulgated these definitions. For example, in the 1993 rule establishing the definition of "destruction," in a discussion of whether heat or energy are commercially useful end products, the Agency said "[t]he intent of the destruction process is to destroy the substance, for which a byproduct in the way of heat or energy may be produced, rather than production of an end product being the goal of the destruction activity." (see 58 FR 65049, December 10, 1993). This discussion recognizes that something useful may incidentally result from destruction. Similarly, the 1993 rule recognized the possibility of a destruction technology converting ODS into other useful substances. In explaining the inclusion of reactor cracking as a destruction technology, the EPA stated "[s]ince 1983, this process has treated waste gases resulting from the production of CFCs. The gases are converted to hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide, chlorine, and water. The two acids are usable in-house and/or marketable, and the chlorine is scrubbed, leaving only water vapor, oxygen, and carbon dioxide as waste gases." (see 58 FR 65047, December 10, 1993).
      Consistent with that recognition and with the inclusion of a new destruction technology with commercially useful end products, the EPA concludes that the creation of a commercially useful end product should not in itself preclude a technology from being listed in the definition of "destruction." The creation of such an end product does not change whether chemical decomposition occurs. Many destruction processes incinerate the chemicals, but other technologies break down the controlled substance. In breaking down the chemical, it is possible that the result includes a commercially valuable end product that is not a controlled substance. "Transformation," on the other hand, means to use and entirely consume a controlled substance in the manufacture of other chemicals for commercial purposes. Thus, the purpose is to create new compounds using the ODS as a feedstock rather than the decomposition of ODS as a waste.
      Accordingly, to update the regulatory text but preserve a distinction between transformation and destruction, the EPA is amending the definitions of "destruction" at 40 CFR §§82.3 and 82.104 by removing the previously existing restriction that a destruction technology cannot result in a commercially useful product and by also adding a clarification that, while destruction might result in a commercially useful end product, such usefulness would be secondary to the act of destruction.
L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions in 40 CFR §§82.3, 82.4, 82.9, 82.10, 82.12, 82.13, 82.16, and 82.24
The EPA proposed to remove obsolete provisions from several sections of Part 82. The Agency received supportive comments from The Alliance on this proposal and no adverse comments. For the reasons described below, the EPA is finalizing the removal of outdated provisions for class I ODS related to Article 5 allowances, transformation and destruction credits, and transfers of allowances issued prior to the phaseout as proposed for ease of reading and to reduce confusion. The EPA is also removing definitions and reporting provisions for HCFC-141b exemption allowances and export production allowances.
i. Class I Article 5 Allowances
Before the global phaseout of CFCs and other class I ODS, the EPA historically had provided additional production allowances, known as "Article 5 allowances," for production of certain class I ODS for export to and use by Article 5 countries consistent with the Montreal Protocol. These are countries that were subject to a later production and consumption phaseout schedule than non-Article 5 countries such as the United States. Section 82.9(a) of the existing regulations granted Article 5 allowances until 2010, when the phaseout of these substances was completed in Article 5 countries. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing the schedule for issuing Article 5 allowances found at 40 CFR §82.9(a) and the corresponding recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR §82.13(f)(2)(v) and (f)(3)(ix). Section 82.9(b) of the existing regulations provides that holders of Article 5 allowances may produce class I controlled substances for export to Article 5 countries and transfer Article 5 allowances. Because there are no more holders of Article 5 allowances, the EPA is removing these provisions as well.
ii. Class I Allowances and Credits Related to Transformation and Destruction
Before the domestic phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA historically had provided additional production allowances in cases where class I ODS were destroyed or transformed. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing these provisions and removing references to these obsolete allowances in certain other provisions.
Section 82.9(e) of the existing rules contains the provisions related to such allowances, including detailing the information needed in a request for allowances based on having destroyed or transformed a specified quantity of class I ODS. The EPA stopped issuing such allowances in 1996 for all class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) and in 2005 for methyl bromide. The EPA is removing 40 CFR §82.9(e) and related obsolete reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR §82.13(f)(2)(iv), (g)(1)(xv), (g)(4)(xi), and (i).
Section 82.9(f) authorized persons who were nominated for an essential use exemption to obtain destruction and transformation credits between 1996 and 2000. The EPA established these provisions because of the difference between the phaseout date for class I substances under the CAA and the phaseout date for the same substances under the Montreal Protocol. These provisions include a description of the information needed and the grounds for which the EPA can disallow the request. Section 82.4(f) addresses production and import with destruction and transformation credits. The EPA stopped issuing such credits in 2000. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing 40 CFR §§82.4(f) and 82.9(f).
iii. Class I Consumption Allowances
Before the phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA historically had provided additional consumption allowances where class I ODS were exported, transformed or destroyed, or where an amount of production was transferred from another Party to the Montreal Protocol. Section 82.10 contains provisions related to these additional consumption allowances, including detailing the information needed in a request for them. The EPA stopped issuing those allowances in 1996 for all class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) and in 2005 for methyl bromide. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing 40 CFR §82.10 in its entirety. The EPA is also finalizing the removal of references to 40 CFR §82.10 from the definition of "consumption allowance" in 40 CFR §82.3, as well as from the provisions in 40 CFR §82.9(c) and §82.13(h)(1) and (2) as those references are no longer applicable. As discussed earlier in this notice, the EPA is entirely removing 40 CFR §82.9(e) and (f) in this action, and it is also removing §82.13(i), as its provisions are no longer needed. Accordingly, the references to §82.10 in those provisions will also be removed.
iv. Transfer of Class I Allowances
The EPA historically had allowed for the transfer of production and consumption allowances for class I substances in various ways. Under section 607 of the CAA, the EPA was required to issue regulations providing for inter-pollutant allowance transfers and allowance transfers between companies. For class I substances, those regulations appear at 40 CFR §82.12. Due to the class I phaseout, the EPA no longer allocates production or consumption allowances for class I substances. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing provisions related to pre-1996 allowance transfers for class I ODS (and pre-2005 for methyl bromide) found at 40 CFR §82.12, by revising 40 CFR §82.12(a)(1) and removing (b)(1), as any such transfers occurred years ago and these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect.
As discussed earlier in this section, the EPA is removing certain provisions governing class I Article 5 allowances and destruction and transformation credits. The EPA is therefore also removing provisions allowing for the transfer of class I Article 5 allowances and destruction and transformation credits found at 40 CFR §82.12(a)(2), (b)(2)-(5), and (c) as those provisions are longer needed.
v. HCFC-141b Allowances
In 2003, the EPA issued regulations (see 68 FR 2820, January 21, 2003) to ensure compliance with the first reduction milestone in the HCFC phaseout. In that rule, the EPA established chemical-specific consumption and production baselines for HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b for the initial regulatory period ending December 31, 2009. The rule phased out the production and import of HCFC-141b effective January 1, 2003 (see 40 CFR §82.16(b)). The EPA created a petition process at 40 CFR §82.16(h) to allow applicants to request "HCFC-141b exemption allowances" to produce or import small amounts of HCFC-141b beyond the phaseout. The Agency removed 40 CFR §82.16(h) from the regulations and terminated the HCFC-141b exemption allowance program, effective January 1, 2015 (79 FR 64267, October 28, 2014). At that time, the EPA did not remove definitions and reporting and recordkeeping requirements that pertain only to HCFC-141b exemption allowances. In the current rulemaking, the EPA proposed to remove those provisions, and is now finalizing those revisions as proposed, as described in the following paragraphs.
In this action, the EPA is removing the definitions in 40 CFR §82.3 specific to HCFC-141b production or import after the 2003 phaseout, in particular, the definitions of "Formulator," "HCFC-141b exemption allowances," and "Unexpended HCFC-141b exemption allowances." The definitions for HCFC-141b exemption allowances are no longer relevant since the EPA has removed the substantive regulations that these definitions support. For the same reasons, the EPA is removing references to HCFC-141b in the definition of "Confer," but is retaining the remainder of that definition. The EPA is also removing references and recordkeeping and reporting requirements specifically relating to HCFC-141b exemption allowances. These edits are made by removing 40 CFR §82.24(b)(1)(ix) and (xi); §82.24(b)(2)(xiv); §82.24(c)(1)(xi); §82.24(c)(2)(xvi); and §82.24(g).
The EPA also created provisions at 40 CFR §82.18(b) to allow producers to use "export production allowances" to produce HCFC-141b for export beyond the phaseout. These allowances ended in 2010 and therefore these provisions have no further purpose or effect. The EPA is retaining the definition of export production allowances and certain references where appropriate to provide context to the reader but is removing the recordkeeping and reporting provisions. These edits are made in 40 CFR §§82.16(e)(1) and (2) and §82.24(b)(2)(iv), and by removing §82.24(b)(1)(iv) and (ix); §82.24(b)(2)(xii); and §82.24(d)(2).
M. Other Comments Not Related to the Proposal
      The EPA received a comment that is unrelated to the proposed rule on the management and destruction of ODS held in banks in relation to the venting prohibition in section 608 of the CAA. In this comment, EIA notes that a substantial bank of ODS persists in the United States, including of CFC-11 contained in foams as well as other class I and class II ODS substances contained in existing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment or stockpiles. They state that despite a growing bank of ODS found to be available for recovery from retired equipment, the rate of proper disposal of these substances through either reclamation or destruction has declined. The commenter suggests that the low rates of reclamation and destruction in the United States, particularly of class II ODS, indicates that significant quantities of these substances are likely being vented in violation of section 608 of the CAA. They argue that in order to enforce the venting prohibition and encourage responsible management and disposal of the remaining bank of ODS, the EPA should propose additional measures on lifecycle ODS management. The EPA notes that this comment pertains to section 608 of the CAA and the regulations under 40 CFR part 82 subpart F and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which did not propose and is not finalizing any changes to the subpart F requirements. As the comment is not relevant to this final action, no response is required.
IV. Economic Analysis
      The EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking, which primarily stem from changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In total, the EPA estimates that the quantified costs and benefits of this rule results in a net savings of $13,000 per year. The Agency analyzed the quantitative costs and benefits associated with transitioning to electronic reporting, the streamlined import petition process for used halons, exempting halon 1211 in aircraft bottles from the import petitions process, establishing the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction, adding a recordkeeping requirement for certain distributors of methyl bromide QPS applications, and labeling containers of Halotron[(R)] I. The quantifiable costs and benefits of this rule primarily result from the revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the requirement to use electronic reporting. For the phaseout of ODS, the EPA previously considered the domestic costs and benefits of the United States' phaseout. Many of the regulatory revisions finalized in this action, such as the removal of obsolete requirements, will not result in any new costs or benefits. The EPA has provided in the docket technical support documents that consider the costs and the benefits commensurate with changes to the ODS phaseout regulations.
      Electronic reporting allows for faster review and transmission of submissions to the EPA. Additionally, all information submitted electronically is linked in an improved tracking system, which facilitates document management and allows companies to more easily manage past and future submissions. The estimated burden hours and labor costs will decrease as a result of the complete transition from paper to electronic reporting, including removing unnecessary data elements and auto-populating others. Similarly, the estimated Agency burden hours and labor costs decreases. The streamlined petitions process for importing used halons and the new Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction both decrease the estimated respondent burden. Specifically, the number of reporting elements for importers for destruction is reduced from 13 to 9, reducing burden hours per response by four hours. The EPA also estimates that exempting halon 1211 used in aircraft bottles from the petition process reduces the number of responses per respondent by one. These changes are detailed in the supporting statement for the Information Collection Request available in the docket to this rule.
      The EPA estimates that redesigning the existing labels on containers of Halotron[(R)] I will result in a one-time cost of approximately $4,000. Administrative and graphic design labor costs are estimated based on the total amount of hours required to redesign existing labels as well as hourly labor costs. Hourly costs include wages, overhead rates, and fringe rates. Additional information on this analysis is available in the docket titled "Estimated costs of Regulatory Changes to Labeling of Containers of HCFC Fire Suppression Agent, 2020-2029."
      There are also unquantifiable effects of this rule. Prohibiting both the sale of QPS methyl bromide for non-QPS purposes and the sale of illegally imported ODS is designed to improve compliance with the existing provisions. These costs are unquantifiable as the scale of these sales is not known but are anticipated to be small due to the illegality of such sales. The prohibition on sales and distribution of polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs will have no cost because there is no evidence to suggest this practice is occurring in the United States. Updating the definition of destruction allows for the use of new destruction technologies that are currently not in use in the United States but can now be employed with the additional technologies. Additional destruction of unwanted ODS in the United States may generate revenue for domestic destruction facilities. Lastly, the removal of obsolete provisions is not anticipated to have any material cost or benefit.
      Previous analyses provide information on the costs and benefits of the United States' ODS phaseout, and specifically the phaseout of all HCFCs through 2030, but do not quantify the costs and benefits of each individual phaseout step for each individual chemical. A memorandum summarizing these analyses, including the original regulatory impact analysis for the full phaseout of ODS, is available in the docket. This rule allows for the production and consumption of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 that will otherwise not be allowed in the absence of this rulemaking. These HCFCs will then be used to service existing fire suppression, refrigeration, and air-conditioning equipment, as modeled in the 2019 Final Servicing Tail Report. This rule relieves a regulatory prohibition on production and consumption of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 and results in greater benefits than taking no action.
      In finalizing the level of allocation for HCFC-123, the EPA considered the quantities needed to satisfy estimated demand for HCFC-123 to service equipment manufactured before 2020 and the amount of HCFC-123 that will likely be reclaimed annually, and thus be available to meet part of the demand for HCFC-123. The Agency is issuing consumption allowances equal to the 2020 estimated HCFC-123 demand for servicing existing refrigeration and air-conditioning and fire suppression equipment for years 2020 through 2022 and then decreasing the number of allowances issued in each subsequent year by an equal amount each year such that there are zero allowances issued in 2030. This allocation will avoid stranding existing equipment due to an inadequate supply of HCFCs while achieving a complete phaseout of production and consumption by 2030. As discussed in Section III of this notice, a viable reclamation market is a necessary element in achieving those two goals. Issuing allowances in excess of demand would suppress the reclamation market and result in less supply to service equipment after the 2030 phaseout. In the near term, the final allocation provides sufficient allowances to meet the near-term needs of the market while also fostering reclamation and transition. A final allocation that is significantly too high or too low could adversely affect the availability of reclaimed HCFC-123 for the fire suppression sector because reclamation is the only source of HCFC-123 for the manufacture of new fire suppression equipment once stockpiles of previously-imported material is exhausted. Thus, if the reclaim market is suppressed from 2020 through 2029, there will be less supply and higher costs for HCFC-123 for the manufacture of new fire suppression equipment and less supply and higher costs as the phaseout progresses since the supply of HCFC-123 will eventually only be from the recycling or reclamation market.
      The EPA finds there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). The EPA performed a sales test to assess the economic impact of a regulatory option on small businesses and compared the results of the sales test. This analysis is available in the docket. Based on the screening analysis of allowance holders of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, this rulemaking has no SISNOSE because it is expected to result in a small net benefit to small businesses through the ability to continue producing, importing and/or selling HCFC-123 and HCFC-124. The EPA notes that there are only eight companies total that hold consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, only three of which are small businesses.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563:
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
      This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771, because this final rule is expected to result in no more than de minimis costs.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
      The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA ICR number 1432.34. You can find a copy of the ICR and supporting statement in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
      This ICR covers provisions under the Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the CAA that establish limits on total U.S. production, import, and export of ODS. The EPA monitors compliance with the CAA and commitments under the Montreal Protocol through the recordkeeping and reporting requirements established in the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, Subpart A. The EPA informs the respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and will be disclosed to the extent, and by means of procedures, set forth in subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by the EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to the respondents (40 CFR 2.203).
Respondents/affected entities: Producers, importers, exporters, and certain users of ozone depleting substances; methyl bromide applicators, distributors, and end users including commodity storage and quarantine users.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory  -  Sections 603(b) and 114 of the CAA.
Estimated number of respondents: 98
Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, and as needed.
Total estimated burden: 2,940 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $363,683, includes $7,400 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
      The ICR addresses changes to the existing reporting and recordkeeping programs that are approved under OMB control number 2060-0170.
      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. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
      I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities potentially subject to increased costs from this action include allowance holders, distributors, applicators, and end users of methyl bromide and importers of ODS. The EPA estimates that the total incremental savings associated with this final rule is $13,000 per year in 2019 dollars.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
      This action does not contain any unfunded mandate 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 or the private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
      This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866. The Agency nonetheless has reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects of excessive exposure to UV radiation on children: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. "At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant melanoma," Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM Japson J. "Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies," Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) Armstrong BK, "Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure," In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. "Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases," 1st ed. London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whiteman D., Green A. "Melanoma and Sunburn," Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72; (5) Heenan, PJ. "Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia," Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, CD, et. al. "Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma," Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63; (7) Armstrong, DK. "How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an epidemiological perspective," Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
      This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      The EPA believes that it is not feasible to quantify any disproportionately high and adverse effects from this action on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
      This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production and Import, 2020-2029; and Other Updates (Page 120 of 160)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
      Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated:

__________________________________________
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR Part 82 as follows:
PART 82  -  PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-767q.
2. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], amend §82.3 by:
a. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for "Central Data Exchange" and "Halon bank"
b. Revising the definitions for "Administrator," "Aircraft halon bottle," "Confer," "Consumption allowances," "Destruction," "Individual shipment," "Non-Objection notice," and "Production";
c. Removing definitions for "Formulator," "HCFC-141b exemption allowances," and "Unexpended HCFC-141b exemption allowances."
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§82.3   Definitions.
* * * * *
      Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or his or her authorized representative. Starting [insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], reports and petitions that are available to be submitted through the Central Data Exchange, as well as any related supporting documents, must be submitted through that tool. Any other reports and communications shall be submitted to Stratospheric Protection Manager, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code: 6205T, Washington, DC 20460.
      Aircraft halon bottle means a vessel used as a component of an aircraft fire suppression system containing halon-1301 or halon-1211 approved under FAA rules for installation in a certificated aircraft.
* * * * *
      Central Data Exchange means EPA's centralized electronic document receiving system, or its successors.
* * * * *
      Confer means to shift the essential-use allowances obtained under §82.8 from the holder of the unexpended essential-use allowances to a person for the production of a specified controlled substance.
* * * * *
      Consumption allowances means the privileges granted by this subpart to produce and import controlled substances; however, consumption allowances may be used to produce controlled substances only in conjunction with production allowances. A person's consumption allowances for class I substances are the total of the allowances obtained under §§82.6 and 82.7 as may be modified under §82.12 (transfer of allowances). A person's consumption allowances for class II controlled substances are the total of the allowances obtained under §§82.19 and 82.20, as may be modified under §82.23.
* * * * *
      Destruction means the expiration of a controlled substance to the destruction and removal efficiency actually achieved, unless considered completely destroyed as defined in this section. Such destruction might result in a commercially useful end product, but such usefulness would be secondary to the act of destruction. Destruction must be achieved using one of the following controlled processes approved by the Parties to the Protocol:
      (1) Liquid injection incineration;
      (2) Reactor cracking;
      (3) Gaseous/fume oxidation;
      (4) Rotary kiln incineration;
      (5) Cement kiln;
      (6) Radio frequency plasma;
      (7) Municipal waste incinerators (only for the destruction of foams);
      (8) Nitrogen plasma arc;
      (9) Portable plasma arc;
      (10) Argon plasma arc;
      (11) Chemical reaction with hydrogen and carbon dioxide;
      (12) Inductively coupled radio frequency plasma;
      (13) Microwave plasma;
      (14) Porous thermal reactor;
      (15) Gas phase catalytic de-halogenation;
      (16) Superheated steam reactor; or
      (17) Thermal reaction with methane.
* * * * *
	Halon bank means a facility run by a national government or privately run and authorized by a national government that collects and stores previously-recovered halon for reuse at a later date.
* * * * *
      Individual shipment means the kilograms of a controlled substance for which a person may make one (1) U.S. Customs entry, as identified in the non-objection letter from the Administrator under §§82.13(g) and 82.24(c).
* * * * *
      Non-Objection notice means the privilege granted by the Administrator to import a specific individual shipment of a controlled substance in accordance with §§82.13(g)(2), (3), and (5) and 82.24(c)(3), (4), and (6).
* * * * *
      Production means the manufacture of a controlled substance from any raw material or feedstock chemical, but does not include:
      (1) The manufacture of a controlled substance that is subsequently transformed;
      (2) The reuse or recycling of a controlled substance;
      (3) Amounts that are destroyed by approved destruction technologies; or
      (4) Amounts that are spilled or vented unintentionally.
* * * * *

3. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], amend §82.4 by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (f);
b. Revising paragraph (j); and
c. Adding paragraphs (r) and (s).
Revisions read as follows:
§82.4   Prohibitions for class I controlled substances.
* * * * *
      (j) (1) Effective January 1, 1995, no person may import, at any time in any control period, a used class I controlled substance, except for Group II used controlled substances shipped in aircraft halon bottles for hydrostatic testing, without having received a non-objection notice from the Administrator in accordance with §82.13(g)(2) and (3). A person who receives a non-objection notice for the import of an individual shipment of used controlled substances may not transfer or confer the right to import and may not import any more than the exact quantity, in kilograms, of the used controlled substance cited in the non-objection notice. Every kilogram of importation of used controlled substance in excess of the quantity cited in the non-objection notice issued by the Administrator in accordance with §82.13(g)(2) and (3) constitutes a separate violation.
      (2) No person may import for purposes of destruction, at any time in any control period, a class I controlled substance for which EPA has apportioned baseline production and consumption allowances, without having submitted a certification of intent to import for destruction to the Administrator and received a non-objection notice in accordance with §82.13(g)(5). A person issued a non-objection notice for the import of an individual shipment of class I controlled substances for destruction may not transfer or confer the right to import and may not import any more than the exact quantity (in kilograms) of the class I controlled substance stated in the non-objection notice. For imports intended to be destroyed in the United States, a person issued a non-objection notice must destroy the controlled substance within one year of the date stamped on the non-objection letter, may not transfer or confer the right to import, and may not import any more than the exact quantity (in kilograms) of the class I controlled substance stated in the non-objection notice. Every kilogram of import of class I controlled substance in excess of the quantity stated in the non-objection notice issued by the Administrator in accordance with §82.13(g)(5) constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
* * * * *
      (r) Quarantine and preshipment exemption. No person may sell or use methyl bromide produced or imported under the quarantine and preshipment exemption for any purpose other than for quarantine applications or preshipment applications as defined in §82.3. Each kilogram of methyl bromide produced or imported under the authority of the quarantine and preshipment exemption and sold or used for a use other than quarantine or preshipment is a separate violation of this subpart.
      (s) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, any class I substance that they know, or have reason to know, was imported in violation of this section, except for such actions needed to re-export the controlled substance. Every kilogram of a controlled substance imported in contravention of this paragraph that is sold or distributed, or offered for sale or distribution, constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
* * * * *

4. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], amend §82.9 by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (f); and
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
The revision reads as follows:
§82.9   Availability of production allowances in addition to baseline production allowances for class I controlled substances.
* * * * *
      (c) A company may increase or decrease its production allowances, including its Article 5 allowances, by trading with another Party to the Protocol according to the provision under this paragraph (c). A company may increase or decrease its essential-use allowances for CFCs for use in essential MDIs according to the provisions under this paragraph (c). A nation listed in appendix C to this subpart (Parties to the Montreal Protocol) must agree either to transfer to the person for the current control period some amount of production or import that the nation is permitted under the Montreal Protocol or to receive from the person for the current control period some amount of production or import that the person is permitted under this subpart. If the controlled substance is produced under the authority of production allowances and is to be sold in the United States or to another Party (not the Party from whom the allowances are received), the U.S. company must expend its consumption allowances allocated under §82.6 and §82.7 in order to produce with the additional production allowances.
* * * * *

5. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], remove and reserve §82.10.
§82.10 [Removed and reserved]
* * * * *

6. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], amend §82.12 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; and
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c).
The revision reads as follows:
§82.12 Transfers of allowances for class I controlled substances.
      (a) ***
      (1) After January 1, 2002, any essential-use allowance holder (including those persons that hold essential-use allowances issued by a Party other than the United States) ("transferor") may transfer essential-use allowances for CFCs to a metered dose inhaler company solely for the manufacture of essential MDIs. After January 1, 2005, any critical use allowance holder ("transferor") may transfer critical use allowances to any other person ("transferee").
* * * * *

7. Effective [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], amend §82.13 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (f)(2)(xvii)-(xxii), (f)(3)(xiii)-(xvii), (g)(1)(xi), (xv), (xvii)-(xxi), (g)(2)(i)-(iii), (vi), (viii)-(xiii), (g)(3)(i)(A), (g)(3)(vii), (g)(4)(xv)-(xviii), (h)(1) introductory text, (h)(1)(ii)-(iii), (h)(2) introductory text, (h)(2)(ii)-(v), (viii), (v), (w)(2), (y), (z), (aa);
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (f)(2)(iv), (v), and (xvi), (f)(3)(iv) and (ix), (g)(2)(xiv), (g)(4)(vii) and (xi), and (i); and
c. Adding paragraphs (g)(2)(xv) and (g)(5)-(10).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for class I controlled substances
      (a) Unless otherwise specified, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in this section take effect on January 1, 1995. For class I, Group VIII controlled substances, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in this section take effect on August 18, 2003. For critical use methyl bromide, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in this section take effect January 1, 2005.
* * * * *
      (c) Unless otherwise specified, reports required by this section must be submitted to the Administrator within 45 days of the end of the applicable reporting period. Revisions of reports that are required by this section must be submitted to the Administrator within 180 days of the end of the applicable reporting period, unless otherwise specified. Starting [insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], reports that are available for submission through the Central Data Exchange must be submitted electronically through that tool.
* * * * *
      (f) * * *
      (2) * * *
* * * * *
      (xvii) For methyl bromide, dated records of the quantity of controlled substances produced for quarantine and preshipment applications and quantity sold for quarantine and preshipment applications;
      (xviii) Written certifications that quantities of methyl bromide produced solely for quarantine and preshipment applications were purchased by distributors or applicators to be used only for quarantine applications and preshipment applications in accordance with the definitions in this subpart; and
      (xix) Written verifications from a U.S. purchaser that methyl bromide produced solely for quarantine and preshipment applications, if exported, will be exported solely for quarantine applications and preshipment applications upon receipt of a certification in accordance with the definitions of this subpart and requirements in paragraph (h) of this section.
      (xx) For methyl bromide, dated records such as invoices and order forms, and a log of the quantity of controlled substances produced for critical use, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use, and the quantity sold for critical use, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use;
      (xxi) Written certifications that quantities of methyl bromide produced for critical use were purchased by distributors, applicators, or approved critical users to be used or sold only for critical use in accordance with the definitions and prohibitions in this subpart. Certifications must be maintained by the producer for a minimum of three years and;
      (xxii) For methyl bromide, dated records such as invoices and order forms, and a log of the quantity of controlled substances produced solely for export to satisfy critical uses authorized by the Parties for that control period, and the quantity sold solely for export to satisfy critical uses authorized by the Parties for that control period.
      (3) * * *
* * * * *
      (xiii) The amount of methyl bromide sold or transferred during the quarter to a person other than the producer solely for quarantine and preshipment applications;
      (xiv) A list of the quantities of methyl bromide produced by the producer and exported by the producer and/or by other U.S. companies, to a Party to the Protocol that will be used solely for quarantine and preshipment applications and therefore were not produced expending production or consumption allowances; and
      (xv) For quarantine and preshipment applications of methyl bromide in the United States or by a person of another Party, one copy of a certification that the material will be used only for quarantine and preshipment applications in accordance with the definitions in this subpart from each recipient of the material and a list of additional quantities shipped to that same person for the quarter.
      (xvi) For critical uses of methyl bromide, producers shall report annually the amount of critical use methyl bromide owned by the reporting entity, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use, as well as quantities held by the reporting entity on behalf of another entity, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use along with the name of the entity on whose behalf the material is held; and
      (xvii) A list of the quantities of methyl bromide produced by the producer and exported by the producer and/or by other U.S. companies in that control period, solely to satisfy the critical uses authorized by the Parties for that control period; and
* * * * *
      (g) * * *
      (1) * * *
      (xi) The quantity of imports of used, recycled or reclaimed class I controlled substances;
 * * * * *
      (xv) Dated records of the quantity of controlled substances imported for an essential use;
* * * * *
      (xvii) Dated records of the quantity of methyl bromide imported for quarantine and preshipment applications and quantity sold for quarantine and preshipment applications;
      (xviii) Written certifications that quantities of methyl bromide imported solely for quarantine and preshipment applications were purchased by distributors or applicators to be used only for quarantine and preshipment applications in accordance with the definitions in this subpart; and
      (xix) Written verifications from a U.S. purchaser that methyl bromide imported solely for quarantine and preshipment applications, if exported, will be exported solely for quarantine and preshipment applications upon receipt of a certification in accordance with the definitions of this Subpart and requirements in paragraph (h) of this section.
      (xx) For methyl bromide, dated records such as invoices and order forms, of the quantity of controlled substances imported for critical use, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use, and the quantity sold for critical use, specifying quantities dedicated for pre-plant use and quantities dedicated for post-harvest use, and;
      (xxi) Written certifications that quantities of methyl bromide imported for critical use were purchased by distributors, applicators, or approved critical users to be used or sold only for critical use in accordance with the definitions and prohibitions in this subpart. Certifications must be maintained by an importer for a minimum of three years.
      (2) Petitioning -- Importers of Used, Recycled or Reclaimed Controlled Substances. For each individual shipment over 5 pounds of a used controlled substance as defined in §82.3, except for Group II used controlled substances shipped in aircraft halon bottles for hydrostatic testing and imports intended for destruction, an importer must submit directly to the Administrator, at least 40 working days before the shipment is to leave the foreign port of export, the following information in a petition:
      (i) Name, commodity code, and quantity in kilograms of the used controlled substance to be imported;
      (ii) Name and address of the importer, the importer ID number, and the contact person's name, email address, and phone number;
      (iii) Name, address, contact person, email address, and phone number of all previous source facilities from which the used controlled substance was recovered or the halon bank storing the controlled substance;
* * * * *
      (vi) Name, address, contact person, email address, and phone number of the exporter and of all persons to whom the material was transferred or sold after it was recovered from the source facility;
* * * * *