Petitions for Technology Transition Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is submitting this letter in response to the petitions filed to date that seek to reinstate EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy ("SNAP") Program Rules 20 and 21. AIA continues to support EPA's efforts to promulgate rules as part of its broader efforts under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 ("AIM Act") to phase down hydrofluorocarbon ("HFC") production and consumption, manage the use of HFCs and their substitutes, and facilitate the transition to next generation alternatives to HFCs. As indicated in our July 6, 2021 comment letter on EPA's proposed AIM Act rules, this phasedown of HFCs has significant implications for the aerospace and defense sector that relies on HFCs for the production and support (operations, maintenance and/or repair) of equipment products and systems for both commercial and military customers. Several AIM Act petitions, including the two most recent petitions, ask EPA to reinstate SNAP Rules 20 and 21. AIA is not taking a position at this time on the merits of reinstating the specific requirements of SNAP Rules 20 and 21. For now, AIA notes that the SNAP Rules contained a number of ambiguities regarding the scope of the covered end uses that could potentially impact critical aerospace and defense end uses. If those ambiguities are carried forward into a new rule in response to the petitions, they could result in unintended disruption in the supply of critical equipment and support to both commercial and military aerospace and defense customers. It is therefore important that EPA seek additional information from interested stakeholders before proceeding with any rulemaking that seeks to reinstate the SNAP rules. While AIA reserves any comments that it might have on the merits of reinstating the SNAP Rules pending any rulemaking process that EPA may initiate, we would like to offer our perspective on the rulemaking process itself. In particular, AIA respectfully suggests that EPA should give serious consideration to using negotiated rulemaking as a tool for building consensus around any proposed rules. Indeed, the AIM Act requires consideration of negotiated rulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. §7675(i)(2)(A). At a minimum, EPA should conduct a robust outreach program with stakeholder meetings before starting to promulgate any SNAP-type rules under the technology transition provisions of the AIM Act. Among other benefits of negotiated rulemaking, using a consensus-based process can characterize and mitigate the risk of unintended adverse impacts from implementing the proposed rules. Negotiated rulemaking also reduces the likelihood of the type of legal challenges that EPA previously faced with SNAP Rules 20 and 21. We believe it is necessary to articulate these benefits of involving stakeholders in the rulemaking process due to several statements in the petitions submitted to date claiming that there is no need for a negotiated rulemaking and that there is near-universal consensus supporting the reinstatement of the SNAP rules. AIA disagrees with these assertions. AIA thanks EPA for its continued efforts under the AIM Act to address climate change and for its consideration of the above points. We look forward to EPA's decision on whether to adopt negotiated rulemaking for the SNAP-related petitions or other efforts to include stakeholder input in the rulemaking process prior to a formal comment period. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you might have.