EPA alleged AC Pro imported 768.5 kilograms of R-32 without allowances

A container reached Los Angeles without the required allowances

One container arrived at the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach on November 20, 2025. Inside were 81 cylinders of R-32, also known as HFC-32, with approximately 9.5 kilograms in each cylinder. The total shipment weighed 768.5 kilograms.

The regulatory hurdle at issue wasn’t the presence of R-32 by itself. Negatory! It was the absence of allowances, the limited federal authorizations that must cover imports of bulk regulated hydrofluorocarbons. The settlement’s stipulated facts say AC Pro neither possessed and expended allowances equal to the shipment nor received an EPA non-objection notice.

The record lists December 12 as the date of detention or hold. EPA conducted offsite compliance monitoring or inspections on December 15 and December 19 at a facility in Carson, California. The agency later alleged that every kilogram of the shipment had been imported in violation of the HFC allocation regulation.

How the HFC allowance system works

The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act requires a phased reduction in the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons. EPA’s regulations implement that mandate through allowances, which the rules define as limited authorizations rather than property rights.

An importer of a bulk regulated substance must possess enough allowances when its reports are due and expend them when a vessel berths. “Bulk” covers regulated gas stored in cylinders or other transport containers when it must be transferred before its intended use. R-32 in refrigerant cylinders fits that definition under the settlement’s account.

The amount of authorization required is not based on mass alone. EPA assigns each regulated HFC an exchange value, then multiplies that value by the substance’s mass. R-32 has an exchange value of 675. The agreement lists the 768.5-kilogram shipment as 518.7 MTEVe, its regulatory exchange-value-weighted amount.

The penalty tracked the goods’ value, not the number of kilograms

EPA regulations state that every kilogram of bulk regulated substance imported without the necessary allowances constitutes a separate violation. The settlement did not calculate 768.5 individual penalties, however. It used an expedited formula tied to the value of the cargo and R-32’s exchange-value category.

Because R-32’s exchange value of 675 falls below 1,300, the agreement applied a 20% multiplier to the shipment’s declared value. Its calculation is straightforward: $15,957 multiplied by 20%, producing the listed settlement amount of $3,191.

The agreement also recites a maximum civil administrative penalty of $59,114 per day of violation. That figure is a statutory ceiling, not the penalty imposed on AC Pro. The actual settlement was based on the cargo-value formula.

The corrective action sent the cylinders back out of the country

AC Pro certified that it exported the subject HFCs to Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd. in Zhejiang Province, China. The company reported paying $2,800 to carry out the export and agreed to provide EPA with documentation of that payment within 30 days of the settlement agreement’s filing date.

That corrective action is the clearest practical consequence in the record. Along with the $3,191 penalty, the agreement documents $5,991 in penalty and export expenses. That total is a direct calculation from the two listed amounts and does not include storage, delay, legal work or any other costs the source does not quantify.

The document does not report that the R-32 was released into the atmosphere, sold to customers or used in equipment. It also does not identify an injury, exposure or measurable environmental consequence. This is an import-control case, not a documented release case.

From arrival to settlement

What AC Pro accepted, and what was not adjudicated

AC Pro admitted the stipulated facts in the attachment, accepted the civil penalty, certified that it completed the corrective action and waived its rights to a hearing, a jury trial, an appeal and a challenge to the alleged violation in this proceeding.

Those concessions are substantial, but they are not the same as a factual ruling after testimony. The agreement expressly says the parties settled before taking testimony and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact. EPA alleged a violation; AC Pro waived its right to contest it. The source contains no separate narrative from the company explaining the shipment.

Compliance has to happen before the ship berths

The regulation places the decisive control point before cargo can move into the country. An importer must identify the regulated substance, confirm its mass, apply the correct exchange value, secure enough consumption or application-specific allowances and expend them when the vessel arrives.

That sequence leaves little room for a post-arrival paperwork fix. In this case, the documented remedy was not retroactive authorization. It was export of the entire subject shipment, followed by a penalty based on the goods’ value.

The settlement is narrow, but its facts are concrete. A container holding 81 cylinders reached the port without the required allowance accounting. EPA placed the cargo under scrutiny, the company exported it, and the agency assessed one fifth of the shipment’s listed value as a civil penalty. What the record establishes is a failure at the border-control stage. What it does not establish is a release or a downstream injury.