73098 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 84 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0643; FRL–8831–02– 

OAR] 

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Restrictions on the Use of Certain 

Hydrofluorocarbons Under the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency is issuing regulations 

to implement certain provisions of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act, as enacted on 

December 27, 2020. This rulemaking 

restricts the use of hydrofluorocarbons 

in specific sectors or subsectors in 

which they are used; establishes a 

process for submitting technology 

transitions petitions; establishes 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements; and addresses certain 

other elements related to the effective 

implementation of the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act. 

These restrictions on the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons address petitions 

granted on October 7, 2021, and 

September 19, 2022. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

26, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Cain, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Protection (Mail Code 6205A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone number: 202–564– 

1566; email address: cain.allison@

epa.gov. You may also visit EPA’s 

website at https://www.epa.gov/climatehfcs-reduction for further information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

used, we mean EPA. Acronyms and 

abbreviations that are used in this 

rulemaking that may be helpful include: 

AC—Air Conditioning 

ACIM—Automatic Commercial Ice Machine 

AHAM—Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

AHRI—Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

AIM Act—American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

AR4—Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CARB—California Air Resources Board 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CBP—U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CDR—Chemical Data Reporting 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

CH4—Methane 

CO2—Carbon Dioxide 

DOE—U.S. Department of Energy 

DX—Direct Expansion 

EAV—Equivalent Annualized Value 

e-GGRT—Electronic Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Tool 

EEAP—Environmental Effects Assessment 

Panel 

EIA—Environmental Investigation Agency 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FDA—U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FR—Federal Register 

GDP—Gross Domestic Product 

GHG—Greenhouse Gas 

GHGRP—Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP—Global Warming Potential 

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HCFO—Hydrochlorofluoroolefin 

HCPA—Household and Commercial Products 

Association 

HD—Heavy-duty 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

IAM—Integrated Assessment Model 

IAPMO—International Association of 

Plumbing and Mechanical Officials 

ICC—International Code Council 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IIAR—International Institute of Ammonia 

Refrigeration 

IPR—Industrial Process Refrigeration 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IT—Information Technology 

ITEF—Information Technology Equipment 

Facilities 

IWG—Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

LD—Light-duty 

LFL—Lower Flammability Limit 

MAC—Marginal Abatement Cost 

MDPV—Medium-duty Passenger Vehicle 

MMTCO2e—Million Metric Tons of Carbon 

Dioxide Equivalent 

MMTEVe—Million Metric Tons of Exchange 

Value Equivalent 

MVAC—Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

MY—Model Year 

N2O—Nitrous oxide 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAMA—National Automatic Merchandising 

Association 

NATA—National Air Toxics Assessment 

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NRTL—Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory 

OEM—Original Equipment Manufacturer 

ODS—Ozone-depleting Substance 

OMB—U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget 

OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

PFAS—Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 

PFC—Perfluorocarbon 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

PTAC—Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner 

PTHP—Packaged Terminal Heat Pump 

PV—Present Value 

RACHP—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, 

and Heat Pumps 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTOC—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 

Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SC–GHG—Social Cost of GHGs 

SC–HFCs—Social Costs of 

Hydrofluorocarbons 

SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SMRE—Semiconductor Manufacturing and 

Related Equipment 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

TEAP—Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel 

TFA—Trifluoroacetic Acid 

TLV–TWA—Threshold Limit Value-TimeWeighted Average 

TOC—Technical Options Committee 

TRI—Toxics Release Inventory 

TSD—Technical Support Document 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories Inc 

VOCs—Volatile Organic Compounds 

VRF—Variable Refrigerant Flow 

WMO—World Meteorological Organization 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. What is the purpose of this regulatory 

action? 

B. What is the summary of this regulatory 

action? 

C. What is the summary of the costs and 

benefits of this action? 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What is EPA’s authority for taking this 

action? 

III. Background 

A. What are HFCs? 

B. How do HFCs affect public health and 

welfare? 

IV. What is the petition process under the 

technology transitions program? 

A. What must be included in a technology 

transitions petition? 

B. What happens after a petition is 

submitted? 

C. Can I revise or resubmit my petition? 

V. How is EPA considering negotiated 

rulemaking? 

A. Summary of the AIM Act’s Directive on 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

B. How does EPA intend to consider 

negotiating with stakeholders under the 

AIM Act? 

VI. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs? 

A. What definitions is EPA establishing in 

subsection (i)? 

B. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs 

in the sector or subsector in which they 

are used? 

C. Applicability 

1. What is EPA’s statutory authority for this 

action? 

2. What uses is EPA restricting in this rule? 

3. What uses are not covered in the final 

rule? 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73099 

1EPA has issued regulations establishing and 

codifying a framework for phasing down HFC 

production and consumption through an allowance 

allocation program, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the Allowance 

Allocation and Trading Program Under the 

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act’’ (86 

FR 55116, October 5, 2021). That rule is referred to 

as the ‘‘Allocation Framework Rule’’ throughout 

this document. EPA finalized a separate rulemaking 

to update certain aspects of that regulatory 

framework (see final rule at 88 FR 46836, July 20, 

2023). 

2The Act lists 18 saturated HFCs, and by 

reference any of their isomers not so listed, that are 

covered by the statute’s provisions, referred to as 

‘‘regulated substances’’ under the Act. 

D. How is EPA addressing restrictions on 

the use of HFCs requested in petitions 

granted? 

1. Petitions Granted on October 7, 2021 

2. How is EPA addressing additional 

petitions that cover similar sectors and 

subsectors? 

3. Petitions Granted on September 19, 2022 

E. Subsection (i)(4) Factors for 

Determination 

1. How is EPA considering best available 

data? 

2. How is EPA considering the availability 

of substitutes? 

3. How is EPA considering overall 

economic costs and environmental 

impacts, as compared to historical 

trends? 

4. How is EPA considering the remaining 

phasedown period for regulated 

substances? 

5. How did EPA determine the degree of 

the restrictions for each sector and 

subsector? 

F. For which sectors and subsectors is EPA 

establishing restrictions on the use of 

HFCs? 

1. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and 

Heat Pumps 

2. Foams 

3. Aerosols 

VII. What are the labeling requirements? 

VIII. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

A. What reporting is EPA requiring? 

1. What is the frequency and timing of 

reporting? 

2. When do reporters need to begin 

reporting? 

B. What recordkeeping is EPA requiring? 

IX. What are the costs and benefits of this 

action? 

A. Assessment of Costs and Additional 

Benefits Utilizing Transition Options 

B. Scoping Analysis of Imports of Products 

X. How is EPA evaluating environmental 

justice? 

XI. Judicial Review 

XII. Severability 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 

Incorporation by Reference 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice for All 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. Executive Summary 

A. What is the purpose of this regulatory 

action? 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing regulations to 

implement certain provisions of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020, codified at 

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

The AIM Act authorizes EPA to address 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in three 

main ways: phasing down HFC 

production and consumption through 

an allowance allocation program; 1

promulgating certain regulations for 

purposes of maximizing reclamation 

and minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment; and facilitating sector-based 

transitions to next-generation 

technologies. This rulemaking focuses 

on the third area—facilitating the 

transition to next-generation 

technologies by restricting use of HFCs 

in the sectors or subsectors in which 

they are used. 

Subsection (i) of the Act, entitled 

‘‘Technology Transitions,’’ authorizes 

EPA, by rulemaking, to restrict the use 

of regulated substances (used 

interchangeably with ‘‘HFCs’’ in this 

document) in sectors or subsectors 

where the regulated substances are 

used.2 The Act also includes provisions 

for the public to petition EPA to initiate 

such a rulemaking. On October 7, 2021, 

and September 19, 2022, EPA granted 

12 petitions and partially granted one 

petition (hereby referred to as ‘‘granted 

petitions’’) requesting restrictions on the 

use of HFCs in various sectors and 

subsectors (86 FR 57141, October 14, 

2021). The Act directs EPA to 

promulgate a final rule within two years 

after the date on which the Agency 

grants a petition. This rulemaking, in 

part, addresses the granted petitions. 

This rulemaking further addresses the 

framework for how EPA intends to 

implement its authority to restrict the 

use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors 

where they are used. It includes 

provisions to support implementation 

of, compliance with, and enforcement of 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under subsection (i) of the Act. To 

provide the public with additional 

information about this new program, 

this document also includes a 

description of how EPA intends to 

implement certain aspects of the 

program, such as the processing of 

petitions to restrict the use of HFCs in 

sectors and subsectors in which they are 

used under subsection (i) of the Act. 

B. What is the summary of this 

regulatory action? 

EPA is establishing the process and 

information requirements for submitting 

petitions under subsection (i) of the 

AIM Act and describing how the 

Agency intends to evaluate those 

petitions. Upon receiving a petition, the 

Agency will consider, to the extent 

practicable, the factors listed in 

subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act in 

making a determination to grant or deny 

the petition. Consistent with the Act, 

EPA considered these factors to the 

extent practicable in establishing the 

restrictions on the use of HFCs in this 

rulemaking. 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs, 

whether neat or used in a blend, with 

high global warming potentials (GWPs) 

within the refrigeration, air 

conditioning, and heat pump (RACHP), 

foam, and aerosol sectors. EPA is 

prohibiting the manufacture, import, or 

installation of certain equipment across 

approximately 40 subsectors, either 

based on overall GWP limits or 

restrictions on use of specific HFCs. The 

compliance dates for these restrictions 

vary depending on the subsector ranging 

from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2028. 

The final rule prohibits the sale, 

distribution, and export of factory 

completed products that do not comply 

with the relevant restrictions three years 

after the prohibition on manufacture 

and import. EPA is not regulating at this 

time actions with respect to components 

needed to service or repair existing 

systems. EPA is finalizing labeling, 

annual reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for products and specified 

components that are imported or 

domestically manufactured that use or 

are intended to use an HFC. 

C. What is the summary of the costs and 

benefits of this action? 

EPA is providing a summary of the 

costs and benefits of restricting use of 

HFCs consistent with this rule. The full 

analyses, presented in the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020—Subsection (i)(4) Factors for 

Determination: Costs and 

Environmental Impacts, referred to in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73100 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

3 In a separate action, EPA has also issued a rule 

to amend the production baseline downwards by 

0.005% to reflect corrected data (88 FR 44220, July 

12, 2023). 

4The exchange values provided in the AIM Act 

are numerically equivalent to the 100-year 

integrated global warming potentials provided in 

IPCC (2007). EPA provides values in CO2e and 

notes that the same values would be used if 

expressed in exchange value equivalents. 

this preamble as the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts technical 

support document (TSD) and in a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 

addendum to the Allocation Framework 

RIA, are contained in the docket to this 

rule. These analyses—as summarized 

below—highlight economic costs and 

benefits, including benefits from HFC 

consumption and emission reductions. 

EPA relied on previous analyses 

conducted for the Allocation 

Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 

5, 2021) and the 2024 Allocation Rule, 

‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Allowance Allocation Methodology for 

2024 and Later Years’’ (88 FR 46836, 

July 20, 2023), as a starting point for the 

assessment of costs and benefits of this 

rule. In this way, EPA analyzed the 

incremental impacts of this rule, 

attributing benefits only insofar as they 

are additional to those already assessed 

in the Allocation Framework RIA and 

2024 Allocation Rule RIA addendum 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘Allocation 

Rules’’ in this discussion.3

The additional benefits of this rule 

relative to the Allocation Rules may 

vary depending on the mix and timing 

of industry transitions made to achieve 

compliance in affected subsectors. In its 

analysis of the Allocation Rules, EPA 

estimated that regulated entities would 

adopt specific technology transition 

options to achieve compliance with the 

statutory allowance cap step-downs. 

Industry is already making many of 

these transitions, and we expect that 

achieving the allowance cap step-downs 

will require many of the same subsectorspecific technology transitions that are 

also required by this rule. However, this 

rule may in some cases require 

regulated entities to further accelerate 

transitions in specific subsectors, 

relative to what EPA previously 

assumed in its analysis of the Allocation 

Rules. Conversely, entities in a discrete 

set of subsectors not covered by this rule 

could conceivably forgo or delay 

adopting abatement options that were 

assumed to be undertaken to comply 

with the Allocation Rules. 

Given this uncertainty, EPA analyzed 

two scenarios to represent the range of 

potential incremental impacts resulting 

from this rule: a ‘‘base case’’ and ‘‘high 

additionality case.’’ Both scenarios use 

the results from the Allocation 

Framework Rule as a starting point and 

count benefits in terms of reductions of 

consumption and emissions only in 

cases where this rule results in 

additional reductions in HFC 

consumption. The ‘‘base case’’ 

represents a conservative assessment of 

benefits and assumes that any industry 

activity not necessary for compliance is 

excluded. In other words, the scenario 

excludes consumption reductions not 

covered by a GWP restriction in this 

rule. By contrast, the ‘‘high additionality 

case’’ is a less conservative scenario and 

assumes that HFC consumption 

reduction activities not covered by this 

rule would remain consistent with the 

Allocation Framework Rule reference 

scenario (i.e., neither increase nor 

decrease in response to this rule). Based 

on the results of these two scenarios, 

which are detailed further in the Costs 

and Environmental Impacts TSD and 

the RIA addendum, EPA estimates that 

additional emission reductions through 

2050 would range from an annual 

average of 3 to 34 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) 4

in the base case and high additionality 

case, respectively. These emission 

reductions generally lag the anticipated 

incremental consumption reductions, 

which range from an annual average of 

28 to 43 MMTCO2e. 

Table 1 summarizes the reductions in 

both consumption and emissions as 

described in the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD and the 

RIA addendum for this final rule. The 

table shows the cumulative incremental 

reductions—that is, the difference in 

reductions compared with the 

Allocation Framework Rule reference 

scenario—from the final rule over the 

time period 2025 through 2050. Both the 

base case and high additionality case 

results show a net reduction in 

consumption and emissions on a 

cumulative basis through 2050. 

TABLE 1—INCREMENTAL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS RULE BASE CASE

AND HIGH ADDITIONALITY CASE COMPARED TO THE ALLOCATION RULE REFERENCE CASE

Cumulative incremental consumption 

reductions 

(MMTCO2e)—2025–2050 

Cumulative incremental emission 

reductions 

(MMTCO2e)—2025–2050 

Technology 

transitions rule 

base case 

Technology 

transitions high 

additionality case 

Technology 

transitions rule 

base case 

Technology 

transitions high 

additionality case 

720 1,113 83 876 

Although the base case is a reasonable 

projection of the potential impacts of 

this rule, there is reason to believe that 

it is a conservative one, and that the 

incremental emission reductions 

associated with this final rule could be 

far greater than reflected in the base case 

scenario. Previous regulatory programs 

to reduce chemical use in the affected 

industries show that regulated entities 

do not limit their response to the 

required compliance level; rather, 

regulated entities may take additional 

actions that transform industry practices 

for various reasons, including the 

anticipation of future restrictions, 

strengthening their competitive 

position, and supporting overall 

environmental goals. For example, U.S. 

production and consumption of ozonedepleting substances (ODS) during their 

phaseout was consistently below the 

limits established under the Montreal 

Protocol. For this reason, the high 

additionality case assumes certain 

abatement options not covered by the 

final rule—but which were assumed in 

the prior accounting of benefits for the 

Allocation Rules—continue to be 

undertaken. Based on the two scenarios, 

on a cumulative basis this rule is 

expected to yield incremental emission 

reductions ranging from 83 to 876 

MMTCO2e through 2050 (respectively, 

about 2 percent and 20 percent of the 

total emission reductions over that same 

time period in the Allocation Rules 

analyses). In the RIA addendum, we 

estimate the present value of these 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73101 

5As discussed in the RIA Addendum, 

incremental savings estimated for this rule stem 

largely from more rapid and more comprehensive 

transitions to cost-saving, lower-GWP technologies 

in certain subsectors than was previously estimated 

for the HFC Allocation Framework Rule. Similarly 

comprehensive transitions were not assumed in the 

Allocation Rules analysis, since it assumed that— 

absent regulatory requirements—newer 

technologies may still face some industry inertia 

and shift less rapidly regardless of potential energy 

savings or other benefits over time. 

6 In the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA Addendum, 

EPA estimated present value net savings for the 

period of 2022–2050 of $9 billion discounted at 3 

percent and $4.8 billion at 7 percent, in 2020 

dollars, discounted to 2022. Estimated net savings 

for the TT Rule are incremental to these prior 

estimates. 

7Subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act contains a list 

of factors that the statute directs EPA to consider, 

to the extent practicable, when carrying out a 

rulemaking or making a determination to grant or 

deny a petition. 

8We note, however, that subsection (i)(4)(C) 

plainly does not require a finding that the 

environmental impacts of a rule exceed the 

economic costs. 

incremental benefits to be between 

$3.01 billion and $50.4 billion in 2020 

dollars. 

EPA also estimates that this rule will 

result in potentially lower compliance 

costs relative to those previously 

assessed for the Allocation Rules. These 

additional savings stem largely from 

assumed energy efficiency gains and 

lower cost refrigerants associated with 

the technological transitions necessary 

to meet the requirements.5 The present 

value of cumulative incremental costs or 

savings from 2025–2050 is estimated to 

be between $1 million in costs and $2.1 

billion in savings, when using a 7 

percent discount rate, or between $1.6 

billion and $4.5 billion in savings, when 

using a 3 percent discount rate (in 2020 

dollars). As with EPA’s estimates of 

benefits for this rule, these estimated 

costs or savings reflect only what is 

incremental to EPA’s previously 

estimated compliance pathway for the 

Allocation Rules.6

Table 2 summarizes key findings from 

the RIA addendum, including the 

present value (PV) and equivalent 

annualized value (EAV) of cumulative 

incremental climate benefits, costs, and 

net benefits of this rule over the 2025– 

2050 time period. Climate benefits are 

discounted at 3 percent, and costs are 

presented using both a 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rate. The climate 

benefits and net benefits findings were 

not used for decisional purposes and are 

provided for informational and 

illustrative purposes only. 

TABLE 2—PV AND EAV OF CUMULATIVE INCREMENTAL CLIMATE BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR 2025 

THROUGH 2050 

[Millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] abcd

Discount rate 

Base case High additionality case 

Incremental 

climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Annual costs 

(negative values 

are savings) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% or 7% 

costs) e

Incremental 

climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Annual costs 

(negative 

values are 

savings) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% or 7% 

costs) e

3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

PV ...................................................... $3,013 ($4,549) ($2,073) $7,561 $5,086 $50,406 ($1,601) $1 $52,007 $50,405 

EAV ................................................... 184 (278) (215) 462 399 3,081 (98) 0 3,179 3,081 

aBenefits include only those related to climate. Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the 

SC–HFCs (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For purposes of this table, we show the 

effects associated with the model average at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single central SC–HFC point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–HFC estimates. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA addendum a consideration of climate effects calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts. b Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

cThe annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050. 

dThe PV for the 7% net benefits column is found by taking the difference between the PV of climate benefits at 3% and the PV of costs discounted at 7%. Due to 

the intergenerational nature of climate impacts the social rate of return to capital, estimated to be 7 percent in Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A–4, is not 

appropriate for use in calculating PV of climate benefits. 

Some of the information regarding 

projected impacts of this rule, including 

cost estimates and anticipated 

environmental impacts, was considered 

by EPA in its assessment of certain 

factors listed in subsection (i)(4) of the 

AIM Act.7 The cost and benefit 

information relied upon by EPA in its 

consideration of the subsection (i)(4) 

factors is compiled in the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD. As 

discussed in section VI.E, EPA chose to 

use certain cost and environmental 

benefit information that it had generated 

in conducting its RIA addendum in 

considering certain factors under 

subsection (i)(4), but we expect that in 

future rulemakings we may consider 

different types of information to address 

the (i)(4) factors. In assessing the (i)(4) 

factors for this rule, as summarized in 

the Costs and Environmental Impacts 

TSD, EPA considered estimates of costs 

of the action, without incorporating the 

social costs of HFCs (SC–HFCs), and 

estimates of cumulative consumption 

and emission reductions for 2025–2050 

of 720 to 1,113 MMTCO2e and 83 to 876 

MMTCO2e, respectively. The analysis 

demonstrates net positive incremental 

environmental impacts (i.e., HFC 

consumption and emission reductions) 

and cost savings relative to the 

compliance pathway evaluated for the 

Allocation Rules. However, there was 

no specific quantitative threshold for 

positive incremental impacts used to 

evaluate the subsection (i)(4) factors. 

Rather, in its review, to the extent 

practicable, of the overall economic 

costs and environmental impacts, as 

compared to historical trends, the 

Agency issued the final restrictions after 

considering the general findings that: a) 

there are in fact positive incremental 

impacts expected from this rule, and b) 

that the overall impact of the regulations 

implemented under the AIM Act to date 

(including both the Allocation Rules 

and this rule) remains net positive in 

terms of overall costs and 

environmental impacts.8

Although EPA is using SC–HFCs for 

purposes of some of the analysis in the 

RIA addendum, this action does not rely 

on those estimates of these costs as a 

record basis for the Agency action, and 

EPA would reach this rule’s conclusions 

even in the absence of the social costs 

of HFCs. 

Additional information on this 

analysis can be found in section IX of 

this preamble and in the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD and RIA 

addendum contained in the docket. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73102 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this rule if you manufacture, import, 

export, sell, distribute, or install 

equipment that uses or is intended to 

use HFCs, such as refrigeration and airconditioning systems, foams, and 

aerosols. Potentially affected categories, 

by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code, are 

included in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

238220 .............. Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors. 

311812 .............. Commercial Bakeries. 

321999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing. 

322299 .............. All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing. 

324191 .............. Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing. 

324199 .............. All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

327999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing. 

332812 .............. Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers. 

332999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing. 

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

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

333912 .............. Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing. 

333999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing. 

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

335220 .............. Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. 

336120 .............. Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing. 

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

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

3363 .................. Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing. 

3364 .................. Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing. 

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

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

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

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

337214 .............. Office Furniture (Except Wood) Manufacturing. 

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

339113 .............. Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing. 

339999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing. 

423120 .............. Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers. 

423450 .............. Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

423610 .............. Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers. 

423620 .............. Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers. 

423690 .............. Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers. 

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

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

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

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

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

423850 .............. Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

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

423990 .............. Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers. 

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

424820 .............. Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers. 

443142 .............. Electronics Stores. 

444190 .............. Other Building Material Dealers. 

445110 .............. Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores. 

445131 .............. Convenience Retailers. 

445298 .............. All Other Specialty Food Retailers. 

449210 .............. Appliance Stores, Household-Type. 

453998 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores). 

45711 ................ Gasoline Stations With Convenience Stores. 

481111 .............. Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation. 

531120 .............. Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses). 

541330 .............. Engineering Services. 

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

541512 .............. Computer Systems Design Services. 

541519 .............. Other Computer Related Services. 

541620 .............. Environmental Consulting Services. 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73103 

9As noted previously in this document, 

‘‘regulated substance’’ and ‘‘HFC’’ are used 

interchangeably in this document. 

TABLE 3—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

NAICS code NAICS industry description 

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

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

621498 .............. All Other Outpatient Care Centers. 

621999 .............. All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services. 

72111 ................ Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels. 

72112 ................ Casino Hotels. 

72241 ................ Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages). 

722513 .............. Limited-Service Restaurants. 

722514 .............. Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets. 

722515 .............. Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars. 

81119 ................ Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance. 

811219 .............. Other Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance. 

811412 .............. Appliance Repair and Maintenance. 

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

Table 3 is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA expects 

could potentially be regulated by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your entity may be 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the regulatory text at 

the end of this document. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What is EPA’s authority for taking 

this action? 

On December 27, 2020, the AIM Act 

was enacted as section 103 in Division 

S, Innovation for the Environment, of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

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

Subsection (k)(1)(C) of the Act provides 

that Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 113, 

114, 304, and 307 apply to the AIM Act 

and any regulations EPA promulgates 

under the AIM Act as though the AIM 

Act were part of title VI of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this rulemaking is subject 

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

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

applies to ‘‘promulgation or revision of 

regulations under subchapter VI of this 

chapter (relating to stratosphere and 

ozone protection)’’). 

The AIM Act authorizes EPA to 

address HFCs by providing new 

authorities in three main areas: phasing 

down the production and consumption 

of listed HFCs; managing these HFCs 

and their substitutes; and facilitating the 

transition to next-generation 

technologies by restricting use of these 

HFCs in the sector or subsectors in 

which they are used. This rulemaking 

focuses on the third area: the transition 

to next-generation technologies by 

restricting use of these HFCs in the 

sector or subsectors in which they are 

used. 

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

provides EPA with the authority to 

promulgate necessary regulations to 

carry out EPA’s functions under the Act, 

including its obligations to ensure that 

the Act’s requirements are satisfied. 

Subsection (i) of the AIM Act, 

‘‘Technology Transitions,’’ provides that 

‘‘the Administrator may by rule restrict, 

fully, partially, or on a graduated 

schedule, the use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used.’’ 

42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1). The Act lists 18 

saturated HFCs, and by reference any of 

their isomers not so listed, that are 

covered by the statute’s provisions, 

referred to as ‘‘regulated substances’’ 

under the Act.9 (42 U.S.C. 7675(c)(1)). 

EPA is also authorized to designate 

additional substances that meet certain 

criteria as regulated substances (42 

U.S.C. 7675(c)(3)). EPA has not so 

designated any additional substances, 

and the list of 18 regulated substances 

can also be found in appendix A of 40 

CFR part 84. Through this rule, EPA is 

restricting the use of certain HFCs, 

whether neat or used in a blend, in 

specific sectors or subsectors, based on 

EPA’s consideration of the factors listed 

in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act. 

A rulemaking restricting the use of 

regulated substances in sectors or 

subsectors can be initiated by EPA on its 

own accord, or a person may petition 

EPA to promulgate such a rule. 

Specifically, subsection (i)(3)(A) states, 

‘‘A person may petition the 

Administrator to promulgate a rule 

under [subsection (i)(1)] for the 

restriction on use of a regulated 

substance in a sector or subsector.’’ 

Where the Agency grants such a petition 

submitted under subsection (i), the 

statute requires that ‘‘the Administrator 

shall promulgate a final rule not later 

than 2 years after the date on which the 

Administrator grants the petition.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(C)(ii)). This rule 

addresses the granted petitions under 

subsection (i). 

Furthermore, prior to proposing a 

rule, subsection (i)(2)(A) directs EPA to 

consider negotiating with stakeholders 

in the sector or subsector subject to the 

potential rule in accordance with 

negotiated rulemaking procedures 

established under subchapter III of 

chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code 

(5 U.S.C. 563, commonly known as the 

‘‘Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990’’). 

A brief discussion on EPA’s 

consideration of using negotiated 

rulemaking procedures and its decision 

not to use such procedures prior to 

proposal can be found in section VI.B of 

the proposed rule (87 FR 76775; 

December 15, 2022, hereafter ‘‘proposed 

rule’’). 

EPA is also finalizing measures 

designed to assist with enforcement and 

to help ensure compliance with the HFC 

use restrictions, including 

recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling 

requirements. Reporting is also 

necessary to inform EPA of the 

transitions that are occurring in those 

sectors and subsectors addressed by this 

rule. EPA notes that subsection (k)(1)(C) 

of the AIM Act states that section 114 

of the CAA applies to the AIM Act and 

rules promulgated under it as if the AIM 

Act were included in title VI of the 

CAA. Thus, section 114 of the CAA, 

which provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to require recordkeeping 

and reporting in carrying out provisions 

of the CAA, also applies to and supports 

this rulemaking. 

Subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act states 

that ‘‘[n]o rule under this subsection 

may take effect before the date that is 1 

year after the date on which the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73104 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

10While the overwhelming majority of HFC 

production is intentional, EPA is aware that HFC– 

23 can be a byproduct associated with the 

production of other chemicals, including but not 

limited to hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 and 

other fluorinated gases. 

11World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, 

GAW Report No. 278, 509 pp., WMO, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 2022. Available at: https://

ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/ScientificAssessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022.pdf. 

12 Ibid. 

13A recent study estimated that global 

compliance with the Kigali Amendment is expected 

to lower 2050 annual emissions by 3.0–4.4 million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(MMTCO2e). Guus J.M. Velders et al. Projections of 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions and the 

resulting global warming based on recent trends in 

observed abundances and current policies. Atmos. 

Chem. Phys., 22, 6087–6101, 2022. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6087-2022. 

14World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, 

World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone 

Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 58, 

588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: 

https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/ 

SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf. 

15WMO, 2022. 

16 Ibid. 

17 Velders, 2022. 

18The AIM Act uses exchange values which are 

numerically equivalent to the 100-year GWP of the 

chemical as given in the Errata to Table 2.14 of the 

IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). 

19Calculations based on EPA’s Vintaging Model, 

which estimates the annual chemical emissions 

from industry sectors that historically used ODS, 

including refrigeration and air conditioning, foam 

blowing agents, solvents, aerosols, and fire 

suppression. The model uses information on the 

market size and growth for each end use, as well 

as a history and projections of the market transition 

from ODS to substitutes. The model tracks 

emissions of annual ‘‘vintages’’ of new equipment 

that enter into operation by incorporating 

information on estimates of the quantity of 

equipment or products sold, serviced, and retired 

or converted each year, and the quantity of the 

compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or 

maintain the equipment. Additional information on 

these estimates is available in U.S. EPA, April 2016. 

EPA Report EPA–430–R–16–002. Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014. 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/ 

inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2014. 

Administrator promulgates the 

applicable rule under this subsection.’’ 

EPA interprets this provision as 

applying to the establishment of 

restrictions on use of HFCs under 

subsection (i)(1) of the Act. Therefore, 

EPA is establishing compliance dates for 

the restrictions on the manufacture and 

import of products and installation of 

systems that are at least one year from 

the date this rule is promulgated, in 

accordance with this statutory 

provision. 

The provisions pertaining to program 

administration and petitions processing 

(i.e., § 84.62) do not include a delayed 

compliance date, and those provisions 

will come into effect 60 days after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. This approach is 

based on an interpretation that 

subsection (i)(6) does not apply to those 

administrative provisions because 

‘‘applicable rules’’ in (i)(6) are limited to 

rules that apply use restrictions under 

(i)(1). As a practical matter, the 

regulated industry to which a use 

restriction rule is being applied may 

need a full year to come into 

compliance with that restriction. While 

a petitioner may need some amount of 

time to collect the information needed 

in a petition, 60 days is a reasonable 

timeframe in which to do so. EPA did 

not receive comments on this approach. 

III. Background 

A. What are HFCs? 

HFCs are anthropogenic 10 fluorinated 

chemicals that have no known natural 

sources. HFCs are used in a variety of 

applications such as refrigeration and 

air conditioning, foam blowing agents, 

solvents, aerosols, and fire suppression. 

HFCs are potent greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) with 100-year GWPs (a measure 

of the relative climatic impact of a GHG) 

that can be hundreds to thousands of 

times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

HFC use and emissions have been 

growing worldwide due to the global 

phaseout of ODS under the Montreal 

Protocol and the increasing use of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment globally.11 HFC emissions 

had previously been projected to 

increase substantially over the next 

several decades. In 2016, in Kigali, 

Rwanda, countries agreed to adopt an 

amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 

known as the Kigali Amendment, which 

provides for a global phasedown of the 

production and consumption of HFCs. 

The United States ratified the Kigali 

Amendment on October 31, 2022. 

Global adherence to the Kigali 

Amendment would substantially reduce 

future emissions, leading to a peaking of 

HFC emissions before 2040.12 13

Atmospheric observations of most 

currently measured HFCs confirm their 

abundances are increasing at 

accelerating rates. Total emissions of 

HFCs increased by 23 percent from 2012 

to 2016 14 and a further 19 percent from 

2016 to 2020.15 The four most abundant 

HFCs in the atmosphere, in GWPweighted terms, are HFC–134a, HFC– 

125, HFC–23, and HFC–143a.16

HFCs excluding HFC–23 accounted 

for a radiative forcing of 0.025 W/m2 in 

2016 rising to 0.037 W/m2 in 2020. This 

radiative forcing was projected to 

increase by an order of magnitude to 

0.25 W/m2 by 2050. If the Kigali 

Amendment were to be fully 

implemented, it would be expected to 

reduce the future radiative forcing due 

to HFCs (excluding HFC–23) to 0.13 W/ 

m2 in 2050 which is a reduction of 

about 50 percent compared with the 

radiative forcing projected in the 

business-as-usual scenario of 

uncontrolled HFCs.17

There are hundreds of possible HFC 

compounds. The 18 HFCs listed as 

regulated substances by the AIM Act are 

some of the most commonly used HFCs 

(neat and in blends) and have high 

impacts as measured by the quantity of 

each substance emitted multiplied by 

their respective GWPs.18 These 18 HFCs 

are all saturated, meaning they have 

only single bonds between their atoms 

and therefore have longer atmospheric 

lifetimes. 

In the United States, HFCs are used 

primarily in refrigeration and airconditioning equipment in homes, 

commercial buildings, and industrial 

operations (∼75 percent of total HFC use 

in 2018) and in air conditioning in 

vehicles and refrigerated transport (∼8 

percent). Smaller amounts are used in 

foam products (∼11 percent), aerosols 

(∼4 percent), fire protection systems (∼1 

percent), and solvents (∼1 percent).19

EPA estimated in the Allocation Rules 

that phasing down HFC production and 

consumption according to the schedule 

provided in the AIM Act will avoid 

cumulative consumption of 3,156 

million metric tons of exchange value 

equivalent (MMTEVe) of HFCs in the 

United States for the years 2022 through 

2036 (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021). 

Annual avoided consumption was 

estimated at 42 MMTCO2e in 2022 and 

282 MMTCO2e in 2036. To calculate the 

climate benefits associated with 

consumption abatement, the 

consumption changes were expressed in 

terms of emission reductions. EPA 

estimated that for the years 2022–2050 

that action will avoid emissions of 4,560 

MMTCO2e of HFCs in the United States. 

The annual avoided emissions are 

estimated at 22 MMTCO2e in the year 

2022 and 171 MMTCO2e in 2036. More 

information regarding these estimates is 

provided in the Allocation Framework 

RIA in the docket. 

B. How do HFCs affect public health 

and welfare? 

Elevated concentrations of GHGs 

including HFCs are and have been 

warming the planet, leading to changes 

in the Earth’s climate including changes 

in the frequency and intensity of heat 

waves, precipitation, and extreme 

weather events; rising seas; and 

retreating snow and ice. The changes 

taking place in the atmosphere as a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73105 

20 In describing these 2009 Findings in this 

notice, EPA is neither reopening nor revisiting 

them. 

21The CAA states in section 302(h) that ‘‘[a]ll 

language referring to effects on welfare includes, 

but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, 

weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and 

deterioration of property, and hazards to 

transportation, as well as effects on economic 

values and on personal comfort and well-being, 

whether caused by transformation, conversion, or 

combination with other air pollutants.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7602(h). 

22 In describing these 2016 Findings in this 

notice, EPA is neither reopening nor revisiting 

them. 

23An additional resource for indicators can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators. 

24 IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, 

A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Pea ́an, S. Berger, N. 

Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, 

K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. 

Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekc ̧i, R. Yu and B. 

Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press: 

4. 

25USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation 

in the United States: Fourth National Climate 

Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. 

Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, 

T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 

1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. Available at: 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov. 

26 IPCC, 2021. 

27National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine, 2019. Climate Change and 

Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at: https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/25504. 

28NOAA National Centers for Environmental 

Information, State of the Climate: Global Climate 

Report for Annual 2020, published online January 

2021. Available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ 

global/202013. 

result of the well-documented buildup 

of GHGs due to human activities are 

changing the climate at a pace and scale 

that threatens human health, society, 

and the natural environment. This 

section provides some scientific 

background on climate change to offer 

additional context for this rulemaking 

and to help the public understand the 

environmental impacts of GHGs such as 

HFCs. 

Extensive additional information on 

climate change is available in the 

scientific assessments and the EPA 

documents that are briefly described in 

this section, as well as in the technical 

and scientific information supporting 

them. One of those documents is EPA’s 

2009 Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean 

Air Act (74 FR 66496, December 15, 

2009).20 In the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding, the Administrator found under 

section 202(a) of the CAA that elevated 

atmospheric concentrations of six key 

well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6)—‘‘may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations’’ (74 FR 66523, December 

15, 2009), and the science and observed 

changes have confirmed and 

strengthened the understanding and 

concerns regarding the climate risks 

considered in the Finding. The 2009 

Endangerment Finding, together with 

the extensive scientific and technical 

evidence in the supporting record, 

documented that climate change caused 

by human emissions of GHGs (including 

HFCs) threatens the public health of the 

U.S. population. It explained that by 

raising average temperatures, climate 

change increases the likelihood of heat 

waves, which are associated with 

increased deaths and illnesses (74 FR 

66497, December 15, 2009). While 

climate change also increases the 

likelihood of reductions in cold-related 

mortality, evidence indicates that the 

increases in heat mortality will be larger 

than the decreases in cold mortality in 

the U.S. (74 FR 66525, December 15, 

2009). The 2009 Endangerment Finding 

further explained that compared with a 

future without climate change, climate 

change is expected to increase 

tropospheric ozone pollution over broad 

areas of the U.S., including in the largest 

metropolitan areas with the worst 

tropospheric ozone problems, and 

thereby increase the risk of adverse 

effects on public health (74 FR 66525, 

December 15, 2009). Climate change is 

also expected to cause more intense 

hurricanes and more frequent and 

intense storms of other types and heavy 

precipitation, with impacts on other 

areas of public health, such as the 

potential for increased deaths, injuries, 

infectious and waterborne diseases, and 

stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525, 

December 15, 2009). Children, the 

elderly, and the poor are among the 

most vulnerable to these climate-related 

health effects (74 FR 66498, December 

15, 2009). 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding also 

documented, together with the 

extensive scientific and technical 

evidence in the supporting record, that 

climate change touches nearly every 

aspect of public welfare 21 in the U.S. 

including: changes in water supply and 

quality due to increased frequency of 

drought and extreme rainfall events; 

increased risk of storm surge and 

flooding in coastal areas and land loss 

due to inundation; increases in peak 

electricity demand and risks to 

electricity infrastructure; predominantly 

negative consequences for biodiversity 

and the provisioning of ecosystem goods 

and services; and the potential for 

significant agricultural disruptions and 

crop failures (though offset to some 

extent by carbon fertilization). These 

impacts are also global and may 

exacerbate problems outside the U.S. 

that raise humanitarian, trade, and 

national security issues for the United 

States (74 FR 66530, December 15, 

2009). 

In 2016, the Administrator similarly 

issued Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for GHG emissions 

from aircraft under section 231(a)(2)(A) 

of the CAA (81 FR 54422, August 15, 

2016).22 In the 2016 Endangerment 

Finding, the Administrator found that 

the body of scientific evidence amassed 

in the record for the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding compellingly supported a 

similar endangerment finding under 

CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) and also found 

that the science assessments released 

between the 2009 and the 2016 Findings 

‘‘strengthen and further support the 

judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere 

may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger the public health and welfare 

of current and future generations’’ (81 

FR 54424, August 15, 2016). 

Since the 2016 Endangerment 

Finding, the climate has continued to 

change, with new records being set for 

several climate indicators such as global 

average surface temperatures, GHG 

concentrations, and sea level rise. 

Moreover, heavy precipitation events 

have increased in the Eastern United 

States, while agricultural and ecological 

drought has increased in the Western 

United States along with more intense 

and larger wildfires.23 These and other 

trends are examples of the risks 

discussed in the 2009 and 2016 

Endangerment Findings that have 

already been experienced. Additionally, 

major scientific assessments continue to 

demonstrate advances in our 

understanding of the climate system and 

the impacts that GHGs have on public 

health and welfare both for current and 

future generations. According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment 

Report, ‘‘it is unequivocal that human 

influence has warmed the atmosphere, 

ocean and land. Widespread and rapid 

changes in the atmosphere, ocean, 

cryosphere and biosphere have 

occurred.’’ 24 These updated 

observations and projections document 

the rapid rate of current and future 

climate change both globally and in the 

United States.25 26 27 28


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73106 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

29EPA noted in section III.A of this preamble that 

the exchange values for the regulated HFCs listed 

in subsection (c) of the AIM Act are numerically 

identical to the 100-year GWPs of each substance, 

as given in the Errata to Table 2.14 of the IPCC’s 

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and Annexes A, C, 

and F of the Montreal Protocol. Available at: 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ 

ar4-wg1-errata.pdf. 

30Hereafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 34. 

31WMO, 2022. 

IV. What is the petition process under 

the technology transitions program? 

Subsection (i)(3) of the AIM Act states 

that a person may petition EPA to 

promulgate a rule to restrict the use of 

a regulated substance in a sector or 

subsector in accordance with the 

Agency’s authority to issue such a rule 

under subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act. 

If EPA receives a petition under 

subsection (i)(3), the AIM Act states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny 

a petition . . . not later than 180 days 

after the date of receipt of the petition’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(B)) and make the 

petition available to the public no later 

than 30 days after receiving the petition 

(42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(C)(iii)). For 

petitions that are denied, EPA must 

publish in the Federal Register an 

explanation of the denial (42 U.S.C. 

7675(i)(3)(C)(i)). If EPA grants a petition, 

the statute requires EPA to promulgate 

a final rule not later than two years from 

the date the Agency grants the petition 

(42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(C)(ii)). 

This section describes the process for 

submitting a petition under subsection 

(i) to the Agency, which includes 

direction on how technology transition 

provisions should be submitted to EPA; 

the necessary content of petitions; and 

how EPA will respond once petitions 

are received. EPA received comments in 

support of the Agency’s interpretation of 

the petition process under the AIM Act. 

Commenters did not suggest any 

changes to the proposed petition 

process. EPA is finalizing the petition 

process as proposed. 

Subsection (i)(3)(A) of the AIM Act 

states that ‘‘a person may petition the 

Administrator to promulgate a rule 

under [subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act] 

for the restriction on use of a regulated 

substance in a sector or subsector, 

which shall include a request that the 

Administrator negotiate with 

stakeholders . . .’’ EPA views ‘‘person’’ 

for the purpose of a technology 

transitions petition submittal as having 

the same meaning as how the term is 

defined in 40 CFR 84.3 (the definition 

established in the Allocation 

Framework Rule); that is, to mean ‘‘any 

individual or legal entity, including an 

individual, corporation, partnership, 

association, state, municipality, political 

subdivision of a State, Indian Tribe; any 

agency, department, or instrumentality 

of the United States; and any officer, 

agent, or employee thereof.’’ Using this 

definition in 40 CFR 84.3 for purposes 

of petition submittal under subsection 

(i) ensures consistency of how this term 

is used across these two regulatory 

programs developed under the AIM Act. 

This definition of ‘‘person’’ also 

captures the Agency’s intended meaning 

of this term for purposes of the 

Technology Transitions program. 

Therefore, any person who fits the 

Allocation Framework Rule definition 

may submit a technology transitions 

petition to EPA. We further note that the 

plain text of subsection (i)(3)(A) also 

limits this provision to requests for 

restrictions on the use of a regulated 

substance in a sector or subsector. Other 

types of requests—such as exemptions 

from existing or anticipated 

restrictions—are therefore not properly 

presented under the (i)(3)(A) petition 

process, although parties are always 

welcome to communicate to the Agency 

informally, to provide comments on a 

proposed rule that considers such 

restrictions on use, or to generally 

petition for rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedures Act. 

All the petitions considered in this 

rulemaking were submitted to EPA via 

email. EPA is requiring that future 

petitions also be submitted 

electronically. The Agency’s preferred 

method is for petitioners to use the 

email address that is available on EPA’s 

web page at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

climate-hfcs-reduction/technologytransition-petitions-under-aim-act. 

A. What must be included in a 

technology transitions petition? 

EPA is requiring standard content that 

must be included in a technology 

transitions petition. Standardizing the 

information requirements will assist 

petitioners in preparing their petitions 

and enhance EPA’s ability to review and 

respond to them promptly. A 

technology transitions petition must 

include the elements described in the 

following paragraphs. 

Petitions must indicate either a GWP 

limit or the specific name(s) of the 

regulated substance(s) or blend(s) that 

use the regulated substance(s) to be 

restricted and their GWPs. Petitioners 

specifying specific regulated substances 

should use as the GWP the exchange 

values for the regulated HFCs listed in 

subsection (c) of the AIM Act and 

codified as appendix A to 40 CFR part 

84.29 For blends containing regulated 

substances, petitioners should identify 

all components of the blend using the 

composition-identifying designation as 

listed in American National Standards 

Institute/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 

34–2022,30 Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants (e.g., HFC– 

134a, hydrofluoroolefin (HFO– 

1234ze(E)). If blends are not listed in 

ASHRAE Standard 34, petitioners 

should provide the nominal 

composition of the blend, specifying all 

components with the ASHRAE Standard 

34 designation for the components. If 

the components or substances are not 

listed in ASHRAE Standard 34, 

petitioners should provide the chemical 

name, the applicable CAS Registry 

Number, and the chemical formula and 

structure (e.g., CHF=C=CF2 rather than 

C3F3H). 

EPA is providing a table at 40 CFR 

84.64 listing the GWPs of commonly 

used constituents to allow petitioners to 

determine the GWP of blends containing 

regulated substances for purposes of this 

rulemaking. EPA also intends to 

maintain a list of commonly used 

blends containing HFCs and the GWPs 

of those blends at EPA’s Technology 

Transitions web page. EPA is using the 

following hierarchy to identify the 

GWPs of these constituents. For the 

regulated substances used in the blend, 

and as previously noted, EPA is using 

the exchange value provided in 

subsection (c) of the AIM Act and 

codified as appendix A to 40 CFR part 

84 as the GWP. For purposes of this 

rulemaking EPA is using the 100-year 

GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth 

Assessment Report (AR4) for all 

substances or components of blends. For 

hydrocarbons listed in Table 2–15 of 

AR4, EPA is using the net GWP value. 

For substances for which no GWP is 

provided in AR4, EPA is using the 100- 

year GWP listed in World 

Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

2022.31 EPA proposed using the 2018 

edition but to use the best available 

data, EPA is finalizing the use of the 

most up-to-date version of this report at 

the time of the publication of this rule. 

For any substance not listed in these 

sources, EPA is using the GWP of the 

substance in Table A–1 to subpart A of 

40 CFR part 98, as it exists on October 

24, 2023, the date this rule is published 

in the Federal Register as a final rule, 

if such substance is specifically listed in 

that table. EPA proposed GWPs for two 

substances that might be used as 

components of blends that are not listed 

in those three sources: transdichloroethylene (HCO–1130(E)) and 

hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HCFO– 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73107 

32 81 FR 32244 (May 23, 2016). 

33 84 FR 64766 (November 25, 2019). 

1224yd(Z)) at five 32 and one,33

respectively, for purposes of this 

rulemaking. EPA is finalizing those 

GWPs as proposed. For any other 

substance not listed in the above three 

source documents, EPA is using the 

default GWPs as shown in Table A–1 to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 98, as it exists 

on the date this final rule is published 

in the Federal Register. Lastly, if the 

substance is not listed in any of the 

other sources, EPA is using the GWP of 

that constituent described in a listing of 

an acceptable substitute under EPA’s 

SNAP program. In any case where a 

GWP value is preceded with a less than 

(<), very less than (<<), greater than (>), 

approximately (∼), or similar symbol in 

the source document, which is used to 

determine the GWP, EPA is using the 

value shown. The GWP of a blend 

would then be calculated as the sum of 

the nominal composition (in mass 

proportions) of each component 

multiplied by the GWP of each 

component. 

In the event that the hierarchy 

outlined in this section does not provide 

a GWP (i.e., the substance in question is 

not listed in the three documents, is not 

one of the two for which EPA is 

establishing GWPs, is not listed in Table 

A–1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 and 

does not fit within any of the default 

GWPs provided in Table A–1 to subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 98), EPA proposed that 

the petitioner should use a GWP of zero. 

One commenter suggested that using a 

value of zero would result in an 

artificially lower GWP value. Although 

EPA anticipates this situation to be rare, 

and unlikely to materially affect the 

status of a blend, the Agency is not 

assuming a value of zero for as yet 

unknown constituents in this final rule. 

Rather, EPA will take a more 

conservative approach and exclude that 

component, and its mass proportion, 

from the calculation of GWP. 

Petitioners must also indicate the 

sector or subsector for which 

restrictions on use of the regulated 

substance would apply. EPA is not 

limiting sectors or subsectors to a 

specific list, recognizing there may be 

additional uses of HFCs today or that 

may be developed in the future, and 

thus additional sectors or subsectors for 

which it could be appropriate to restrict 

use. 

Petitioners must specify a date that 

the requested restrictions would go into 

effect and provide information 

explaining why the date is appropriate. 

Petitioners should recognize that 

subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act restricts 

the effective date of rules promulgated 

under subsection (i) to no earlier than 

one year after the date of the final rule. 

Before proposing a rule for the use of 

a regulated substance for a sector or 

subsector under subsection (i)(1), 

subsection (i)(2)(A) directs EPA to 

consider negotiating with stakeholders 

in accordance with the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990 (i.e., negotiated 

rulemaking procedure). Subsection 

(i)(3)(A) requires petitioners to ‘‘include 

a request that the Administrator 

negotiate with stakeholders in 

accordance with paragraph (2)(A)’’ (42 

U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(A)). EPA sought 

comment on whether it is reasonable for 

the Agency to interpret subsection (i)(3) 

as requiring petitioners to address 

whether EPA use the negotiated 

rulemaking procedure, rather than 

requiring them to affirmatively request 

that the Agency pursue negotiated 

rulemaking. Several commenters 

responded in support of EPA’s 

interpretation that petitioners must 

simply address whether EPA should 

consider negotiated rulemaking in their 

petition and not that they must request 

a negotiated rulemaking. Most petitions 

addressed in this rule complied with the 

statute’s requirement to request that 

EPA use negotiated rulemaking; 

however, those petitioners unanimously 

expressed a preference that EPA not use 

this procedure in promulgating its 

restrictions. Allowing petitioners to 

express their views as to whether EPA 

should engage in negotiated rulemaking 

for a subsection (i) rulemaking, as 

opposed to requiring them to request 

something they may disagree with, 

provides more value to EPA as we 

consider, per subsection (i)(2)(A), 

whether to use the negotiated 

rulemaking procedure before proposing 

a restriction under subsection (i). 

Otherwise, EPA could be misled as to 

the petitioners’ views and could elect to 

use the negotiated rulemaking 

procedure when no stakeholder sought 

that outcome. The unwarranted use of 

time and resources to undergo that 

procedure could be counterproductive 

to meeting the statutory deadlines to 

complete a final rule. Petitioners must 

provide an explanation of their position 

on the use of the negotiated rulemaking 

procedure and any considerations that 

would either support or disfavor the use 

of that process. If a petition is granted, 

EPA intends to consider the petitioner’s 

statement on negotiated rulemaking as it 

determines whether to use the 

procedure. 

Petitioners must also submit, to the 

extent practicable, information related 

to the ‘‘Factors for Determination’’ listed 

in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act to 

facilitate EPA’s review of the petition. 

Given the relatively short 180-day 

statutory timeframe for EPA to grant or 

deny a petition, this requirement will 

ensure that information is available to 

EPA at the start of its review, to the 

extent the petitioner has relevant 

available information. EPA may deny a 

petition where no information has been 

provided that would allow the Agency 

to act on the petition. Therefore, 

petitioners must, to the extent 

practicable, provide best available data 

on substitutes that could be used in lieu 

of the petitioned substance(s), 

addressing the subfactors (e.g., 

technological achievability, safety, 

commercial demands, etc.) that may 

affect the availability of those 

substitutes. Other relevant information 

includes estimates of the economic costs 

and environmental impacts of the 

petitioner’s requested restriction on use 

in the sector or subsector. In particular, 

providing EPA with a sense of the scale 

of impacts (e.g., whether the suggested 

restriction would have a significant 

environmental impact, or whether the 

suggested restriction would be likely to 

impose costs or savings on regulated 

entities or consumers) using best 

available, quantitative, accurate data to 

support that assessment will be more 

likely to result in a timely, wellreasoned response to the petitioner’s 

request. One commenter suggested that 

EPA require that petitions include 

information on the expected outcome of 

requests made in the petition with 

respect to the consumption and 

emissions of regulated substances. The 

commenter indicated that this could be 

done by sharing assumptions regarding 

equipment charge size, leak rate, 

lifespan, and national sales. While EPA 

agrees that this information may be 

useful for assessing petitioners’ requests 

as they relate to environmental impacts 

and other (i)(4) factors, the Agency 

disagrees that this information should 

be a mandatory element of the petitions, 

as many petitioners may not know the 

expected outcome of their petition 

requests as it relates to the consumption 

and emissions of regulated substances. 

B. What happens after a petition is 

submitted? 

Subsection (i)(3)(C)(iii) instructs EPA 

to make petitions publicly available 

within 30 days after receipt. EPA 

intends to continue to post technology 

transitions petitions at 

www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0289, as well as 

on the Agency’s website at https://

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

technology-transition-petitions-underaim-act. Making the petitions available 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73108 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

allows the public to provide additional 

data and relevant material to aid in 

EPA’s evaluation of petitions, based on 

the factors specified in subsection (i) of 

the AIM Act. 

In accordance with the statutory 

directive, EPA intends to act on 

petitions no later than 180 days after the 

date of receipt of the petition. In making 

a determination to grant or deny a 

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

requires EPA to consider, to the extent 

practicable: 

1. The best available data; 

2. The availability of substitutes for 

use of the regulated substance that is the 

subject of the rulemaking or petition, as 

applicable, in a sector or subsector, 

taking into account technological 

achievability, commercial demands, 

affordability for residential and small 

business consumers, safety, consumer 

costs, building codes, appliance 

efficiency standards, contractor training 

costs, and other relevant factors, 

including the quantities of regulated 

substances available from reclaiming, 

prior production, or prior import; 

3. Overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts, as compared to 

historical trends; and 

4. The remaining phase-down period 

for regulated substances under the final 

rule issued under subsection (e)(3) of 

the AIM Act, if applicable. 

Subsection (i)(4) applies both to EPA’s 

action on subsection (i) petitions and to 

EPA’s rulemakings under subsection (i). 

Requiring EPA to grant or deny petitions 

within 180 days of receipt inherently 

limits the scope and depth of any 

potential analysis. EPA’s timeframe for 

promulgating a rule subject to a granted 

petition is two years from the date of a 

petition grant, and in undertaking a 

rulemaking the Agency will 

undoubtedly be able to perform a more 

in-depth analysis of the (i)(4) factors. 

Granting a petition under subsection (i) 

of the AIM Act therefore does not 

necessarily mean the Agency will 

propose or finalize requirements 

identical to a petitioner’s request. 

Rather, granting a petition means that 

the requested restriction warrants 

further consideration through 

rulemaking. During this rulemaking 

process, EPA will determine what 

restrictions on the use of HFCs to 

propose and finalize based on multiple 

considerations, including its 

consideration of the ‘‘Factors for 

Determination’’ listed in subsection 

(i)(4) to the extent practicable. This 

approach provides interested 

stakeholders with the opportunity to 

review and comment on a regulatory 

proposal restricting the use of HFCs 

prior to restrictions going into effect. 

C. Can I revise or resubmit my petition? 

Receipt of a completed petition 

triggers two statutory deadlines: the 

posting of the petition within 30 days 

and the granting or denying of the 

petition within 180 days. Because there 

is little purpose in EPA continuing to 

take action on the original petition 

when the petitioner has revised (i.e., 

makes edits to an original request) or 

resubmitted (i.e., makes edits to an 

original request and presents it as a new 

petition) it, EPA’s view is that a petition 

revision or resubmittal made by 

petitioners is typically intended to 

supersede or replace the original 

petition and would thus restart these 

timelines. However, depending on the 

timing of the resubmission and the 

nature of the revision and the request, 

EPA may be able to act more quickly on 

a revised or resubmitted petition, for 

example, if the Agency had already 

developed familiarity with the request 

through its consideration of the original 

petition. Therefore, EPA intends to 

address petition revisions and 

resubmittals on a case-by-case basis. If 

petitioners do not intend for their 

submission to supersede or replace their 

original petition, rather they are 

submitting information to revise or 

augment their initial petition without 

significantly altering its scope, they 

should be clear that they are submitting 

supplemental or clarifying information 

regarding their petitions to the docket 

related to petitions under consideration. 

On a case-by-case basis the Agency will 

consider and act accordingly on 

supplemental or clarifying information 

as part of its consideration of the initial 

petition. If EPA finds that in fact what 

was submitted constitutes a new 

petition or revised petition, new 

timelines will apply. In making a 

determination to grant or deny petitions, 

EPA plans to consider relevant and 

timely information provided in this 

docket, as the Agency did with the 

granted petitions that led to this 

rulemaking, including information 

provided by petitioners and from other 

stakeholders, for those petitions under 

review. Once a petition is granted or 

denied, any revised or resubmitted 

petitions will likely be treated as a new 

petition. 

V. How is EPA considering negotiated 

rulemaking? 

This section provides a summary of 

the AIM Act’s directive to consider 

negotiating with stakeholders prior to 

proposing a rule under subsection (i) of 

the Act. This section also provides 

information regarding how EPA intends 

to consider negotiating with 

stakeholders for future rulemakings. 

A. Summary of the AIM Act’s Directive 

on Negotiated Rulemaking 

Prior to proposing a rule, subsection 

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

consider negotiating with stakeholders 

in the sector or subsector subject to the 

potential rule in accordance with 

negotiated rulemaking procedures 

established under the ‘‘Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990.’’ If EPA makes 

a determination to use the negotiated 

rulemaking procedures, subsection 

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

practicable, give priority to completing 

that rulemaking over completing 

rulemakings under subsection (i) that 

are not using that procedure. For 

additional information on negotiated 

rulemaking procedures, see 5 U.S.C. 

563. If EPA does not use the negotiated 

rulemaking process, subsection (i)(2)(C) 

requires the Agency to publish an 

explanation of the decision to not use 

that procedure before commencement of 

the rulemaking process. 

B. How does EPA intend to consider 

negotiating with stakeholders under the 

AIM Act? 

Prior to proposing this rulemaking, 

EPA issued a document informing the 

public of the Agency’s consideration of 

using the negotiated rulemaking 

procedure and the Agency’s decision to 

not use these procedures for this 

rulemaking (86 FR 74080, December 29, 

2021). The Agency found that using 

negotiated rulemakings was not in the 

best interest of the public and thus 

decided not to use negotiated 

rulemaking. In making this decision, 

EPA considered information provided 

by the petitions, including statements 

made by petitioners on the use of 

negotiated rulemaking procedures, and 

information provided by other 

stakeholders on the petitions. The 

Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 

U.S.C. 563, provides seven criteria that 

the head of an agency should consider 

when determining whether a negotiated 

rulemaking is in the public interest. 

These criteria are informative for 

purposes of making a determination 

under AIM Act subsection (i) of whether 

to use the procedures set out in the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Act for 

proposed rulemakings and therefore, 

also considered these criteria in its 

decision. 

Going forward, EPA intends to use a 

similar process in making its 

determination on whether to use 

negotiated rulemaking procedures for 

any rulemaking being considered under 

subsection (i) in response to granted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73109 

34These petitions were received from AHRI and 

IIAR and are discussed in section VI.D of this 

preamble. Copies of these petitions are located at 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0289, or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transitionpetitions-under-aim-act. 

petitions. This includes reviewing the 

petitions themselves and statements 

from petitioners on the use of negotiated 

rulemaking procedures, considering 

information provided by stakeholders 

commenting on petitions, and 

considering the seven criteria listed in 

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 

5 U.S.C. 563, that the head of an agency 

should consider when determining 

whether a negotiated rulemaking is in 

the public’s interest. For rulemakings 

initiated by EPA (i.e., not in response to 

granted petitions), EPA anticipates that 

our review would focus on just these 

seven criteria. 

Furthermore, where appropriate, EPA 

will also consider recent Agency actions 

and decisions related to restrictions on 

the use of HFCs in sectors and 

subsectors for its consideration on using 

negotiated rulemaking procedures. For 

example, EPA received four petitions 

that were not included in the Agency’s 

consideration of using negotiated 

rulemaking procedures for petitions 

granted on October 7, 2021.34 However, 

these petitions requested restrictions on 

the use of HFCs in the same sectors and 

subsectors covered by petitions granted 

on October 7, 2021, for which EPA 

made a determination not to use 

negotiated rulemaking. Subsection 

(i)(2)(A) states that, ‘‘[b]efore proposing 

a rule for a sector or subsector under 

paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 

consider negotiating with stakeholders 

in the sector or subsector subject to the 

potential rule . . .’’ EPA will not issue 

a separate notice to consider using 

negotiated rulemaking for these four 

petitions because these petitions were 

received well ahead of this final action, 

and the requested restrictions are in the 

same sectors and subsectors contained 

in petitions granted on October 7, 2021, 

for which the Agency considered and 

decided not to use negotiated 

rulemaking procedures. Nothing in 

these four petitions caused EPA to 

reconsider that decision. Therefore, it is 

unnecessary for the Agency to 

reconsider whether to use negotiated 

rulemaking procedures for this 

rulemaking. EPA encourages future 

petitioners to consider petitions under 

review or recently granted before 

submitting a new petition and to 

consider submitting information to the 

docket for an existing petition in lieu of 

submitting a new petition on the same 

uses of HFCs that are already under 

consideration by the Agency. 

One commenter requested that EPA 

conduct a negotiated rulemaking in 

instances where the Agency grants a 

petition but then would seek to propose 

more stringent aspects of the request, 

such as an earlier compliance date or 

lower GWP limit. EPA disagrees with 

this comment. A decision by the Agency 

to grant, or partially grant, a petition 

under subsection (i) of the AIM Act does 

not mean the Agency must propose 

requirements identical to a petitioner’s 

request. Rather, granting a petition 

means that the requested restriction 

warrants further consideration through 

rulemaking. Furthermore, given the 

interests of all stakeholders including 

potentially other petitioners, it would 

not be appropriate to consider a 

negotiated rulemaking only when EPA 

is considering a more stringent 

proposal. EPA therefore may consider 

whether any deviation from a petition 

merits a negotiated rulemaking in its 

analysis of the public’s interest, but a 

deviation on its own is insufficient to 

require the Agency to do so. 

VI. How is EPA restricting the use of 

HFCs? 

This section details the Agency’s 

restrictions on the use of HFCs in 

accordance with the granted petitions, 

including defining terms that are new to 

40 CFR part 84; describing the form and 

applicability of the prohibitions; 

providing EPA’s interpretation and 

application of the ‘‘Factors for 

Determination’’ contained in subsection 

(i)(4) of the AIM Act; and listing the 

specific restrictions on the use of HFCs 

by sector and subsector. 

A. What definitions is EPA establishing 

in subsection (i)? 

The Allocation Framework Rule 

established regulatory definitions at 40 

CFR part 84, subpart A to implement the 

regulatory phasedown of HFCs under 

the AIM Act. To maintain consistency, 

except as otherwise explained in this 

rule, EPA intends to use terms in this 

rulemaking, and in the new subpart B 

established by this rule, as they were 

defined in the Allocation Framework 

Rule. Thus, for terms not defined in this 

subpart but that are defined in 40 CFR 

84.3, the definitions in 40 CFR 84.3 

shall apply. EPA is also establishing 

definitions for new terms that are 

applicable to 40 CFR part 84, subpart B 

and do not have a counterpart in the 

definitions under 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A. 

1. Export, Exporter, Import, and 

Importer 

A few terms (export, exporter, and 

importer) currently exist in 40 CFR 84.3 

in the context of bulk regulated 

substances. EPA is establishing 

definitions under subpart B for those 

terms to clarify how they apply under 

subpart B to regulated substances that 

are used in equipment subject to this 

rule. 

Export. For purposes of subpart B, 

EPA is defining this term to mean the 

transport of a product or specified 

component using a regulated substance 

from inside the United States or its 

territories to persons outside the United 

States or its territories, excluding United 

States military bases and ships for 

onboard use. 

Exporter. For purposes of subpart B, 

EPA is defining this term to mean the 

person who contracts to sell any 

product or specified component using a 

regulated substance for export or 

transfers a product or specified 

component using a regulated substance 

to an affiliate in another country. 

Importer. For purposes of subpart B, 

EPA is defining this term to mean any 

person who imports any product or 

specified component using or intended 

for use with a regulated substance into 

the United States. Importer includes the 

person primarily liable for the payment 

of any duties on the merchandise or an 

authorized agent acting on his or her 

behalf. The term also includes: 

(1) The consignee; 

(2) The importer of record; 

(3) The actual owner; or 

(4) The transferee, if the right to 

withdraw merchandise from a bonded 

warehouse has been transferred. 

This definition of importer, 

specifically paragraphs (3) and (4), 

varies in non-substantive ways from that 

in subpart A of 40 CFR part 84 to align 

with the definition of ‘‘importer’’ at 19 

CFR 101.1. No difference in 

interpretation between subparts is 

intended. As EPA explained in the 

Allocation Framework Rule, whether 

products using or containing HFCs are 

admitted into or exiting from a foreigntrade zone or other duty deferral 

program under U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) regulations does not 

affect whether they are being imported 

or exported for purposes of part 84. See 

86 FR 55133 (October 5, 2021) 

(discussing definitions of export and 

import under 40 CFR 84.3). 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested that EPA narrow the scope of 

the term ‘‘import’’ to exclude a 

transportation vehicle in international 

service, such as refrigerated containers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73110 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

that are imported into the United States 

and intended for export. Another 

commenter requested that the definition 

of import include equipment that was 

intended to be imported by the date but 

was delayed by weather or port delays. 

Response: EPA disagrees with these 

suggestions. Congress defined ‘‘import’’ 

for purposes of the AIM Act in 

subsection (b)(6) as ‘‘to land on, bring 

into, or introduce into, or attempt to 

land on, bring into, or introduce into, 

any place subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States, regardless of whether 

that landing, bringing, or introduction 

constitutes an importation within the 

meaning of the customs laws of the 

United States.’’ The Agency did not 

propose to redefine that term in this 

subpart. EPA addresses the concern 

raised by the first commenter in Section 

VI.C.2.a. Furthermore, to be consistent 

with subpart A of part 84, EPA 

considers the date of import to be the 

time a ship berths for vessel arrivals, 

border crossings for land arrivals, and 

first point of terminus in U.S. 

jurisdiction for arrivals via air. 

Determining an importer’s intent for 

their timing, which frequently can 

change, would be challenging for the 

Agency to determine and enforce. 

2. Blend Containing a Regulated 

Substance, Sector, Subsector, and 

Substitute 

EPA is finalizing definitions for these 

four terms as proposed. The Agency did 

not receive comment recommending 

changes. 

Blend containing a regulated 

substance. EPA is establishing 

restrictions on the use of HFCs, whether 

neat or used in a blend. Blends 

containing a regulated substance are 

used in multiple sectors and subsectors 

including refrigeration, air conditioning 

and heat pumps, foams, and fire 

suppression. EPA is defining this term 

as ‘‘any mixture that contains one or 

more regulated substances.’’ EPA 

considers any quantity of a regulated 

substance within a mixture to qualify 

the mixture as a ‘‘blend containing a 

regulated substance.’’ A blend that uses 

one or more regulated substances is 

itself not a regulated substance. Rather, 

the use restrictions apply to the 

regulated substance(s) used in certain 

blends, such that the use restriction on 

the regulated substance(s) also affects 

use of that blend. Most HFCs used in the 

sectors and subsectors addressed by this 

rule are components of blends that 

contain other HFCs, HFOs, and 

hydrocarbons. As discussed in section 

IV.A, where the proportion of a 

regulated substance multiplied by its 

GWP, along with the proportion of the 

other components multiplied by their 

respective GWPs, causes the blend to 

exceed the GWP limit, the use of that 

HFC in that blend is prohibited. 

Sector. EPA is defining this term as ‘‘a 

broad category of applications including 

but not limited to: refrigeration, air 

conditioning and heat pumps; foams; 

aerosols; chemical manufacturing; 

cleaning solvents; fire suppression and 

explosion protection; and 

semiconductor manufacturing.’’ These 

categorizations and groupings are 

similar to how the term ‘‘sector’’ is used 

in other contexts, such as EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) Program, the Montreal Protocol 

Parties’ Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP), and EPA’s 

Vintaging Model. Entities potentially 

subject to rulemakings under subsection 

(i) of the AIM Act are often the same 

entities affected by CAA title VI, 

including the CAA section 612 SNAP 

program, and may be familiar with the 

way EPA traditionally categorizes and 

groups sectors in that context. The 

TEAP is a globally recognized advisory 

body to the Montreal Protocol Parties, 

which provides technical information 

related to alternative technologies that 

use HFCs in sectors and subsectors. 

Entities with a global market presence 

and other stakeholders may be familiar 

with how the TEAP defines sectors, and 

EPA’s definition of sector is relatable to 

their understanding of the term. 

Subsector. EPA is defining this term 

as ‘‘processes, classes of applications, or 

specific uses that are related to one 

another within a single sector or 

subsector.’’ Where appropriate, each 

sector can be subdivided into different 

subsectors that more narrowly highlight 

how the HFC is used. Entities 

potentially subject to rulemakings under 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act are often 

the same entities affected by CAA title 

VI, including the CAA section 612 

SNAP program, and may be familiar 

with the way EPA categorizes and 

groups sectors and subsectors in that 

context. The term ‘‘subsectors’’ includes 

the concepts of ‘‘end-uses’’ and 

‘‘applications’’ under SNAP (40 CFR 

82.172). An example subsector is cold 

storage warehouses within the RACHP 

sector. Another example is the integral 

skin polyurethane subsector within the 

foams sector. 

Substitute. EPA is defining this term 

as ‘‘any substance, blend, or alternative 

manufacturing process, whether existing 

or new, that may be used, or is intended 

for use, in a sector or subsector with a 

restriction on the use of regulated 

substances and that has a lower global 

warming potential than the GWP limit 

or restricted list of regulated substances 

and blends in that sector or subsector.’’ 

Under this definition, substitutes 

include regulated substances (e.g., HFC– 

32 used in lieu of R–410A in 

commercial unitary AC), blends 

containing regulated substances (e.g., R– 

454B used in lieu of R–410A in 

residential unitary AC), blends that do 

not use a regulated substance (e.g., R– 

441A used in lieu of R–410A in window 

ACs), substances that are not HFCs (e.g., 

HFOs, hydrocarbons, R–717, and R–744 

(CO2)), and not-in-kind technologies 

(e.g., finger-pump bottles in lieu of 

aerosol cans, or vacuum panels in lieu 

of foam insulation). 

3. Manufacture, Install, and System 

Many commenters expressed 

concerns about the proposed definitions 

for the terms ‘‘manufacture’’ and 

‘‘products.’’ For the reasons discussed 

in this section, EPA is distinguishing in 

this final rule between factorycompleted and field-assembled 

appliances by defining and using the 

terms ‘‘products’’ and ‘‘systems,’’ 

respectively. EPA is also distinguishing 

between the ‘‘manufacture’’ of products, 

which occurs in a factory, and the 

‘‘installation’’ of systems, which occurs 

in the field. Together these changes 

more clearly represent the intent of the 

restrictions using more familiar 

terminology. 

EPA proposed to define 

‘‘manufacture’’ as ‘‘to complete a 

product’s manufacturing and assembly 

processes such that it is ready for initial 

sale, distribution, or operation. For 

equipment that is assembled and 

charged in the field, manufacture means 

to complete the circuit holding the 

regulated substance, charge with a full 

charge, and otherwise make functional 

for use for its intended purpose.’’ This 

proposed definition was intended to 

apply similarly to how EPA applied this 

term in certain other use restrictions 

under title VI of the CAA and 40 CFR 

part 82. EPA had previously established 

restrictions on products, including 

appliances, foams, and aerosols under 

section 610 of the CAA (Nonessential 

Products Bans). EPA also established 

use prohibitions under section 605(a) of 

the CAA that addressed the use of 

certain ODS as a refrigerant in the 

manufacture of new appliances, 

including field-charged appliances. See 

e.g., 40 CFR 82.15(g)(4)(i), 40 CFR 

82.15(g)(5)(i); see also 74 FR 66437 

(December 15, 2009) and 85 FR 15267 

(March 17, 2020) (describing the use 

restriction and when a field-charged 

appliance is manufactured). Because 

those restrictions bear certain 

similarities to the proposed restrictions 

under subsection (i), EPA looked to its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73111 

35The Foams Technical Options Committee 

advising the Parties to the Montreal describes the 

term ‘‘fully formulated polyol’’ to mean a blend of 

polyols with a variety of additives such as catalysts, 

surfactants, water, flame retardants (not typically in 

Continued 

past experience in implementing those 

provisions in defining ‘‘manufacture.’’ 

Comment: Commenters were 

generally supportive of the first 

sentence of the proposed definition of 

‘‘manufacture’’ as applied to factorycompleted products. Most of those who 

commented on the proposed definition 

expressed concerns about the second 

sentence, which would apply to fieldassembled equipment. These included 

concerns that the definition would 

effectively accelerate the timeline of the 

prohibition and render the one-year sellthrough moot. Commenters stated that 

the Agency should be placing the 

prohibition on the manufacture of 

components that would later be 

assembled and not the installation. 

Commenters also suggested EPA use the 

approach taken by California in defining 

‘‘date of manufacture.’’ In California, the 

date of manufacture for chillers and airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment that is not assembled on site 

is ‘‘the date that the manufacturer 

affixed an equipment label indicating 

the equipment’s date of manufacture.’’ 

For refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment completed on site, the date 

of manufacture is ‘‘the date that the 

refrigerant circuit was completed and 

initially filled with refrigerant.’’ One 

equipment manufacturer urged 

harmonizing the Federal and California 

definitions to simplify manufacturers’ 

obligations and reduce inadvertent 

noncompliance. The commenter noted 

that the definition resulted from 

substantial regulated industry 

discussions with and comments to the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

during the State rulemaking process. 

Commenters acknowledged the need to 

address installation of field-charged 

equipment, but one commenter asserted 

that using the term ‘‘manufacture’’ 

created confusion about which entity 

would be considered the manufacturer 

of field-charged equipment, who would 

be both affected by the prohibition and 

subject to recordkeeping and reporting 

obligations. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the term 

‘‘manufacture’’ so as to only include the 

first sentence, but is modifying the 

definition to include specified 

components for reasons discussed in the 

next section. Therefore, manufacture 

means: ‘‘to complete the manufacturing 

and assembly processes of a product or 

specified component such that it is 

ready for initial sale, distribution, or 

operation.’’ 

This final rule also establishes and 

defines a separate term for ‘‘install’’ to 

replace the term ‘‘manufacture’’ for 

systems assembled in the field. EPA 

discussed in the proposed rule that a 

field-charged system is ‘‘manufactured 

at the point when installation of all the 

components and other parts are 

completed’’ (emphasis added). 

Providing a separate term will reduce 

confusion, improve implementation, 

and allow the Agency to better address 

the commenters’ concerns. 

Though a new term, the definition for 

‘‘install’’ is substantively similar to the 

second sentence of the proposed 

definition of ‘‘manufacture.’’ EPA is 

defining ‘‘install’’ as ‘‘to complete a 

field-assembled system’s circuit, 

including charging with a full charge, 

such that the system can function and 

is ready for use for its intended 

purpose.’’ As stated in the proposed 

rule, this definition is intended to 

address field-charged equipment 

beyond appliances in the RACHP sector 

to include fire suppression systems or 

other systems that are assembled and 

charged on-site. EPA appreciates the 

commenter’s desire to harmonize State 

and Federal regulations where possible. 

However, EPA is not establishing 

definitions for ‘‘date of manufacture’’ of 

various systems in this final rule as they 

do not necessarily align with the 

structure of this regulation. EPA also 

does not find it necessary to specify the 

exact date of manufacture because 

compliance is determined by the year of 

manufacture. EPA discusses the 

adoption of other aspects of California’s 

approach in section VI of this notice. 

The definition of ‘‘install’’ includes 

references to ‘‘systems’’ to distinguish 

equipment assembled in the field from 

those made in a factory. One commenter 

recommended that the Agency include 

a definition of ‘‘appliance.’’ EPA agrees 

with the need to distinguish fieldassembled and factory-made equipment 

but disagrees that using the term 

appliance is the correct approach, as it 

can include both factory-charged and 

field-charged equipment. To better 

support the distinction, EPA is 

finalizing the term ‘‘system’’ and 

defining it as ‘‘an assemblage of separate 

components that typically are connected 

and charged in the field with a regulated 

substance or substitute to perform a 

function or task.’’ This new definition 

pertains to the system as a whole (e.g., 

supermarket or industrial process 

refrigeration (IPR)) from the components 

assembled into a system (e.g., 

evaporator or reach-in cooler). 

4. Product, Regulated Product, Specified 

Components 

As with the term manufacture, EPA 

based the proposed definition of 

‘‘product’’ on the regulations 

established under title VI of the CAA in 

40 CFR part 82, subparts C and E. EPA 

stated in the proposed rule that the 

Agency’s view of what constitutes a 

product for purposes of use restrictions 

under subsection (i) mirrors its meaning 

under those provisions and that using 

the same definition would provide 

clarity for the regulated community. 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

that the proposed definition of 

‘‘product’’ was too broad and would 

place all forms of regulated categories 

into one definition from large 

refrigeration equipment to aerosol cans 

containing a few ounces of propellant. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

about including components and 

subcomponents as examples within the 

definition of product. They noted that 

restricting components in the same 

manner as a completed product would 

prevent the manufacture or later sale of 

parts for normal service and warranty 

purposes. One commenter noted that 

the term ‘‘product’’ does not account for 

complex equipment that incorporates 

components using regulated substances 

(e.g., process chillers) within much 

larger equipment and requested 

clarification. 

Response: EPA agrees that including 

components within the definition of 

product, and thus the restrictions 

thereof, would hinder the manufacture 

and import of replacement parts 

intended for repairs. These restrictions 

could also unintentionally impact 

components that are capable of being 

used with multiple refrigerants or across 

multiple subsectors and thus are 

permissible in some new systems as 

well. EPA did not intend to restrict the 

manufacture, import, and sale of 

components in the same manner as 

completed products or the installation 

of new systems. EPA is therefore 

removing the examples of ‘‘components 

and subcomponents’’ from the final 

definition of ‘‘product.’’ EPA is also 

removing ‘‘equipment’’ as an example 

because this rulemaking uses that as a 

general term to broadly encompass 

items in addition to products (e.g., 

systems, components, appliances) and 

not as a subset. 

EPA is clarifying that the definition of 

‘‘product’’ pertains to equipment that is 

completed or otherwise functional upon 

leaving the factory. This includes selfcontained refrigeration and air 

conditioning appliances; foam that is 

blown; a manufactured item containing 

blown foam such as an appliance, car, 

or boat; a fully formulated polyol; 35 and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73112 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

appliances), including the blowing agent. UNEP, 

2010. Guidance on the Process for Selecting 

Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams. 

filled aerosols. When products are 

incorporated into larger equipment, the 

new, larger equipment is subject to this 

rule. Thus, a manufactured item such as 

a refrigerator that contains insulation 

foam or a car that contains a motor 

vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) is 

subject to the restrictions of this rule, as 

are process chillers, when incorporated 

into larger equipment. The final 

definition of product also modifies the 

examples of fire suppression systems 

and foam blowing systems to avoid 

conflict with the new definition of 

‘‘system’’ the Agency is finalizing. 

EPA is defining the term ‘‘product’’ as 

‘‘an item or category of items 

manufactured from raw or recycled 

materials which performs a function or 

task and is functional upon completion 

of manufacturing. The term includes, 

but is not limited to: appliances, foams, 

fully formulated polyols, self-contained 

fire suppression devices, aerosols, 

pressurized dispensers, and wipes.’’ 

In removing components from the 

term ‘‘product,’’ the Agency does not 

intend to remove components from all 

provisions of this rule. For example, 

remote condensing units used for retail 

food refrigeration is one of the 

subsectors subject to a GWP limit in this 

rule. A single component may also be a 

major element of the entire system, such 

as a remote condensing unit for 

residential split system air conditioning. 

One commenter requested that EPA add 

a definition for ‘‘component’’ and clarify 

that it is any and all equipment required 

for the refrigeration system to function 

properly. The commenter suggested this 

would include but not be limited to 

display cases, condensing units, 

condensers, compressors, compressor 

rack systems, evaporator units, 

evaporators, piping, filter dryers, valves, 

etc. 

To allow the Agency to better describe 

how the restrictions apply to different 

equipment types, EPA is establishing 

the term ‘‘specified component.’’ EPA 

declines to finalize the definition 

requested by the commenter because it 

broadly describes how a component 

functions and the concept merits public 

input depending on the policy goals. 

For example, refrigerant piping or 

thermal expansion valves are 

components needed for a system to 

function. However, thermal expansion 

valves contain small amounts of 

refrigerant and operate differently from 

other components on the circuit. 

Refrigerant piping may not be replaced 

during a repair given it is not refrigerant 

specific and may be inaccessible. 

Instead, EPA is specifying components 

that are the major mechanical elements 

of all RACHP systems. These 

components tend to be replaced over the 

life of a system, are often refrigerantspecific, and can contain larger amounts 

of refrigerant when manufactured or 

imported. EPA is defining ‘‘specified 

component’’ as ‘‘for purposes of 

equipment in the refrigeration, air 

conditioning, and heat pump sector, 

means condensing units, condensers, 

compressors, evaporator units, and 

evaporators.’’ These components also 

align with those specified in section 

VI.C regarding what level of 

modification of a system effectively 

constitutes a ‘‘new’’ system subject to 

the GWP limits. 

EPA also proposed to establish a 

defined term, ‘‘regulated product,’’ that 

would broadly encompass all 

equipment that uses HFCs, whether they 

are higher-GWP HFCs that are 

prohibited or lower-GWP HFCs that are 

subject to labeling and reporting 

provisions. EPA is electing not to 

finalize this definition. 

5. Retrofit 

The AIM Act defines ‘‘retrofit’’ in 

subsection (i)(7) as ‘‘to upgrade existing 

equipment where the regulated 

substance is changed, which—(i) 

includes the conversion of equipment to 

achieve system compatibility; and (ii) 

may include changes in lubricants, 

gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or 

equipment components for that 

purpose.’’ EPA is adopting the 

definition contained in subsection 

(i)(7)(A) of the AIM Act with the 

addition of examples of equipment. The 

definition in the AIM Act is similar to 

but broader than EPA’s definition of 

retrofit that was codified in 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. The AIM Act definition 

refers to ‘‘regulated substance’’ and 

‘‘equipment,’’ whereas the regulatory 

definition in 40 CFR part 82 refers to 

‘‘refrigerant’’ and ‘‘appliances.’’ As 

such, in this context, EPA finds it 

reasonable to interpret this term as 

applying not just to refrigeration and 

air-conditioning appliances, but all 

equipment that uses a regulated 

substance. EPA is adding a noninclusive list of examples—such as air 

conditioning and refrigeration, fire 

suppression, and foam blowing 

equipment—recognizing that petitioners 

may seek, or EPA may establish, 

restrictions on other types of equipment 

using HFCs in the future. 

One commenter recommended that 

the definition of ‘‘retrofit’’ not be 

limited to just a refrigerant change as 

that will allow piece-meal system 

replacements without moving from a 

high-GWP refrigerant. The commenter 

suggested that a system be considered 

retrofitted after a threshold number of 

components are replaced. EPA disagrees 

with the comment that a retrofit be 

triggered without replacing the 

refrigerant type. As noted, the statutory 

definition contained in subsection 

(i)(7)(A) of the AIM Act is predicated on 

a change in refrigerant, and it reasonable 

to maintain this condition when the 

equipment uses a refrigerant. 

6. Use 

EPA proposed to define this term as 

‘‘for any person to take any action with 

or to a regulated substance, regardless of 

whether the regulated substance is in 

bulk, contained within a product, or 

otherwise, except for the destruction of 

a regulated substance. Actions include, 

but are not limited to, the utilization, 

deployment, sale, distribution, offer for 

sale or distribution, discharge, 

incorporation, transformation, or other 

manipulation.’’ 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that EPA’s proposed definition of the 

term ‘‘use’’ is overly broad and 

inappropriately allows the Agency to 

regulate the sale or distribution of 

products. Another commenter was 

concerned that the definition could 

extend liability to importers and 

distributors of bulk HFCs when used in 

non-compliant products even though 

that is outside of their control. One 

commenter stated that the full definition 

of ‘use’ is only clear in the context of the 

additional discussion in the 

Applicability section and recommended 

that elements of that discussion be 

added to the definition. Specifically, the 

commenter stated it would be useful to 

distinguish actions that occur at the 

market or industry level, as was 

intended, from the operation of 

equipment by an owner. Another 

commenter noted that while ‘‘use’’ is 

not synonymous with sale or 

distribution, ‘‘use’’ is closer to the point 

in time when a product is sold and 

received by the ultimate customer rather 

than the point in time when the product 

is manufactured and that EPA’s 

restriction on the manufacture of a 

product bears little relationship to when 

products containing HFCs will actually 

be used by their owners. 

Response: EPA fully responds to these 

comments in section VI.C of this notice. 

7. Other 

Many commenters requested EPA to 

establish definitions clarifying when an 

appliance is newly manufactured and/or 

newly installed and thus subject to the 

GWP-limits. Commenters explicitly or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73113 

36The restrictions on the use of an HFC under 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act established in this 

rulemaking are intended to complement and not 

conflict with existing restrictions established 

through other authorities. Other authorities still 

apply. 

37This rule does not change in any way the 

calculation established under 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A for determining the quantity of 

production and consumption allowances required 

for regulated substances used in blends. 

indirectly referenced terminology used 

in California’s regulations for ‘‘new 

refrigeration equipment,’’ ‘‘new air 

conditioning equipment,’’ and ‘‘new 

facility,’’ as well as ‘‘date of 

manufacture of self-contained 

equipment’’ and ‘‘date of manufacture of 

remote equipment.’’ Another 

commenter requested EPA define ‘‘new’’ 

to match the methodology used in New 

York State. EPA responds to these 

comments in section VI.C of this notice. 

B. How is EPA restricting the use of 

HFCs in the sector or subsector in which 

they are used? 

Subsection (i) authorizes EPA to by 

rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a 

graduated schedule, the use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used. The provision grants 

EPA authority to fashion restrictions on 

the use of regulated substances in the 

sectors that use those substances and 

does not specify a particular approach 

as to how restrictions must be 

structured but lists considerations EPA 

is to factor in, to the extent practicable, 

when promulgating restrictions. EPA is 

finalizing two approaches to structuring 

those restrictions, a GWP-limit and a list 

of prohibited regulated substances or 

blends, while recognizing that other 

approaches could be considered in the 

future that would also fit within the 

authority granted by this statutory 

provision. EPA also proposed to 

prohibit the use of all regulated 

substances in new products within 

particular subsectors, but some 

commenters noted that the Agency 

generated confusion by imprecisely 

describing it as a GWP-limit of zero. As 

discussed in Section VI.F.3, EPA is not 

finalizing an approach that completely 

prohibits the use of regulated substances 

in new products in any sector or 

subsector in this rulemaking and again 

maintains that the Agency has the 

authority to do so in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

In establishing the two approaches 

contained in this final rule, EPA has 

taken into account the statutory text, 

feasibility, consistency with similar 

programs being implemented in the 

States and internationally, impacts on 

the regulated community and on 

innovation, efficiency of 

implementation, and other factors. 

Subsection (i)(4)’s ‘‘Factors for 

Determination’’ provides factors that 

EPA is to consider ‘‘[i]n carrying out a 

rulemaking’’ under subsection (i)(1). As 

a general matter, we interpret subsection 

(i)(1) to apply where EPA is deciding 

whether to impose a restriction on the 

use of a regulated substance in a sector 

or subsector and what that restriction 

should be (e.g., a full restriction or a 

partial restriction and on what 

timeframe). However, the factors listed 

in subsection (i)(4) are also informative 

in our consideration of how to structure 

restrictions, as some approaches may 

provide advantages with respect to some 

of the factors over others. 

Furthermore, while subsection (i)(1) 

identifies that EPA may restrict the use 

of a regulated substance ‘‘in the sector 

or subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used,’’ given EPA’s 

authority to issue partial restrictions, 

EPA interprets this provision as 

allowing the Agency to establish 

restrictions for particular uses of HFCs, 

such as products or applications, and 

that such restrictions need not apply 

uniformly across entire sectors or 

subsectors. Interpreting EPA’s authority 

in this manner allows the Agency to 

tailor restrictions in accordance with the 

best available data and to consider 

relevant differences in, for example, the 

availability of substitutes with respect to 

technological achievability or 

affordability. For example, EPA is 

establishing restrictions for HFCs used 

in chillers for IPR. However, EPA is 

excluding chillers for IPR with exiting 

fluid temperatures less than ¥58 °F 

because lower-GWP substitutes for 

HFCs are not yet adequately 

technologically achievable and therefore 

not available at this time. 

The two approaches to structuring 

subsection (i) restrictions used in this 

rule were identified in the petitions 

granted by the Agency to date. They are 

either to set GWP limits for HFCs used 

within a sector or one or more 

subsectors or to restrict specific HFCs, 

whether neat or used in a blend, by 

sector or one or more subsectors.36 EPA 

is primarily employing the GWP limit 

approach in this rulemaking, with some 

exceptions where the specific-listing 

approach is more appropriate. 

For most sectors and subsectors in 

this rule, EPA is establishing GWP 

limits for HFCs, whether neat or used in 

a blend. Under this approach only HFCs 

with GWPs below the limit or HFCs 

used in blends with GWPs below the 

limit may be used in that sector or 

subsector. If used neat, HFCs with 

GWPs at or above the GWP limit are 

prohibited from use in that sector or 

subsector. For HFCs used in a blend in 

the sector or subsector, compliance with 

the GWP limit is determined based on 

the GWP of the blend. If a blend meets 

two criteria (it contains an HFC and the 

GWP of the blend is at or above the 

GWP limit) the HFCs in the blend are 

subject to the prohibition on use, and 

accordingly the blend may not be used 

in that sector or subsector. References 

and descriptions of how the restrictions 

apply to blends throughout this notice 

incorporate this framework and have 

only been shortened for readability. A 

blend or other substitute that does not 

contain a regulated substance is not 

subject to the GWP limit. 

In general, this approach also 

provides a more efficient and 

streamlined process for companies to 

employ lower-GWP substitutes for new 

uses, because the existing restrictions 

make clear what substitutes are 

permissible. In contrast, promulgating 

restrictions under subsection (i) using 

only a substance-specific listing 

approach could create hesitancy to 

innovate because it would be less clear 

whether EPA might restrict a particular 

blend containing an HFC after a 

company had already invested resources 

in developing it for a particular use. 

To determine the GWP of a blend that 

uses an HFC, all components of the 

blend are incorporated, whether an 

HFC, HFO, hydrocarbon or other 

constituent, using the 100-year 

integrated AR4 values.37 We note that 

the 100-year integrated GWP values in 

Table 2.15 of AR4 for the HFCs are 

equivalent to the exchange values listed 

in the AIM Act and thus what we plan 

to use here without change. Further 

details about determining the GWP of 

compounds that are not listed in AR4 

are found in section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

For refrigerants, the blend includes 

the components in amounts as a weight 

percentage, consistent with the 

refrigerant designation in ASHRAE 

Standard 34, ‘‘Refrigerant Designations 

and Safety Classifications’’ or the SNAP 

listing. The refrigerant blend considered 

in the GWP calculation does not include 

other additives such as compressor oil 

or stabilizers. For foams, the blend 

includes components that are part of the 

blowing agent as a weight percentage. 

The blowing agent blend considered in 

the GWP calculation does not include 

other parts of the foam formulation such 

as plastic resin, catalysts, flame 

retardants, or stabilizers. In general, 

aerosols do not use blends as 

propellants, but multiple HFCs may be 

used together in an aerosol solvent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73114 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

38As noted in section VI.A of this preamble, there 

is significant overlap between the sectors and 

subsectors identified in this proposal and how 

sectors and ‘‘end-uses’’ are categorized under the 

SNAP program. 39After a court challenge, the D.C. Circuit 

partially vacated SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870, July 

20, 2015) ‘‘to the extent it requires manufacturers 

to replace HFCs with a substitute substance,’’ and 

remanded to EPA for further proceedings. 

Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451, 464 

(D.C. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Mexichem I’’). However, the court 

upheld EPA’s decisions in that rule to change the 

listings for certain HFCs in certain SNAP end-uses 

from acceptable to unacceptable as being reasonable 

and not arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 462–64. The 

same court later issued a similar partial vacatur for 

portions of the SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778, 

December 1, 2016). See Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. 

EPA, 760 Fed. Appx. 6 (Mem) (per curiam) (D.C. 

Cir. 2019) (‘‘Mexichem II’’). 

blend, in which case the blend would 

include the component solvents and 

propellants in amounts as a weight 

percentage. Other parts of the aerosol 

formulation are not considered in 

calculating the aerosol’s GWP, such as 

water, fragrances, emulsifiers, pigments, 

anti-bacterial agents, pesticides, or 

polymers. 

In most cases it is the specific HFC 

and the proportion of that HFC within 

the blend that determines the GWP of 

the blend as a whole. EPA is not 

restricting the use of any specific HFC 

when used in blends. For instance, for 

sectors or subsectors with a GWP limit 

of 150, HFC–134a neat, which has a 

GWP of 1,430, cannot be used, while R– 

451A, which is a blend of HFC–134a 

and HFO–1234yf, has a GWP of 147 and 

may be used. In other words, an HFC 

with a GWP above the limit may 

continue to be used when it is used in 

a blend, such that the total GWP of the 

blend is below the limit. There may be 

certain characteristics associated with a 

higher-GWP HFC that make use of that 

substance in a blend particularly 

advantageous, and in some cases 

increase the availability of that 

substitute for use, such as improving 

safety by reducing flammability. The 

GWP limit approach, which allows for 

the continued use of certain higherGWP substances in blends, rather than 

strictly prohibiting the use of those 

higher-GWP substances in a sector or 

subsector, can smooth the glide path to 

transition, support innovation, and 

achieve beneficial environmental 

impacts sooner than waiting for the 

development of a substitute that 

contains no amount of a higher-GWP 

regulated substance. 

Comment: Multiple commenters, 

including those representing users of 

regulated substances across different 

sectors, agreed that establishing GWP 

limits provides regulatory certainty and 

encourages the continued development 

and implementation of HFC substitutes 

with lower GWPs. A few commenters 

agreed that using a similar approach 

allows for harmonization across 

jurisdictions. Commenters also noted 

that using GWP limits is easy for 

downstream equipment users to 

understand, easier for the Agency to 

implement, and provides flexibility. 

One commenter supported GWP limits 

as it more clearly articulates EPA’s 

intention to reduce the warming impact 

of HFCs and that it provides a more 

straightforward way for EPA to tighten 

restrictions by ratcheting down the GWP 

limits in the future. 

One commenter strongly favored the 

specific-listing approach over the GWP 

limit approach. The commenter stated 

that the GWP limit approach poses huge 

noncompliance issues and dangers to 

users of products containing regulated 

substances by shifting the obligation to 

assess the safety of a substitute to the 

end-user. The commenter noted that the 

basis for their concern is that the 

Agency would no longer update SNAP 

listings. The commenter also recognized 

the downsides of a specific-listing 

approach but still found specific-listing 

to be preferable if the GWP approach 

meant the Agency was not assessing the 

risks associated with substitutes. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

broad support for using GWP limits as 

the method for restricting the use of 

certain HFCs by sector or subsector and 

for the reasons discussed in the 

proposed rule is primarily using that 

approach in this final rule. 

Additionally, the GWP listing approach 

is not a replacement for SNAP listings 

or reviews of environmental, health, and 

safety impacts. Congress provided 

separate authority under subsection 

(i)(5) of the AIM Act for EPA to evaluate 

substitutes for HFCs in a sector or 

subsector, taking into account 

technological achievability, commercial 

demands, safety, overall economic costs 

and environmental impacts, and to 

make the evaluation public, including 

the factors associated with the safety of 

those substitutes. EPA intends to 

continue providing information on its 

evaluation of alternatives to HFCs. 

Furthermore, contrary to commenter’s 

suggestion, EPA continues to 

promulgate rules under SNAP. Section 

612(c) of the CAA requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace ODS with any substitute that it 

determines may present adverse effects 

to human health or the environment 

where it has identified an alternative 

that (1) reduces the overall risk to 

human health and the environment and 

(2) is currently or potentially available. 

Section 612(c) further requires EPA to 

‘‘publish a list of (A) the substitutes 

prohibited under this subsection for 

specific uses and (B) the safe 

alternatives identified under this 

subsection for particular specific uses.’’ 

Under SNAP, EPA evaluates substances 

that can be used as alternatives based on 

multiple criteria and accordingly lists 

them as acceptable, unacceptable, 

acceptable subject to use conditions, 

acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits, or pending. See 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7) (listing criteria for review) 

and 40 CFR 82.180(b) (describing types 

of listing decisions). EPA has 

considered more than 500 alternatives 

for eight industry sectors and more than 

40 end uses since 1994.38 EPA will 

continue to evaluate alternatives in the 

sectors and subsectors where ozonedepleting substances have been and are 

being used.39 EPA recently finalized 

SNAP Rule 25 listing lower-GWP 

alternatives as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for chillers–comfort cooling, 

residential dehumidifiers, residential 

and light commercial air conditioning 

and heat pumps. SNAP Rule 25 also 

listed ethylene as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions and narrowed use limits, 

in very low temperature refrigeration. 

(88 FR 26382; April 28, 2023). EPA also 

recently proposed SNAP Rule 26 which 

would list lower-GWP alternatives as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

retail food refrigeration, commercial ice 

machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, 

and ice-skating rinks. (88 FR 33722, 

May 24, 2023). As discussed in section 

VI.E.2 of this preamble and the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020—Subsection 

(i)(4) Factors for Determination: Safety, 

referred to in this preamble as the 

‘‘Safety TSD,’’ assessments of safety and 

other characteristics under SNAP are 

duly considered in our examination of 

availability (as it relates to safety and 

other factors) under AIM Act subsection 

(i)(4)(B). 

Therefore, EPA is primarily finalizing 

the use restrictions in this action by 

employing a GWP limit approach 

because this approach supports 

innovation, transition, and compliance. 

Furthermore, for the reasons discussed 

in the proposed rule and based on the 

comments received, EPA is in most 

instances not employing a specific 

listing approach in its use restrictions, 

except in limited circumstances. For 

example, we find the specific listing 

approach can be preferable where the 

subsector has not yet identified favored 

lower-GWP substitutes to transition to, 

but is in a position, per subsection (i)(4), 

to transition away from using the 

highest-GWP regulated substances. It 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73115 

40Similarly, subsection (i)’s authority extends to 

regulated substances contained in a blend and the 

use of that regulated substance within a blend by 

the sector or subsector in a product or process to 

achieve a particular purpose. To address the 

regulated substance within a blend, it is appropriate 

to establish requirements that apply to use of the 

blend, although the blend itself is not a regulated 

substance. 

allows additional time before 

establishing a GWP limit (which, to 

serve regulatory certainty and 

innovation, the Agency would prefer 

not to repeatedly revisit) while still 

restricting those substances that have 

the highest environmental impact. This 

approach would allow for the adoption 

of multiple transitional substitutes and 

allow for the development of additional 

substitutes before issuing a GWP-limitbased restriction. As such, EPA is using 

both approaches in combination, with 

some subsectors having a GWP limit 

and others where specific substances are 

restricted. 

C. Applicability 

HFCs are used in a wide variety of 

sectors, including refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foams, aerosols, and fire 

suppression. In these sectors, HFCs are 

used as a refrigerant, foam-blowing 

agent, solvent, propellant, and fire 

suppression agent and may be contained 

within or emitted from equipment such 

as a product or system. HFCs are also 

used in processes such as 

semiconductor manufacturing and 

chemical manufacturing. Subsection (i) 

of the AIM Act provides that the 

Administrator may by rule restrict, 

fully, partially, or on a graduated 

schedule, the use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used. 

EPA interprets its authority under 

subsection (i) to cover a broad chain of 

sector and subsector activities 

associated with equipment that uses 

regulated substances. 

EPA designed the restrictions of this 

rule to apply at certain points in this 

chain of activities, consistent with the 

Act’s direction that EPA ‘‘may by rule 

restrict, fully, partially, or on a 

graduated schedule.’’ In light of the fact 

that the restrictions in this final action 

are the first to be issued under 

subsection (i), EPA views restrictions on 

the incorporation of higher-GWP HFCs 

into new products and systems and on 

the introduction and circulation of those 

products in the market as the most 

efficient and effective way to encourage 

a subsector to transition from the use of 

those HFCs. This rule therefore (1) 

restricts the use of HFCs in the 

manufacture and import of new 

products; (2) restricts the subsequent 

sale or distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, purchase or receipt for sale 

or distribution, or export of those 

products; and (3) restricts the 

installation of new systems and the 

significant modification of existing 

systems. 

In general, these restrictions apply 

primarily to original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) and importers, as 

these are the entities that introduce such 

products and components of such 

systems into the U.S. market. The 

restrictions in this rule that apply to 

distributors (including online 

platforms), retailers, and exporters are 

intended to reinforce the manufacture 

and import restrictions, and to ensure 

that incentives throughout the market 

chain are aligned toward transitioning a 

subsector from regulated substances 

where available substitutes exist. 

Entities that install new systems, 

including those that assemble, contract 

for, or take possession of the system are 

also subject to these restrictions. 

EPA is cognizant of the continued 

need in the covered sectors and 

subsectors for components to service 

and maintain existing systems that use 

higher-GWP HFCs. This rule therefore 

allows for the continued manufacture, 

import, sale, distribution, and export of 

components, subject to labeling, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements. EPA is generally not 

applying restrictions on the use of HFCs 

in existing products or systems or used 

products, except, for example, in 

limited circumstances such as the 

import of used products or modification 

of a system to the point that it 

constitutes replacement (see section 

VI.C.3 of the preamble). To that end, 

this rule does not restrict the use of 

HFCs in ordinary repair and servicing of 

products or systems, nor is EPA 

applying the restrictions to the use of 

HFCs in retrofit applications. 

1. What is EPA’s statutory authority for 

this action? 

Summary of the Proposed Rule 

Subsection (i) grants EPA authority to 

restrict the use of a regulated substance 

in the sector or subsector in which the 

regulated substance is used, and the Act 

does not define ‘‘use.’’ For several 

reasons, summarized below, EPA 

proposed to define ‘‘use’’ in the context 

of subsection (i) as including actions 

taken with respect to regulated 

substances that occur at the market or 

industry level, such as manufacture, 

distribution, sale, and offer for sale— 

i.e., to cover the presence of HFCs in 

products and processes in the U.S. 

market—as a way of addressing their 

use in sectors and subsectors. EPA’s 

interpretation of its authority under this 

section is grounded in the statutory text 

and purposes. 

First, sectors and subsectors are not 

defined in the AIM Act, but those terms 

suggest groupings or categories of 

related activity at an industry level. EPA 

is defining ‘‘sectors’’ and ‘‘subsectors’’ 

consistent with historical usage of those 

terms in other programs—grouping 

together similar or related industrial or 

market uses into distinct sectors; for 

example, refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foams, or aerosols. The 

AIM Act language, ‘‘use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used,’’ 

makes plain that the grant of authority 

under subsection (i) was intended to 

cover a sector or subsector’s use of a 

regulated substance. The inclusion of a 

regulated substance in a product 40 or 

system to achieve a particular purpose— 

e.g., using an HFC as a refrigerant in a 

refrigerator or in an air conditioner—is 

a prototypical use for sectors in which 

regulated substances are used. 

Second, because subsection (i) and 

the subsection (i)(4) factors are focused 

on broad, sector-level information, we 

proposed that it is reasonable to 

interpret ‘‘use’’ broadly, in a way that 

would reach uses on a sector-level basis. 

The subsection is titled ‘‘Technology 

Transitions,’’ and in subsection (i)(4), 

the Act directs EPA to consider certain 

factors, to the extent practicable, in 

issuing a rulemaking or making a 

determination to grant or deny a 

petition regarding use restrictions. The 

factors listed under subsection (i)(4) task 

the Agency with examining information 

relevant to industry-level sectors or 

subsectors that would inform 

consideration of the feasibility and 

advisability of establishing requirements 

for a transition away from the use of a 

regulated substance in that sector or 

subsector, as well as consideration of 

whether that transition should be full, 

partial, or on a graduated schedule. For 

example, subsection (i)(4)(B) directs 

EPA to factor in ‘‘the availability of 

substitutes for use of the regulated 

substance that is the subject of the 

rulemaking or petition, as applicable, in 

a sector or subsector, taking into 

account technological achievability, 

commercial demands, safety, consumer 

costs, building codes, appliance 

efficiency standards, contractor training 

costs, and other relevant factors, 

including quantities of regulated 

substances available from reclaiming, 

prior production, or prior import.’’ The 

various subfactors in (i)(4)(B) help EPA 

to determine whether there are adequate 

available substitutes for a regulated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73116 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

41Noting, however, that in some cases the 

consumer may have purchased a product where the 

first incorporation of the regulated substance occurs 

when the product is in the consumer’s ownership, 

and in those cases that incorporation would be 

covered by the requirements. 

substance that a sector or subsector 

could use, indicating feasibility, 

readiness, advisability, and degree of a 

sector or subsector’s transition away 

from the regulated substances in use. 

Similarly, the other factors in (i)(4)—to 

use best available data, to consider 

overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts as compared to 

historical trends, and to consider the 

remaining phasedown period for 

regulated substances under the 

phasedown rule issued under 

subsection (e), if applicable—also fit 

with this understanding of EPA’s task: 

to determine whether, when, and to 

what degree it is appropriate to establish 

a use restriction to facilitate the 

transition of a sector or subsector from 

the use of regulated substances. 

Third, we explained in the proposed 

rule that Congress provided EPA 

authority to issue restrictions that are 

full, partial, or on a graduated schedule. 

Fully restricting the use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which it is used, by its terms, implies 

a full transition away from the use of 

that regulated substance in the given 

sector or subsector. We therefore 

understand EPA’s ability to restrict ‘‘use 

of a regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which it is used’’ to be 

broad enough to achieve a full transition 

such that the regulated substance would 

no longer be present in any portion of 

the sector or subsector. To effectuate a 

full transition, we would have to be able 

to address all the aspects where the 

regulated substance is present in that 

sector or subsector of the market. There 

may be situations where a restriction is 

best targeted at points in the life cycle 

or market chain of the regulated 

substance that are subsequent to the 

incorporation of the regulated substance 

in a product or process, as well as 

points in the chain that are proximate to 

ultimate use. Thus, we interpret the 

term ‘‘use,’’ and EPA’s authority under 

AIM Act subsection (i), as being broad 

enough to reach points such as transport 

or offer for sale. 

EPA therefore proposed to interpret 

use of a regulated substance in the 

sector or subsector for purposes of 

subsection (i) as ‘‘for any person to take 

any action with or to a regulated 

substance, regardless of whether the 

regulated substance is in bulk, 

contained within a product, or 

otherwise, except for the destruction of 

a regulated substance. Actions include, 

but are not limited to, the utilization, 

deployment, sale, distribution, 

discharge, incorporation, 

transformation, or other manipulation.’’ 

EPA’s proposed definition of ‘‘use’’ 

therefore covered all of the links on the 

chain representing how regulated 

substances are introduced, incorporated 

into products or processes, circulated, 

and made available in the U.S. market. 

We explained in the proposed rule 

that even though the Act grants EPA 

broad authority to achieve a full 

transition from regulated substances in 

a sector or subsector, there are many 

actions not included within the scope of 

the restrictions covered by this final 

rule, including actions associated with 

steps in the disposal chain such as 

recovery, recycling, and reclamation of 

a regulated substance; the ordinary 

utilization or operation of a system or 

product by a consumer; 41 and the six 

specific applications with a current 

qualification for application-specific 

allowances under 40 CFR 84.13. As 

explained in the proposed rule, given 

that we are at the outset of the 

phasedown of regulated substances, the 

restrictions in this action are aimed at 

limiting the introduction of new 

products that use regulated substances 

to the market and restricting the 

circulation of those products (e.g., sale 

or distribution) before they reach the 

consumer. In that vein, the final rule 

includes ‘‘offer for distribution’’ in 

addition to offer for sale in the 

definition of use. Similarly, we 

proposed to restrict the installation of 

new systems using HFCs under the 

proposal by defining manufacture to 

include the installation of new systems. 

EPA is finalizing its definition of ‘‘use’’ 

under subsection (i), with these 

clarifications, consistent with the 

interpretation of ‘‘use in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used’’ articulated in the 

proposed rule and described above. 

Comment: Most of the comments the 

Agency received in response to its 

proposed interpretation of EPA’s scope 

of authority under subsection (i) and of 

EPA’s definition of ‘‘use of the regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used’’ 

related to the proposed prohibition on 

the sale, distribution, and offer for sale 

or distribution of many regulated 

products that would go into effect on 

January 1, 2026 (i.e., the sell-through 

period). Many commenters objected 

based on their view of the practical 

consequences of a one-year sell-through 

period, raising concerns about the 

economic harm of stranded inventory, 

and in particular, the high likelihood of 

stranded seasonal inventory such as air 

conditioners. Others commented on the 

difficulties of implementing any 

prohibition on the sale of parts of 

equipment that contain regulated 

substances, where those parts would 

continue to be needed for servicing and 

repair of existing equipment. Another 

commenter argued that prohibiting the 

sale of any inventory that was not sold 

by the sell-through prohibition date 

would constitute a ‘‘taking’’ without just 

compensation under the U.S. 

Constitution. These comments are 

summarized and addressed in section 

VI.C.2.c of this preamble. 

A smaller subset of commenters 

alleged that EPA lacked statutory 

authority to promulgate a sell-through 

limitation under the AIM Act. One 

commenter claimed that the AIM Act 

only provides EPA with authority to 

prohibit the ‘‘manufacture’’ of highGWP equipment, and that had Congress 

intended to allow EPA to have broader 

authority to regulate under subsection 

(i), it would have employed the same 

language that is used in subsection (h) 

of the AIM Act, which uses the terms 

‘‘any practice, process, or activity.’’ This 

commenter claimed that the Agency had 

relied upon dictionary definitions of the 

word ‘‘use’’ and that other dictionary 

definitions supported the commenter’s 

preferred interpretation of that word to 

be limited to acts or practices that 

‘‘employ, use, or put a regulated 

substance into service,’’ and noted that 

at least one dictionary definition 

indicated that ‘‘use’’ means ‘‘longcontinued possession and employment 

of a thing for the purpose for which it 

is adapted.’’ The commenter therefore 

asserted that the Agency’s regulatory 

definition should not include sale or 

distribution, since in the commenter’s 

view, neither action is the act or 

practice of employing, using, or putting 

a regulated substance into service, nor is 

sale or distribution ‘‘the long-continued 

possession’’ and ‘‘employment for the 

purpose for which it is adapted,’’ which, 

the commenter stated in the case of 

RACHP, is the transfer of heat. 

Specifically, the commenter urged 

EPA to adopt the following definition of 

‘‘use’’ under subsection (i): ‘‘Use means 

the act or practice of employing a 

product containing or designed to 

contain a regulated substance. Use does 

not include the destruction of a 

regulated substance.’’ The commenter 

argued that its proffered definition 

would still allow EPA to phase out the 

manufacture of products made of or 

containing regulated substances without 

going beyond, in its view, the authority 

of the AIM Act. Further, the commenter 

claimed that a sell-through limitation, 

rather than a regulation based only on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73117 

42Congress included express limitations on the 

applicability of the rules under AIM subsection (i) 

in a later part of the subsection (see subsection 

(i)(7)), and neither of the limitations in that 

provision mention a limitation to the manufacture 

of higher GWP equipment. Had Congress intended 

the kind of restriction the commenters suggest, it is 

reasonable to think they would have included those 

restrictions in subsection (i)(7). 

a product’s date of manufacture, would 

be ‘‘unique’’ in comparison to numerous 

other regulations on durable goods, 

including those promulgated by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

Response: We disagree with 

commenters who allege that EPA does 

not have authority under subsection (i) 

of the AIM Act to issue restrictions on 

the sale or distribution of products that 

use regulated substances. We do not 

agree with the commenter’s reading of 

the statute, and specifically, its views 

that subsection (i) the AIM Act only 

provides EPA with authority to prohibit 

the ‘‘manufacture’’ of higher-GWP 

equipment and that, in contrast to 

subsection (h), which uses the language 

of ‘‘any practice, process, or activity,’’ 

EPA’s authority under subsection (i) is 

comparatively limited. In fact, 

subsection (i) does not mention either 

manufacture or equipment, much less 

contain any limitation that EPA may 

only address manufacture of equipment 

under subsection (i). Subsection (i)(1) 

says, with respect to EPA’s authority, 

that ‘‘[s]ubject to the provisions of this 

subsection, the Administrator may by 

rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a 

graduated schedule, the use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used.’’ There is nothing in 

this provision that suggests that EPA’s 

statutory authority under (i) is limited to 

issuing restrictions on manufacturing, 

nor does the provision suggest that only 

higher-GWP equipment may be the 

target of EPA’s restrictions. To the 

contrary, this language broadly 

authorizes EPA to restrict any use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used; there is no limitation, 

express or implied, to certain types of 

use or users.42 These are assumptions 

that the commenter appears to have 

made without any grounding in the text 

of the statute. 

We also do not agree with the 

commenter’s view that Congress’ 

decision to use different language than 

it did for subsection (h) (i.e., its 

omission of the terms ‘‘any practice, 

process, or activity,’’ which appear in 

subsection (h)) somehow narrows the 

scope of subsection (i). The commenter 

appears to ignore the full context of 

each provision. Subsection (h) and 

subsection (i) use different language and 

are framed differently, but that does not 

mean that one is narrower or the other 

broader. Rather, EPA interprets those 

differences as conveying authority that 

is tailored to the respective area of focus 

of these subsections so that EPA can 

establish regulatory regimes that 

effectively achieve their respective 

purposes and complement one another. 

Because EPA is establishing these 

provisions under subsection (i), the 

critical question is whether they are 

within the authority conveyed under 

subsection (i) as Congress drafted it, not 

whether they would be authorized 

under some other language. When the 

statutory text of subsection (i) is read in 

full context, it comfortably encompasses 

restrictions on a range of entities that 

use regulated substances, not just 

manufacturers of equipment. One 

authority EPA has under (i) can be 

stated as follows: ‘‘[t]he Administrator 

may . . . restrict fully . . . the use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used.’’ 

Subsection (i)’s grant of authority to 

issue a full restriction across use in a 

sector or subsector was a key rationale 

underlying EPA’s interpretation. As 

EPA pointed out at proposal, EPA 

interprets the statute in a way that could 

give meaning to subsection (i)’s grant of 

authority to effectuate a full restriction, 

and thus transition, of all uses of a 

regulated substance in any given sector 

or subsector. As we explained in the 

proposed rule, a narrower interpretation 

of EPA’s authority to exclude sale or 

distribution could circumvent the 

intended full transition of a sector or 

subsector away from use of HFCs. 

Consistent with these concerns 

articulated in the proposed rule, EPA 

received a comment from a State that 

has restricted the manufacture of 

products containing HFCs without a 

sell-through limitation, and that State 

observed that such an ‘‘approach can 

create challenges as it relies on 

regulated entities to provide 

documentation as to manufacture date,’’ 

and that ‘‘[n]ot all entities in the market 

chain can provide such information for 

all products,’’ noting that ‘‘[t]hese 

factors are further complicated when 

applied to international manufacturers 

and retailers.’’ These concerns lend 

further support to EPA’s view that 

covering all points in the market chain 

of ‘‘use in the sector or subsector’’ 

ensures that the use restrictions we 

establish achieve their intended 

purpose, where the intention is to fully 

restrict the use of a regulated substance 

in a sector or subsector, or, as in this 

case, to partially restrict the use of 

regulated substances before those 

substances reach consumers. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, even 

though EPA’s definition of ‘‘use’’ is 

broad in order to enable the Agency to 

fully exercise the subsection (i) 

authority under that provision and to 

facilitate a full transition to HFC 

substitutes where appropriate, that does 

not mean that in every instance the 

restrictions promulgated under 

subsection (i) will exercise that full 

authority. In many cases, as in this 

action, EPA may issue partial 

restrictions that target only certain uses. 

The same commenter who asserted 

EPA has no authority to restrict sale or 

distribution provided no rebuttal or 

engagement with the reasoning EPA 

provided at proposal for its 

interpretation: namely, that the express 

provision of subsection (i) is related to 

a sector or subsector’s use of a regulated 

substance, that the subsection (i)(4) 

factors require EPA to analyze 

information related to a restriction’s 

feasibility and impact from a sectorlevel viewpoint, and that, as stated 

previously, the authority to ‘‘restrict 

fully’’ means that EPA has authority to 

restrict many activities in a sector- or 

subsector-level chain where regulated 

substances are present, and therefore 

‘‘used’’ in that sector or subsector. 

Instead, the commenter claimed that 

EPA ‘‘justified’’ its interpretation by 

relying on dictionary definitions of the 

word ‘‘use.’’ This is not accurate. We 

began the proposed rule’s preamble 

discussion with citations to the 

dictionary definition of that word, but 

the reasoning for our proposed 

interpretation and definition of the term 

did not rest solely on the dictionary 

definitions. 

Nor do we agree with the commenter 

that their proffered definition, which 

relies on the commenter’s ‘‘dictionary 

definition’’ understanding of the term 

‘‘use,’’ is workable. The commenter 

suggests that EPA should define ‘‘use’’ 

as ‘‘the act or practice of employing a 

product containing or designed to 

contain a regulated substance. Use does 

not include the destruction of a 

regulated substance.’’ We do not agree 

with commenter’s assertion that this 

definition ‘‘would still allow EPA to 

phase out the production of products 

made of or containing regulated 

substances.’’ Putting aside the 

commenters’ confusing use of the term 

‘‘phase out’’ in the context of subsection 

(i), which addresses use restrictions, 

under the commenter’s definition, EPA 

would only be allowed to restrict the act 

or practice of employing a product 

containing or designed to contain a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73118 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

43EPA is examining international information for 

some of the analyses, such as research from 

international organizations about technological 

achievability, because such information has 

relevance for the sector or subsector in the United 

States. 

regulated substance. We fail to see how 

this definition of use would allow EPA 

to restrict the manufacture of products 

containing HFCs, because the creation 

of a product is not the act or practice of 

employing that product, nor would EPA 

be permitted to restrict the import of 

such products, because import also does 

not ‘‘employ’’ the product. In fact, under 

the commenter’s suggested definition, it 

would appear that the only potential 

regulated parties under AIM Act 

subsection (i) would be the consumers 

of products, as these are likely the only 

parties that would be ‘‘employing’’ the 

products, as the commenters seem to be 

using that term, and for the sector the 

commenter represents (RACHP), the 

consumers are almost certainly the only 

parties that are ‘‘employing’’ the 

products for ‘‘the purpose for which it 

is adapted, i.e., the transfer of heat’’ (to 

quote the commenter’s understanding of 

and application of the dictionary 

definition of ‘‘use’’). We disagree that 

this is a reasonable reading of the AIM 

Act, given the textual considerations 

that subsection (i)(4) sets the Agency to 

consider when determining whether or 

not to restrict the ‘‘use of a regulated 

substance in the sector or subsector in 

which the substance is used.’’ (emphasis 

added). 

We also note that despite the 

commenter’s observation that many 

regulations on goods, including those 

promulgated by the U.S. DOE, establish 

compliance based only on manufacture, 

that has little relevance for EPA’s 

interpretation of the term ‘‘use’’ in 

subsection (i). EPA’s action is governed 

by the authority grounded in the text of 

the AIM Act, not the text of the statute 

providing DOE authority to promulgate 

its regulations. In any case, designing a 

restriction that regulates actions other 

than manufacture is not ‘‘unique.’’ In 

the context of SNAP under CAA section 

612, which evaluates alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances like 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (class I 

substances) and HCFCs (class II 

substances), EPA has long defined ‘‘use’’ 

as ‘‘any use of a substitute for a class I 

or class II ozone-depleting compound, 

including but not limited to use in a 

manufacturing process or product, in 

consumption by the end-user, or in 

intermediate uses, such as formulation 

or packaging for other subsequent uses.’’ 

40 CFR 82.172. The Agency’s 

interpretation of the scope of its 

authority and its definition of the term 

‘‘use’’ in the subsection (i) context 

similarly conceives of this authority as 

including the introduction of products 

containing regulated substances into 

what we consider to be sector or 

subsector activity, and the full market 

chain of activities, or ‘‘intermediate 

uses,’’ that follow, through to the 

consumer or end-user. 

2. What uses is EPA restricting in this 

rule? 

a. Manufacture and Import of FactoryCompleted Products 

This rule includes restrictions that 

apply to the manufacture of certain 

factory-completed products by the dates 

specified in section VI.F. As discussed 

in section VI.A on definitions, 

commenters were generally supportive 

of EPA’s proposal to establish use 

restrictions on the manufacture of 

factory-completed products using 

regulated substances. Many of the 

comments received on EPA’s proposal 

to restrict manufacturing related to 

EPA’s proposed definition of 

‘‘manufacture’’ to include the 

installation of field-assembled systems. 

EPA proposed to apply its restrictions 

equally as to domestically manufactured 

products using HFCs and products 

using HFCs that are imported. The AIM 

Act defines ‘‘import’’ as ‘‘to land on, 

bring into, or introduce into, or attempt 

to land on, bring into, or introduce into, 

any place subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States, regardless of whether 

that landing, bringing, or introduction 

constitutes an importation within the 

meaning of the customs laws of the 

United States,’’ and this rule follows 

that definition. Commenters were 

supportive of EPA’s equal application of 

the proposed restriction to the 

manufacture of products using HFCs 

and to the import of products using 

HFCs, noting that restricting both 

manufacture and import would garner 

environmental benefits, meet industry 

expectations, and treat all equipment 

equally regardless of location of 

manufacture and availability of HFCs 

under the global phasedown. EPA is 

finalizing the restriction on the import 

of products as proposed. 

While EPA is generally not regulating 

used equipment (see section VI.C.b), the 

Agency proposed to restrict the import 

of all products that do not meet the 

GWP limits, regardless of when the 

product was manufactured and 

regardless of whether the product is 

used. The goal of restricting the use of 

regulated substances (in this case, 

higher-GWP HFCs) in the named sectors 

and subsectors would be undermined if 

those sectors and subsectors could 

simply shift use to imported products 

containing higher-GWP HFCs that were 

not subject to the Agency’s restrictions. 

AIM Act subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) states 

that subsection (i) rules shall not apply 

‘‘except for a retrofit application, [to] 

equipment in existence in a sector or 

subsector before December 27, 2020.’’ 

EPA interprets this limitation with 

respect to ‘‘equipment in existence in a 

sector or subsector’’ not to apply to 

equipment manufactured abroad prior 

to the Act’s date of enactment, because 

EPA interprets ‘‘sector or subsector’’ in 

that provision to mean a sector or 

subsector in the United States. In 

general, where those terms appear in 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act, EPA 

understands them to mean the domestic 

sector or subsector, not the sector or 

subsector as it exists, operates, and 

functions in another country. For 

example, in assessing the availability of 

substitutes for use in a sector or 

subsector under subsection (i)(4)(B), 

EPA is generally analyzing the various 

subfactors—consumer costs, building 

codes, appliance efficiency standards, 

contractor training costs—vis-a`-vis the 

domestic impacted sector or 

subsector.43 Therefore, equipment that 

was manufactured in another country 

and existed prior to December 27, 2020, 

but was not imported to the United 

States until after that date is not subject 

to subsection (i)(7)(B)’s limitation, 

because until it is imported into the 

United States, it is not ‘‘in existence in 

the sector or subsector.’’ 

EPA received a number of comments 

related to its application of restrictions 

on imports, and we summarize and 

respond to these comments below. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

and one commenter opposed the 

proposal to restrict the import of 

products not meeting the GWP limits, 

regardless of when the product was 

manufactured and regardless of whether 

the products are used. The commenter 

opposed to EPA’s proposal requested 

that EPA clarify that ‘‘equipment in 

existence as of December 27, 2020’’ 

applies to all equipment in existence up 

to the date of this rule’s proposal, 

wherever that equipment is located (i.e., 

whether in the United States or 

elsewhere), at least for semiconductor 

manufacturing equipment. The 

commenter asserted that semiconductor 

manufacturers have been producing 

semiconductor manufacturing 

equipment in the last two years that was 

designed well before the AIM Act was 

enacted, and that such equipment was 

intended to operate for the next 10 to 25 

years. The commenter argues that until 

EPA published its proposed rule, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73119 

semiconductor manufacturers did not 

have ‘‘actionable notice’’ that their 

products might be subject to the 

Agency’s restrictions. The commenter 

also states that complex semiconductor 

manufacturing equipment may have 

been manufactured outside of the 

United States but was intended for use 

in the U.S. semiconductor sector. The 

commenter noted that the 

semiconductor industry has a global 

supply chain with long production 

timelines and asserted that EPA’s 

proposed distinctions based on where 

equipment is located could impose 

significant complications on the sector’s 

supply chain management. 

Response: The Act’s exception from 

applicability in AIM Act subsection 

(i)(7)(B)(ii) plainly does not apply to any 

equipment manufactured after 

December 27, 2020. We therefore do not 

agree with the commenter that the 

exception in that provision could be 

interpreted to apply to equipment 

manufactured between the date of the 

AIM Act’s enactment and the 

publication of EPA’s proposed rule. The 

statute is clear on its face, whether or 

not regulated entities were aware of 

being potentially subject to regulation 

under these provisions of the AIM Act 

until EPA issued its proposed rule. 

We also clarify that not all equipment 

that uses regulated substances in the 

semiconductor manufacturing industry 

is subject to these rules. The use of 

regulated substances in many 

semiconductor manufacturing 

processes, such as etching and the use 

of HFCs as solvents, is not restricted by 

this final action. EPA’s restrictions 

cover only the use of HFCs as they relate 

to semiconductor manufacturing where 

those HFCs are used as a refrigerant in 

chillers for IPR. As discussed in section 

VI.F.1.j, EPA is differentiating its 

restrictions and the timing of those 

restrictions for this subsector based on 

the temperature of the exiting fluid. To 

the extent that the equipment cited by 

commenter has exiting fluid 

temperatures below ¥50 °C (¥58 °F), 

the import of such new equipment is 

not restricted by this rule. For 

equipment with exiting fluid 

temperatures above that temperature, 

EPA has delayed the compliance date 

for installations of new systems to either 

2026 or 2028 (again differentiating 

based on the temperature of the exiting 

fluid). Importing components of such 

systems may continue after those 

compliance dates to allow servicing of 

existing equipment in the U.S. 

Comment: One commenter opposed to 

EPA’s proposal to apply its restrictions 

to all imported products using HFCs 

above the GWP limits requested that 

used semiconductor manufacturing and 

related equipment (SMRE) that was 

designed to contain HFCs receive an 

exemption. The commenter stated that 

there is a robust and active market for 

used SMRE, and preventing the import 

of this used equipment could have 

inadvertent supply chain disruption 

effects. 

Response: EPA understands the 

semiconductor manufacturing 

equipment to fit within the IPR 

subsector, typically utilizing chillers, 

often built into other non-refrigerant 

containing equipment, to cool processes 

necessary to produce semiconductor 

chips and other electronics. As such, we 

do not view such equipment differently 

from other IPR systems, which likewise 

could conceivably integrate a chiller 

into other equipment (e.g., a chiller 

integrated with a conveyor belt intended 

to move food needing freezing along its 

production process). As discussed in 

section VI.F.1.j, EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date later than proposed 

based on our consideration of the 

subsection (i)(4) factors. Specifically, 

EPA is establishing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2028, for IPR chillers where 

the fluid exiting the chiller is below 

¥22 °F (¥30 °C), and a January 1, 2026, 

date for other such equipment. And, 

consistent with the proposed rule, this 

final rule does not restrict HFC use in 

such equipment where the fluid exiting 

the chiller is below ¥50 °C (¥58 °F). 

This additional time compared to the 

proposal should assist in the 

commenter’s ability to respond to the 

restrictions in this rule; for example, by 

importing appropriate equipment prior 

to the relevant compliance date and/or 

altering manufacturing outside the 

United States to use refrigerants that 

meet the restrictions for the United 

States (i.e., less than 700 GWP). 

Comment: Other commenters asked 

that EPA clarify how the import 

restriction applies to existing 

intermodal containers that are engaged 

in trade, refrigeration equipment in 

operation on ocean-going vessels, and 

non-road motor vehicles temporarily 

deployed overseas. Commenters stated 

that applying the GWP limit to all 

refrigerated containers is infeasible and 

would be highly disruptive to trade. 

Commenters also stated that such 

equipment should be allowed to be 

serviced in the United States and not be 

subject to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Response: EPA agrees that applying 

the restrictions to products that are 

actively in use when travelling into U.S. 

jurisdiction could be problematic. For 

example, a strict reading of the 

proposed restrictions on import could 

have prevented a traveler from 

reentering the United States from 

Canada or Mexico with their car if the 

MVAC uses HFC–134a. As noted in the 

proposed rule, the Agency’s intention is 

to cover the activities of entities 

bringing large shipments of products 

into the country, as well as activities of 

entities bringing smaller volumes of 

products into the country (e.g., driving 

a truckload of air conditioning units 

across the Canadian or Mexican border 

for sale in the United States.). EPA 

therefore is distinguishing in this final 

rule those products or systems that are 

actively in use when travelling into U.S. 

jurisdiction from shipments of used 

products destined for resale or further 

distribution. EPA is not intending that 

this aspect of this rule restrict RACHP 

equipment in operation aboard marine 

vessels, planes, motor vehicles, 

refrigerated transport trailers, or 

intermodal containers. Likewise, foam 

or aerosol products that are in use (e.g., 

trailers) or in possession of a consumer 

when crossing the border are likewise 

exempt from the import prohibition. 

However, EPA’s intent is to apply the 

use restrictions consistently for 

domestic manufacturers and importers 

of products. As such, no person may sell 

new refrigerated transport trailers or 

refrigerated intermodal containers in the 

United States, whether manufactured 

domestically or abroad after the 

manufacture/import compliance date, 

unless it complies with the HFC use 

restrictions. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that prohibiting the import of 

used, non-compliant products would 

also prevent the import of products 

intended for recycling. The commenter 

contended that such a regulated product 

is not ‘in the sector or subsector in 

which the regulated substance is used’ 

either outside or inside the United 

States, and thus prohibiting the import 

is contrary to subsection (i)(1) of the 

AIM Act. 

Response: EPA considers the disposal 

chain, which includes the recycling of 

equipment, and not the use or reuse of 

the equipment in the relevant sector or 

subsector in the United States, to be 

outside the scope of the restrictions on 

distribution. This includes equipment 

bound for disposal that was never used 

by a consumer, such as defective 

components or products that were 

manufactured or imported illegally. 

Allowing for disposal furthers the intent 

of removing equipment from the market 

before it is used by the consumer. 

b. Installation of Systems 

EPA is defining the term install/ 

installation as ‘‘to complete a fieldVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Oct 23, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24OCR2.SGM 24OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73120 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

assembled system’s circuit, including 

charging with a full charge, such that 

the system can function and is ready for 

use for its intended purpose.’’ As 

discussed in section VI.A (Definitions), 

many commenters expressed concerns 

about EPA’s proposed definition of 

‘‘manufacture,’’ which would have 

included the installation and first 

charge of field-assembled equipment. 

These included concerns that defining 

‘‘manufacture’’ to include ‘‘install’’ of 

field-assembled systems effectively 

accelerates the timeline of the 

prohibition and renders the one-year 

sell-through moot. Commenters 

suggested different ways to regulate the 

use of HFCs in field-assembled 

equipment, including restricting the 

manufacture of components that would 

later be field-assembled. In this final 

rule, EPA is restricting the installation 

of field-assembled systems with 

additional clarifications. The definition 

of install is virtually identical to the 

proposed definition of manufacture for 

field-assembled systems. As with the 

term manufacture, the definition of 

‘‘install’’ serves as a distinct point in 

time by which listed activities must be 

completed for purposes of meeting the 

compliance date. By proposing in its 

prohibitions that ‘‘no person’’ may 

manufacture a product, EPA’s intent 

was to capture any person who is 

responsible for the manufacture (which, 

at proposal, included installation of 

field-assembled equipment). EPA 

therefore does not think that limiting 

the responsibility to only the technician 

who first charges the system (and thus 

makes it ready for use for its intended 

purpose) is an appropriate application 

of the restriction on installation. Doing 

so would be equivalent to making the 

final individual on a factory assembly 

line the ‘‘manufacturer’’ of a refrigerator 

and not the OEM. Responsibility for 

installing a system that improperly uses 

a higher-GWP HFC refrigerant after the 

compliance date lies with multiple 

entities, including the designer, builder, 

and owner/operator of that system, in 

addition to the entities that assembled 

the components and got them into 

operating order on site. 

Therefore, any person who assembles, 

contracts for, takes ownership of, or 

operates a system that is installed after 

the applicable compliance date using 

regulated substances prohibited for that 

subsector is in violation of this rule. 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested that EPA allow for installation 

of a system if building permits have 

already been received to avoid the redesign and permitting of buildings. 

Another commenter sought flexibility in 

case there is a delay in receiving all the 

necessary components or a delay in 

assembling and charging the system. 

The commenter requested EPA allow 

appliances purchased under contract 

before the compliance date to receive 

their field charge after that date. 

Response: EPA recognizes that some 

facilities may have been designed and 

permitted to specifically use systems 

with HFCs that will be restricted by this 

final rule. We anticipate that such 

instances are rare, especially because 

the final rule delays the compliance 

dates for the installation of most fieldassembled systems by at least one year 

and sometimes longer depending on the 

subsector. However, systems using 

HFCs within facilities needing such 

long lead-times that they have approved 

building permits in place by the date of 

signature for this final rule are likely to 

be highly complex and costly to 

redesign. EPA previously granted 

additional time to install systems that 

have been permitted under the HCFC 

use restrictions under section 605(a) of 

the CAA. In those instances, EPA agreed 

to provide time if, among other 

conditions, those appliances were 

specified in a building permit dated 

before the compliance date (see 74 FR 

66441, December 15, 2009) and in a 

more recent action the date of signature 

of the relevant proposed rule (see 85 FR 

15267, March 17, 2020). 

Based on the comments received, 

similar flexibility may be needed in this 

rule. Therefore, EPA is allowing one 

additional year for the installation of 

systems in four subsectors if an 

approved building permit issued before 

the date of signature of this final rule 

specified the use of a system containing 

refrigerants with GWPs above the 

relevant GWP threshold for the 

specified subsector. These subsectors 

are: IPR systems with a January 1, 2026, 

compliance date; retail food 

refrigeration—supermarkets; cold 

storage warehouses; and ice rinks. This 

flexibility will prevent the need to 

redesign these systems, and potentially 

the facility that houses these systems. 

EPA is not including other subsectors in 

this provision as those systems are not 

typically designed specifically for an 

individual facility and/or those systems 

have a later compliance date and thus 

can make any necessary changes with 

the GWP restrictions in mind. 

EPA disagrees with the suggestion to 

allow systems purchased under contract 

prior to the compliance date to be field 

charged after that date. Doing so would 

undermine the intent of the regulation 

and the statute by incentivizing the 

finalization of numerous contracts in 

the days preceding the compliance date, 

which could then potentially allow for 

years of further installations using 

higher-GWP HFCs in sectors and 

subsectors that EPA has already 

determined under subsection (i)(4) are 

ready to transition to lower-GWP 

substitutes. 

Comment: Some commenters 

disagreed with the installation being the 

point of compliance. One commenter 

stated that this broadens responsibility 

for compliance from a relatively small 

number of knowledgeable OEMs to a 

much broader group of distribution and 

installation stakeholders who do not 

have the same level of awareness of the 

regulatory requirements. Another 

commenter recommended that EPA 

exclude ‘‘purchaser and/or user’’ and 

‘‘third party companies’’ from the 

definition of a ‘‘manufacturer,’’ (under 

the definition as proposed) whether or 

not they are involved or provide support 

for activities associated with field 

assembly or charging. The commenter 

argued that the purchaser and/or user 

rarely, if ever, takes ‘‘ownership’’ of IPR 

equipment until it is fully charged and 

has been demonstrated to run safely for 

the use for which it was designed and/ 

or intended, which is the responsibility 

of the manufacturer who designed and 

fabricated the parts. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comments that the Agency should only 

restrict OEMs and not regulate 

installation of a field-assembled system. 

Many commenters representing OEMs 

of components stated that they do not 

control how their components are used 

after they are sold to a distributor, and 

EPA agrees that with respect to 

restricting the use of HFCs in 

installation of field-assembled systems, 

OEMs of components used in those 

systems are not the appropriate entity to 

regulate (unless the OEM is involved in 

the design or construction of the 

system). While applying the restrictions 

on installations to the parties other than 

OEMs results in more potentially 

regulated entities, it appropriately 

places the restriction on the entities that 

can control the use of HFCs in that 

system. While a broader group of 

installation stakeholders may not be as 

accustomed to compliance issues as the 

relatively smaller group of component 

OEMs that commenters requested be 

subject to the restrictions, applying the 

restrictions for installation of systems to 

the designer, builder, and owner/ 

operator of that system will help to 

ensure that there is a knowledgeable 

party driving compliance. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that EPA provide a precise 

and clear definition for when a fielderected and field-charged system 

modified as part of a remodel or regular 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73121 

44This is similar to the definition of ‘‘new’’ in 

New York State. Specifically, new is defined as 

‘‘Products or equipment that are manufactured after 

the effective date of this Part or installed with new 

or used components, expanded by the addition of 

components to increase system capacity after the 

effective date of this Part, or replaced or 

cumulatively replaced after the effective date of this 

Part such that the cumulative capital cost of 

replacement exceeds 50% of the capital cost of 

replacing the whole system.’’ 6 NYCRR 494.3(s). 

maintenance is covered by the new 

GWP limit. They requested that EPA 

allow for replacement of appliance 

components, including but not limited 

to cases, compressors, valves, 

condensers, evaporator units, piping 

and other components to keep that 

existing system running. They also 

requested that EPA allow for remodels 

or retrofits to update the look, improve 

the efficiency, or reduce leaks in a 

system. Other commenters requested 

that EPA use California’s definitions of 

new refrigeration equipment, new airconditioning equipment, and new 

facility to demarcate which 

modifications to a system trigger the 

requirements applicable to new systems. 

A State commenter noted that a single, 

unified definition of ‘new’ would be 

useful for States that wish to establish 

controls that are aligned with EPA and 

in cases where stakeholders require 

clarity on State versus national controls. 

Several commenters summarized 

California’s regulations as an example of 

how a previously installed refrigeration 

system could trigger the use restriction 

through either of two methods. The first 

method is when the compressor 

capacity of the refrigeration system is 

increased or the cost of replacing 

components over a three-year period 

exceeds 50 percent of the capital cost of 

replacing the entire system (excluding 

display cases).44 The second method is 

when an existing facility changes to a 

different end-use or when 75 percent of 

the refrigeration system’s evaporators 

(by number) and 100 percent of its 

compressor racks, condensers, and 

connected evaporator loads have been 

replaced. A previously installed airconditioning system triggers the use 

restriction depending on the size of the 

system. For systems with a single 

condenser and single evaporator, the 

use restrictions are triggered when 

replacing the exterior condenser, 

condensing unit, or remote condensing 

unit. For systems having more than one 

condenser and/or more than one 

evaporator, the use restrictions are 

triggered when 75 percent of the indoor 

evaporator units (by number) and 100 

percent of the air source or water source 

condensing units are replaced over a 

three-year period. 

A commenter recommended EPA use 

the first method to avoid the continuous 

replacement of parts indefinitely 

without ever triggering any restriction 

on the use of controlled substances. An 

industry commenter recommended the 

second method. A few commenters also 

requested that EPA define the term 

‘‘new facility’’ which is substantively 

the same as the second method in the 

definition for new refrigeration 

equipment. One such commenter that 

favored this approach said it is clearer 

that components may be replaced and 

that restricting ‘‘new refrigeration 

equipment’’ would require establishing 

exceptions for remodels and 

replacement for maintenance. 

Response: EPA’s intention is to allow 

the ordinary servicing and repair of 

equipment and not to apply restrictions 

in a way that would prevent such 

maintenance. However, we are 

cognizant of the concern that systems 

could be significantly modified or 

upgraded to the point that such 

modification or upgrade should be 

considered a new installation subject to 

the subsector GWP limits. 

The Agency has encountered the 

question of what modifications 

constitute the installation of a new 

system during the phaseout of HCFCs. 

Under section 605(a) of the CAA, EPA 

prohibited the use of virgin HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b to charge new 

appliances assembled onsite on or after 

January 1, 2010. (December 15, 2009; 74 

FR 66437). In that context, the Agency’s 

interpretation was that there were two 

different situations that could be 

equivalent to the manufacture (i.e., 

installation) of a new system. These are 

modifications to a system that increase 

the total cooling capacity in BTU of the 

system or the complete replacement of 

all components within a system at once 

or over time. Based on commenters’ 

requests for clarification on the issue, 

EPA is adopting these two situations in 

the regulatory text. In addition, after 

consideration of the public comments 

and its past experience implementing 

similar restrictions, the Agency is 

providing more specificity about which 

components must be replaced in order 

for a replacement to qualify as ‘‘new 

installation.’’ 

EPA noted in the proposed rule, in 

the context of what qualifies as 

‘‘equipment in existence,’’ that ‘‘in 

limited cases where every part of a piece 

of equipment had been altered or 

replaced,’’ such equipment would fall 

outside the statutory and regulatory 

exemption in subsection (i)(7)(B), and 

the alteration or replacement would be 

considered a new installation subject to 

the restrictions under this section. In so 

doing, we did not intend that ‘‘every’’ 

piece would include refrigerant tubing, 

which is often very difficult to replace 

because the tubing may be inaccessible. 

Even in major overhauls of systems, this 

tubing is rarely replaced, and we 

therefore think replacements where this 

tubing remains installed should still be 

considered new installations for 

purposes of triggering these restrictions. 

Therefore, we are clarifying in this final 

rulemaking and in the regulatory text 

which components must be replaced, 

and at what percentages, to provide a 

precise, clear standard that will ensure 

that major replacements and alterations 

are properly subject to the restrictions 

and transition to lower-GWP 

refrigerants. Specifically, when 75 

percent of the refrigeration system’s 

evaporators (by number) and 100 

percent of its compressor racks, 

condensers, and connected evaporator 

loads have been replaced, such 

replacement constitutes a new 

installation and is subject to the 

restrictions on installation. EPA’s 

approach in this final rulemaking is also 

used by States that have adopted a 

definition of ‘‘new refrigeration 

equipment.’’ 

EPA disagrees with commenters’ 

suggestion that the Agency adopt other 

methods used in California for 

determining when an existing 

refrigeration system is considered 

‘‘new.’’ Those other methods, such as 

including specific timeframes or 

assessing capital costs, deviate from 

EPA’s historical interpretations under 

title VI of the CAA and raise additional 

questions about implementation. Nor is 

EPA adopting the method for 

determining when an existing airconditioning system with a single 

condenser and single evaporator is 

considered ‘‘new.’’ In implementing the 

use restriction on HCFC–22 under title 

VI of the CAA, EPA has considered the 

replacement of the condensing unit to 

be a repair and not the installation of a 

new system. EPA finds that it is also 

reasonable to continue that 

interpretation under the use restrictions 

in subsection (i) as it is the same type 

of equipment and because the AIM Act 

is implementing a phasedown rather 

than a phaseout, meaning there is no 

end date for the production and import 

of bulk HFCs. 

c. Sale or Distribution of FactoryCompleted Products 

As discussed above, EPA interprets 

‘‘use’’ to include activities in the market 

chain that occur after the manufacture 

or import of a product. As such, EPA is 

applying use restrictions to any person 

who sells, distributes, offers for sale or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73122 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

distribution, makes available for sale or 

distribution, purchases or receives for 

sale or distribution, or attempts to 

purchase or receive for sale or 

distribution, or exports any product 

using a regulated substance in the 

sectors or subsectors controlled under 

subsection (i). Applying the restrictions 

in this way ensures that the goal of 

restricting the use of regulated 

substances in the sectors or subsectors 

in which the regulated substances are 

used can be achieved, because the sector 

and subsector’s use of the regulated 

substance is present in all these aspects 

of the market chain, and it is EPA’s 

intention to restrict use across that 

chain. Therefore, if a manufacturer or 

importer improperly introduces into the 

U.S. market a non-compliant product, 

distributors and retailers (including 

online retailers) offering that product for 

sale are also restricted from covered 

activities related to that product. 

Providing the means by which 

individuals are able to list and sell 

prohibited products, or exerting control 

over these sales, including operating 

platforms for eCommerce transactions, 

will be considered use under this rule. 

EPA is also applying the use restrictions 

to those entities who purchase or 

receive for the purpose of further sale or 

distribution with the intent to cover 

both sides of the transaction between 

distributors but not the purchase by a 

consumer. The intent of this restriction 

is to ensure that products that do not 

meet the limits do not enter the market 

and are not circulated in the market, 

prior to sale to the consumer. 

EPA proposed to prohibit sale, 

distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export of products 

using regulated substances not meeting 

the GWP limits one year after the 

proposed prohibition date for 

manufacture and import of products 

using regulated substances over the 

GWP limits in each subsector. EPA 

explained at proposal that limiting the 

period of time when products that do 

not meet the GWP limits can continue 

to be sold has advantages over 

indefinitely exempting the sale of 

inventory that does not meet the 

established use restrictions. In 

particular, we noted the advantage of 

having a date certain by which all 

parties—e.g., the public, enforcement 

officials, and regulated entities—know 

that there can legally be no new 

products on the market that do not meet 

the GWP limits. This additional 

prohibition on the activities subsequent 

to manufacture and import but prior to 

sale to the consumer reinforces the 

sector or subsector’s transition away 

from use of HFCs in new products and, 

to the extent that it is a possibility, 

prevents the stockpiling and continued 

sale of products that do not meet the 

sector or subsector use restrictions from 

continuing indefinitely into the future. 

EPA received many comments on this 

proposed prohibition on the sale or 

distribution of products. Comments 

received on this aspect of this rule and 

EPA’s responses to those comments are 

summarized and discussed in further 

detail below and in the response to 

comments document, available in the 

docket. 

This final action retains a limited sellthrough period on products using a 

regulated substance that do not meet the 

sector and subsector restrictions with 

key changes in response to concerns 

raised by the commenters. First, EPA is 

limiting the prohibition on sale, 

distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export to factorycompleted products that use prohibited 

higher-GWP regulated substances. As 

discussed in greater detail later in this 

section, EPA is excluding components 

and allowing for their continued 

manufacture, import, sale, distribution, 

offer for sale and distribution, and 

export, subject to certain restrictions, 

including that these uses are for the 

purpose of servicing existing 

equipment. Second, EPA is extending 

the compliance date for the sales 

prohibition on factory-completed 

products from the proposed one year to 

three years after the manufacture and 

import compliance date. EPA provided 

the two additional years to address 

commenters’ concerns that a one year 

sell-through was potentially insufficient 

to clear inventory, and in particular, 

seasonal products such as window-unit 

air conditioners, which can experience 

variable demand from year-to-year. This 

final approach ensures that sectors and 

subsectors that use regulated substances 

will transition from the use of those 

substances where such transition is 

appropriate and alleviates the concerns 

raised by commenters. 

Comment: Several commenters voiced 

concern that the one-year compliance 

deadline would create the risk of 

stranded inventory that would not be 

able to be sold, which would cause 

economic harm to manufacturers, 

distributors, retailers, and ultimately 

consumers. Commenters representing 

distributors highlighted the many 

considerations they must account for in 

determining the amount of inventory to 

stock, citing the desire to carry amounts 

of inventory large enough to maintain 

competitive pricing, against costs 

incurred via storage space leasing, 

warehouse mortgages, building utilities, 

and insurance on products stored in the 

warehouse. Other commenters, 

particularly those in the heating and 

cooling sector, noted that many factors, 

including the economy, weather, and 

demand for construction impact sales 

and that in this sector particularly, it is 

already difficult to forecast what 

amount of inventory will need to be 

carried over year to year. Many 

commenters noted that the sell-through 

limitation would exacerbate existing 

supply chain challenges, particularly for 

small businesses. Commenters stated 

that the one-year sell-through period 

would require distributors to either 

stock less inventory, and therefore 

potentially fail to meet customer 

demand, or to throw away inventory 

that would be prohibited by the sellthrough limitation, and that either of 

these outcomes would cause economic 

harm. Commenters noted that the 

economic harm caused by the proposed 

one-year sell-through period might 

cause them to reduce their labor forces, 

and would require increased monitoring 

for compliance throughout the supply 

chain. 

Many of these commenters also cited 

concerns about potential adverse 

environmental impacts of stranding 

inventory. Others noted that the 

environmental benefit of the AIM Act is 

from the phasedown of the supply of 

HFCs, and that the HFC price increases 

and lack of availability of regulated 

substances that will flow from the 

phase-down will provide a market force 

to transition to lower-GWP substitutes, 

making the sell-through limitation 

unnecessary as a backstop. Many 

commenters requested that EPA 

eliminate the sell-through limitation 

altogether, and instead permit unlimited 

sell-through of any product labeled with 

a ‘‘date of manufacture’’ meeting the 

compliance date for manufacture. 

Others requested that the Agency at 

least extend the permissible limitation 

to multiple years, with some 

commenters suggesting that two or three 

years would minimize the risk of 

stranded inventory. 

EPA also received comments in 

support of its proposed prohibition on 

sale, distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export. Some 

commenters stated that the compliance 

dates in the proposed rule already 

provide sufficient time for 

manufacturers and distributors to plan 

for the transition to lower-GWP 

substitutes and to sell existing 

inventories, and that the compliance 

date for the sell-through limitation 

should be one year at most. These 

commenters asserted that allowing an 

indefinite period for sell-through of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73123 

equipment manufactured by the 

manufacture compliance date would 

complicate enforcement and could 

provide an incentive for companies to 

increase near term production of 

systems using HFCs before restrictions 

come into effect. The Agency also 

received supportive comments on the 

proposed sell-through limitation from 

States, including one that has 

promulgated under State law a 

prohibition on manufacture but allows 

unlimited sell-through of products 

manufactured prior to that prohibition 

date. That State commenter noted that 

the unlimited sell-through approach can 

create challenges because it relies on 

regulated entities to provide 

documentation as to the manufacture 

date, and that not all entities in the 

market chain can provide that 

information. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

input provided by commenters both in 

support of and raising concerns with the 

limitation on sale, distribution, and 

export of products regulated under these 

restrictions. We recognize that the 

production and purchase of products or 

components that are unable to be sold 

to consumers is an economic and 

environmental outcome no parties 

desire, and the proposed rule’s forwardlooking compliance dates were intended 

to allow all parties in the market supply 

chain sufficient time to avoid that 

outcome. To that end, after considering 

the concerns raised by various 

commenters, EPA is extending the 

proposed one-year compliance date for 

the sell-through limitation on products 

to three years after the manufacture and 

import compliance date. The longer 

timeframe for a sell-through allows 

regulated entities more time to manage 

inventory to avoid purchasing products 

they will not be able to sell, reduce 

waste, and lessen the impacts to the 

downstream channels and customers. 

While EPA recognizes there will still be 

costs to establishing a sell-through 

limitation, we expect that extending this 

timeframe to three years will mitigate 

the costs of stranded inventory, storage, 

and product disposal that commenters 

identified. As such EPA has not 

quantified these costs in the RIA 

Addendum but describes them in 

qualitative terms. In addition, EPA notes 

that such comments were based on the 

assumption that components and repair 

parts would be subject to the sellthrough, which they are not. 

EPA anticipates that this extension 

will mitigate many of the concerns 

raised by commenters regarding the 

difficulty of balancing competing 

priorities and forecasting how much 

inventory to stock, particularly for those 

sectors marketing seasonal products. 

Allowing two additional years for the 

sale, distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export of products 

manufactured or imported before the 

use restrictions will provide needed 

time for all parties to plan for a smooth 

transition to meet the new limits. As 

pointed out by the commenters, parties 

in these sectors and subsectors must 

already balance many competing 

factors—costs of storage, projected 

demand, weather, supply chain, 

demand for construction, and the 

economy—some of which are known 

and some of which are beyond the 

parties’ control. Our intention in 

extending the compliance deadline for 

the sell-through limitation is to provide 

regulatory certainty with respect to this 

restriction to allow time for distributors 

and retailers to transition their 

inventory from products using regulated 

substances that do not meet the 

restrictions. 

EPA does not agree that dispensing 

altogether with a sell-through limitation 

is appropriate in this case. This 

limitation reinforces the Agency’s 

restrictions on manufacturing and 

import by establishing a bright line 

compliance date after which no 

products that do not meet the new 

restrictions may be sold or distributed. 

Based on past experience with the 

phaseout of ODS, EPA anticipates that 

the availability and price difference 

between HFCs in the United States and 

in countries with a later HFC 

phasedown schedule will create an 

incentive to import non-compliant 

products into the United States. A sales 

restriction eliminates that market. This 

is the intention of the Agency’s 

restrictions—that by a date certain, the 

sector or subsector subject to the 

restriction will no longer be selling to 

consumers products that use regulated 

substances where a substitute can be 

used (per the Agency’s determination 

under the (i)(4) factor analysis). 

Enforcement of the manufacture and 

import restrictions are supported 

because it is easier to identify noncompliant products within the 

distribution chain or at the point of sale 

than it is to identify them at a single 

moment in time when they cross the 

border. Ultimately the sales restriction 

protects U.S. manufacturers that have 

transitioned from being undercut by any 

foreign, non-compliant products that 

may have been improperly imported 

after the import prohibition compliance 

date. A ‘‘date of manufacture’’ label 

alone would not provide that same 

protection. 

While some commenters stated that, 

in their view, a ‘‘date of manufacture’’ 

label would be easier to implement and 

require less compliance monitoring, we 

do not agree. Under that scenario, a 

product containing HFCs or blends that 

had GWPs exceeding the limits could 

permissibly be sold, distributed, or 

exported if the date of manufacture met 

the proper compliance date, but would 

be impermissible if manufactured after 

the compliance date. Also permissible 

for sale or distribution would be 

products containing HFCs or blends that 

had GWPs that met the new restrictions. 

The commenter’s approach would 

require regulated entities to segregate 

those products that were manufactured 

or imported by the compliance date 

from those manufactured or imported 

after the compliance date. Per EPA’s 

final rule, regulated parties would need 

only to discern whether the products 

met the limits by the compliance date in 

order to ensure they were complying. 

The commenters’ preferred approach of 

focusing on the ‘‘date of manufacture’’ 

label also puts the success of the 

transition squarely on proper labeling 

and incentivizes inaccurate or 

fraudulent labeling. EPA is cognizant of 

the comments from our State partners 

who have implemented their programs 

in this way and faced these types of 

challenges. 

With respect to comments asserting 

that the sell-through limitation is 

unnecessary because the environmental 

benefit of the AIM Act will derive from 

the Act’s phasedown of regulated 

substances, we do not agree. Congress 

provided authority under subsection (i) 

separate from the phasedown authority 

under subsection (e) to restrict use of 

HFCs in particular sectors and 

subsectors, and it is the Agency’s view 

that these sector- and subsector-specific 

restrictions are an important component 

to supporting the domestic phasedown 

of HFCs. As noted, the sell-through 

provisions provide a backstop to the 

manufacture and import restrictions by 

aligning incentives of all impacted users 

in the sector or subsector 

(manufacturers, importers, distributors, 

retailers, etc.), because all users will 

know that there will be no market for 

noncompliant equipment after the 

extended sell-through compliance date. 

We also note that even if commenters 

are correct that the phasedown’s impact 

on the prices of bulk HFCs will 

disincentivize domestic manufacturers 

from generating large stockpiles of 

products in sectors and subsectors that 

are ready to transition to lower-GWP 

substitutes, this rule also restricts the 

import of products containing HFCs, the 

benefits of which are not reflected in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73124 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

assessments of benefits in the 

phasedown. 

Comment: One commenter alleged 

that EPA’s proposed limitation on the 

sell-through of products not meeting the 

Agency’s use restrictions would 

constitute a regulatory taking without 

just compensation under the U.S. 

Constitution. The commenter asserted 

that EPA’s regulation of their property 

would justify compensation under the 

legal tests established by the Supreme 

Court in Penn Central Transportation 

Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 

(1978) and Lucas v. South Carolina 

Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

under Penn Central, a court must 

determine ‘‘the regulation’s economic 

effect on the owner, the extent to which 

the regulation interferes with reasonable 

investment-backed expectations, and 

the character of the government action.’’ 

The commenter asserted that the test 

was met with respect to EPA’s proposed 

sell-through limitation because it ‘‘has 

an economic impact because of dead 

inventory; wholesale distributors used 

capital to purchase inventory to sell, 

which interferes with reasonable 

investment-backed expectations; and 

the government action is intentional in 

its taking of property by rendering the 

property valueless.’’ Next, with respect 

to the Lucas test, which the commenter 

articulated as an ‘‘expanded definition 

of a per se taking and established that 

a regulatory taking could exist when a 

regulation results in the property 

becoming valueless,’’ the commenter 

claimed that the test was met because 

affected property cannot be sold or 

exported, nor can it be donated to 

training facilities (as it will be obsolete), 

removing the regulated substance before 

selling the property for scrap will incur 

costs, and it has no value in retention 

(as was true of the eagle feathers at issue 

in Andrus v. Allard, 441 U.S. 51 (1979)). 

The commenter further argued that even 

though Penn Central and Lucas 

involved questions about government 

regulation of real property, the cases 

were made equally applicable to 

personal property by virtue of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. 

Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 

(2013). 

Finally, the commenter claimed that 

in their view ‘‘public benefit [did not] 

outweigh the condemnation’’ based on 

its reading of a Prohibition-era case, 

Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545 

(1924), which upheld the 18th 

Amendment’s ban on the manufacture, 

sale, or transportation of intoxicating 

liquors for beverage purposes, in spite of 

Congress’ exception for medically 

prescribed liquors. The commenter then 

stated that the compensation plan for its 

asserted takings would be the fair 

market value of equipment in the 

HVACR market. 

Response: We do not agree with the 

commenter that this final action has 

resulted in any takings of private 

property under the Constitution. Courts 

have summarily dismissed claims that a 

takings has occurred prior to the 

application of a regulation to particular 

property. See, e.g., Rybachek v. U.S. 

EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1300 01 (9th Cir. 

1990) (‘‘[N]o takings claim here is ripe 

for judicial resolution. A taking occurs 

in this context only when the EPA’s 

regulations are applied to particular 

property.’’); Hodel v. Virginia Surface 

Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 

264, 293–97 (1981) (takings claim 

regarding surface-mining statutes and 

regulations premature until those rules 

are actually applied to particular 

property of which a taking is claimed). 

As such, the comments articulating 

particular legal tests regarding whether 

a taking has occurred and if so what 

compensation is required, and the 

application of those tests, are beyond 

the scope of this action. 

We also point out that even though no 

property, real or otherwise, has been 

impacted by this action, which 

establishes compliance dates in the 

future, the Supreme Court’s takings 

jurisprudence makes clear that 

‘‘government may execute laws or 

programs that adversely affect 

recognized economic values,’’ and 

accordingly has issued ‘‘decisions in 

which [the Supreme Court] has 

dismissed ‘taking’ challenges on the 

ground that, while the government 

action caused economic harm, it did not 

interfere with interests that were 

sufficiently bound up with the 

reasonable expectations of the claimant 

to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth 

Amendment purposes.’’ Penn Central, 

438 U.S. at 124–25. In this case, it is 

within commenter’s control to manage 

its future investments with the 

expectation of the regulation and its 

extended compliance date. Relatedly, in 

the Horne decision cited by the 

commenter, the majority and the dissent 

were in agreement that the means of the 

government’s action created a critical 

distinction for purposes of evaluating 

whether a Fifth Amendment takings had 

occurred. 576 U.S. at 361–62. Namely, 

in that case all the litigants and both the 

majority and dissent agreed that ‘‘the 

government may prohibit the sale of 

raisins without effecting a per se taking’’ 

even when the Hornes believed that the 

government’s appropriation of raisins 

amounted to a takings. See id. The 

majority for the court, finding in favor 

of the Hornes, wrote, ‘‘that distinction 

flows naturally from the settled 

difference in our takings jurisprudence 

between appropriation and regulation. 

A physical taking of raisins and a 

regulatory limit on production may have 

the same economic impact on a grower. 

The Constitution, however, is concerned 

with means as well as ends.’’ Id. 

We therefore disagree with the 

commenter that any taking of property 

has occurred, nor do we think that 

prospective government regulation of 

the sale of products, such as the sellthrough limitation finalized in this rule, 

fits the established Fifth Amendment 

jurisprudence of the type of regulation 

that would require just compensation 

under the Constitution. 

Comment: Many commenters objected 

to the application of the prohibition on 

sale or distribution to components using 

regulated substances or intended to use 

regulated substances. These commenters 

expressed the need to retain a large and 

varied inventory of components to 

continue to service and repair existing 

equipment, and asserted that as 

distributors and retailers, there is no 

way of knowing whether the component 

is intended to be used in a newly 

installed system or in an existing 

system. Other commenters emphasized 

the importance of stocking parts for 

refrigeration systems and equipment. 

While commenters acknowledged that 

the market for refrigeration is less 

seasonal than for air-conditioning, they 

noted that it is critical that distributors 

keep multiple years’ worth of parts and 

equipment to ensure that consumers can 

keep refrigeration systems running, 

because failure of these systems can 

cause extreme economic harm—e.g., 

when hospitals are forced to dispose of 

vaccines and medications, or when 

grocery stores must throw away 

groceries. 

Response: EPA is finalizing its 

proposed restriction on the sale, 

distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export with respect 

only to factory-assembled products 

using a regulated substance that exceeds 

the GWP limit. As noted throughout this 

action, EPA’s intention is to restrict the 

use of HFCs in new products being 

introduced and circulated in the sectors 

and subsectors subject to this 

rulemaking that use HFCs; our intention 

is not to prematurely shorten the useful 

life of existing products or systems that 

consumers have already purchased and 

are employing. We recognize that, 

consistent with commenters’ concerns, 

use restrictions on the manufacture and 

import, as well as sale, distribution, 

offer for sale and distribution, and 

export, of components would restrict 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73125 

45 40 CFR part 82, subpart C. 46 40 CFR part 82, subpart I. 47The definition of distributor under 40 CFR 

82.62 and 82.302 includes a person who sells or 

distributes a product for export from the United 

States. 

the ability of consumers to service and 

repair their existing equipment. 

Therefore, EPA is excluding 

components from the use restrictions 

and allowing for their continued 

manufacture and import subject to 

certain restrictions, including that they 

may only be used to service existing 

equipment and are subject to labeling 

and reporting requirements. Similarly, 

EPA is allowing for the continued sale, 

distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export of components. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that users of field-assembled products or 

systems do not get the advantage of a 

sell-through period because under the 

proposed rule the system is not 

considered to be manufactured until it 

is assembled in the field. One of these 

commenters asserted that the result of 

these definitions is that larger and more 

complex products (i.e., field-assembled 

systems) cannot be sold and distributed 

by the proposed sell-through 

compliance deadline of January 1, 2026, 

and in effect, will have a much earlier 

manufacturing compliance deadline 

than the manufacturing compliance 

deadline for smaller, self-contained 

products covered by this rule (e.g., 

aerosol cans). One environmental group 

commented that the one-year sellthrough period is not needed for fieldcharged systems and recommended that 

EPA remove it. 

Response: As discussed in the section 

VI.A (Definitions), EPA is distinguishing 

factory-completed products from fieldassembled systems in this final rule. 

EPA agrees with comments that it does 

not make sense to apply a sell-through 

limitation to such systems given that 

field-assembled systems typically 

cannot be imported, nor can they be 

sold or distributed absent the sale of the 

larger structure containing them (i.e., 

building). Until the system is assembled 

and charged, it is a collection of 

components, and EPA has determined 

for the reasons discussed below not to 

restrict the use of HFCs in components 

at this time. 

d. Export of Products Containing HFCs 

EPA interprets a sector or subsector’s 

‘‘use’’ to cover not only manufacture 

and import of a product, but also the 

subsequent activities in the market 

chain related to products. Specifically, 

we interpret export to be included in the 

meaning of ‘‘use.’’ Where EPA has 

determined, consistent with 

consideration of the factors listed in 

subsection (i)(4), that it is appropriate to 

restrict the use of HFCs, it is reasonable 

for restrictions on domestically 

manufactured products intended for the 

U.S. market to apply equally to 

domestically manufactured products 

intended for export. Applying the 

restrictions to all such equipment using 

a regulated substance treats materially 

similar uses of HFCs in the same 

manner. Including a sector or 

subsector’s export of a product using 

HFCs as subject to the prohibitions will 

prevent the limited supply of HFCs in 

the United States from being exported in 

products that could otherwise have used 

substitutes. A company cannot request 

additional consumption allowances 

based on the export of products 

containing regulated substances; 

requests for additional consumption 

allowances are limited to the export of 

bulk HFCs. 40 CFR 84.17. As with 

products manufactured for domestic 

use, one intent of this restriction is to 

ensure that sectors and subsectors that 

are currently using HFCs and that are 

well-positioned to transition to 

substitutes, per EPA’s determination 

under the (i)(4) factors, actually make 

that transition, leaving more of the 

limited supply of HFCs for use in 

sectors and subsectors that have fewer 

options. Including exports as a 

prohibited activity also supports global 

efforts to reduce HFC use in light of the 

Kigali Amendment to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Comment: Many commenters 

representing trade organizations, OEMs, 

and HFC distributors requested that 

EPA allow for the export of equipment 

designed to use current refrigerants. 

Commenters stated that prohibiting 

export would harm American 

manufacturing; cede foreign markets to 

competitors; and perhaps lead other 

countries to use equipment that is older, 

less energy efficient, and leakier. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

limiting sales to foreign markets where 

higher-GWP HFCs are not yet prohibited 

could negatively impact U.S. 

manufacturers. However, because of the 

global phasedown in HFCs, this will be 

only in certain markets and only for a 

limited time. Many major markets 

currently prohibit equipment using 

higher-GWP HFCs and thus an export 

market for innovative American 

products currently exists. Countries that 

have not yet transitioned to lower-GWP 

HFCs in certain sectors and subsectors 

will do so as the global phasedown of 

HFCs under the Kigali Amendment 

proceeds. 

The export prohibition in this rule is 

not unique. EPA has historically 

prohibited the export of products using 

ODS in the sectors and subsectors 

addressed in this rule when restricting 

their manufacture, import, sale, offer for 

sale and distribution, or distribution. 

Regulations implementing the 

nonessential products ban 45 and 

restrictions on pre-charged RACHP 

equipment containing HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b 46 also prohibited export of 

domestically manufactured products. 

EPA has consistently included export as 

a prohibited element of distribution 

under regulations implementing title VI 

of the CAA.47 Similarly, EPA’s 

limitations on the use of an alternative 

to ODS under SNAP applies to products 

intended for export (59 FR at 13052; 

March 18, 1994; also see 40 CFR 

82.174(e)). Therefore, EPA’s application 

of its restrictions to the export of 

products using HFCs is reasonable and 

aligns with past practice and industry 

expectations. That being said, this rule 

does not prohibit the manufacture and 

export of components provided that 

labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements are met. EPA anticipates 

that such reporting will allow the 

Agency to ascertain the impact of the 

global phasedown of HFCs on such 

equipment and in those subsectors. 

Comment: Other commenters stated 

that countries should themselves 

determine when to transition to nextgeneration alternatives and that EPA 

should allow the export of equipment 

for as long as the importing country 

allows its use. One commenter stated 

that EPA is effectively legislating those 

jurisdictions worldwide that are 

refrigerant agnostic. 

Response: EPA disagrees that this rule 

legislates the use of substitutes in other 

countries. EPA is prohibiting the use of 

higher-GWP HFCs in certain sectors and 

subsectors within the United States. 

Prohibited use includes the domestic 

manufacturing of those products, 

regardless of the market into which they 

are sold. Restrictions on sale or 

distribution, offer for sale and 

distribution, and export are intended to 

backstop the domestic manufacturing 

prohibition. Furthermore, components 

may continue to be manufactured and 

imported into the United States and 

may also be exported to jurisdictions 

that are refrigerant agnostic. Finally, this 

rule will not prevent products 

manufactured in one foreign country 

from being sold in another foreign 

country. 

Comment: Many commenters noted 

that other jurisdictions may not have 

building codes that allow for nextgeneration refrigerants. Similarly, other 

commenters stated that other 

jurisdictions may not have trained 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73126 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

48LD passenger vehicles that are manufactured in 

MY 2025 but are manufactured less than one year 

after publication of this final rule may also be 

exported until introduction of MY 2028 vehicles. 

technicians, recovery equipment, or 

other infrastructure necessary to support 

alternative refrigerants in MVACs. One 

such commenter stated that the primary 

substitute, HFO–1234yf, is not as 

effective in high temperature, highhumidity environments such as the Gulf 

Cooperation Council countries and that 

vehicles using HFO–1234yf will be at a 

competitive disadvantage in those 

markets. 

Response: As discussed previously, 

EPA interprets ‘‘sector or subsector in 

which a regulated substance is used’’ to 

be a domestic sector or subsector which 

includes use by the manufacturer. The 

factors under subsection (i)(4) of the 

AIM Act do not direct the Agency to 

consider whether a substitute is 

available for use in a foreign market for 

servicing the product. Nor is it 

practicable for the Agency to identify 

whether substitutes are available in 

every country or consider every 

country’s import controls, building 

codes, or otherwise. 

On the technical point on use of 

HFO–1234yf in high ambient 

temperature counties such as the Gulf 

Cooperation Council countries, EPA 

notes that the TEAP has not indicated 

technical barriers that would preclude 

the use of alternative refrigerants that 

meet the GWP threshold for MVACs 

from being used in high ambient 

temperature countries. EPA is making 

some revisions in the final rule based on 

comments. For the reasons described in 

section VI.C.2.c, EPA is extending the 

compliance date for restrictions on 

exports from one year to three years. 

Thus, for example, light-duty (LD) 

passenger vehicles manufactured before 

Model Year (MY) 2025 48 containing an 

HFC with a GWP of 150 or greater may 

be exported until introduction of MY 

2028 vehicles. This allows for flexibility 

past MY 2027, as suggested by 

commenters. Moreover, because the 

transition to refrigerants with GWPs 

below 150 in MVACs is well underway 

on a global basis, EPA does not agree 

that there will be infrastructure barriers 

for this subsector. 

Comment: Other commenters stated 

these export restrictions are largely 

unnecessary, considering that the HFC 

allocation program provides the 

appropriate market constriction and will 

discourage unreasonable consumption 

of regulated substances for use in 

exported products. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

similar comments regarding restrictions 

on sale or distribution, EPA is 

exercising the separate authority 

provided under subsection (i) of the 

AIM Act to restrict use of HFCs in 

particular sectors or subsectors- where 

the subsection (i)(4) factors are met. 

Establishing these sector and subsector 

specific restrictions helps to support the 

domestic phasedown and allocation 

program by ensuring that those sectors 

and subsectors that have available 

substitutes for use in place of higherGWP HFCs use those substitutes. 

3. What uses are not covered in the final 

rule? 

a. Manufacture, Import, Sale, 

Distribution, and Export of Components 

Based on the comments received, EPA 

is excluding components from the 

definition of product and is therefore 

not applying the final rule’s restrictions 

on manufacture, import, sale, 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, or export (all of which 

apply to products) to components. 

EPA’s exclusion of components from 

this rule’s prohibitions is premised on 

the continued need for components to 

service existing systems. 

EPA is applying requirements to label, 

report, and keep records related to the 

manufacture and import of certain 

specified components. For purposes of 

this rule, these specified components 

are condensing units, condensers, 

compressors, evaporator units, and 

evaporators. EPA is separating out this 

subset of components found in an 

RACHP system because these are 

refrigerant-specific (e.g., unlike piping) 

and may contain significant amounts of 

regulated substances (e.g., unlike a 

thermal expansion valve) when 

manufactured or imported. In some 

instances, such as a display case in a 

supermarket, these specified 

components may also be viewed as 

products or appliances themselves. 

However, even though these specified 

components constitute the major parts 

of a system, they still must be connected 

to a refrigerant circuit in order to 

function, and we therefore think treating 

these specified components as 

components is more appropriate at this 

time than treating them as products 

under this rule’s prohibitions. EPA also 

considered that the same specified 

components (e.g., compressors) can in 

some cases be used in systems in 

different subsectors, which may not be 

subject to the same GWP limit 

restrictions. Until the specified 

component is assembled in a system, it 

may not be clear what subsector GWP 

limit would apply to that specified 

component. 

Labeling, reporting, and 

recordkeeping provisions are necessary 

to ensure that components that continue 

to be manufactured or imported 

containing higher-GWP HFC refrigerants 

are, in fact, used for the repair and 

servicing of existing equipment. 

Replacement of certain percentages of 

these specified components is also the 

type of modification that could 

constitute an installation of a new 

system that is prohibited under these 

restrictions (see section VI.C.2.b). We 

are requiring that manufacturers and 

importers of specified components label 

these components, report to EPA, and 

maintain the necessary records related 

to reporting, to help ensure compliance 

with this prohibition. (see sections VII 

and VIII). 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested that EPA allow replacement 

components to be manufactured, 

imported, exported, or installed after the 

compliance date to maintain, service, or 

remodel an existing system. One 

commenter urged that this be allowed 

until the time those systems using highGWP HFCs no longer exist in the field. 

One commenter suggested that such 

components be labeled, ‘‘For retrofit, 

replacement, remodel, or maintenance 

only.’’ Other commenters recommended 

that the manufacture and import of 

components cease upon the compliance 

date for that sector or subsector just as 

is required of the installation of the 

system. These commenters stated that 

this would help to ensure that 

components are used for repairs and not 

to construct new systems. 

Response: The repair and servicing of 

installed systems is crucial for all the 

reasons described previously. Avoiding 

early obsolescence due to the lack of a 

component is one reason EPA is not 

applying the prohibitions on sale or 

distribution, or offer for sale or 

distribution, to components. 

With respect to the comment 

recommending that EPA prohibit 

manufacture and import of components 

upon the compliance date for the 

installation of systems using those 

components, we do not agree that this 

would accomplish the goal of ensuring 

supply of components to service and 

repair existing systems. In addition, 

components may be manufactured for 

use with multiple refrigerants, including 

potentially blends that comply with the 

GWP limit and ones that do not. Until 

the component is assembled into a 

system and charged, it would be unclear 

whether the component, on its own, met 

a restriction. As noted above, a 

component may also be used in 

multiple subsectors and thus could be 

compliant for use in one subsector but 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73127 

not another. Applying this rule’s 

prohibitions on manufacture, import, 

sale, distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, and export on components 

would be difficult to enforce. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

there is a compliance risk that 

components manufactured or imported 

for repairs could be used to install a 

new prohibited system. EPA is 

mitigating that risk of noncompliance 

through labeling that a specified 

component is for repair and servicing 

only, as one commenter recommended, 

and reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

b. Used Equipment 

EPA is not applying the GWP limit 

restrictions or other restrictions to the 

sale, distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, or export of used 

equipment. By used, the Agency means 

products, components, or systems that 

have been in the ownership of someone 

other than a manufacturer, importer, or 

distributor, and have experienced 

ordinary operation or utilization by a 

consumer. Some equipment, such as airconditioning and refrigerated 

appliances, are often conveyed with the 

sale of a building and could not 

reasonably be excluded from that 

conveyance. Other products subject to 

these restrictions may be incorporated 

into a larger good, such as an MVAC in 

a motor vehicle, which may be sold 

multiple times during the useful life of 

the good. Restricting the sale of used 

equipment that use HFCs would 

significantly decrease the value of those 

goods and impact the market for used 

products (e.g., trading in a used motor 

vehicle during the purchase of a new 

one). Restricting the sale of used 

products could also have overall 

detrimental environmental effects by 

requiring consumers to discard products 

or equipment before the end of the 

product’s useful life and could 

negatively impact affordability for 

consumers by eliminating options to 

purchase used products. Under title VI 

of the CAA, EPA typically has not 

restricted the sale of used appliances 

containing ODS and is maintaining a 

similar approach for this rule. 

EPA intends that this exemption for 

used equipment cover both individuals 

selling products they themselves have 

used as well as entities that do volume 

business in used products (e.g., stores 

selling second-hand goods or cardealerships selling pre-owned vehicles). 

However, this used products exemption 

is not intended to cover entities that 

purchase new equipment, which is 

subject to the restrictions on 

manufacture and import, hold that 

equipment for a period of time, and then 

re-sell it. We have accordingly specified 

that equipment must have experienced 

ordinary operation or utilization by a 

consumer to qualify for the used 

equipment exemption. 

EPA received one comment on its 

proposal not to restrict the sale, 

distribution, or export of used products. 

The commenter found the description of 

a used product to be problematic as it 

could restrict the recycling of an unsold 

defective unit, for instance. EPA does 

not seek to restrict the movement of 

equipment, used or new, for disposal, 

including recycling. 

c. ‘‘Equipment in Existence’’ 

Under subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) of the 

Act, ‘‘a rule promulgated under this 

subsection shall not apply to, . . . 

except for a retrofit application, 

equipment in existence in a sector or 

subsector before December 27, 2020.’’ 

As such, EPA’s restrictions do not apply 

to the sale or distribution, offer for sale 

or distribution, or export of any 

equipment that was in existence in the 

sector or subsector prior to December 

27, 2020. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

representing a range of stakeholders 

recommended that EPA consider all 

equipment that was manufactured prior 

to the compliance date for that subsector 

be considered ‘‘equipment in existence’’ 

for purposes of subsection (i)(7)(B). The 

commenters stated that doing so would 

provide necessary certainty that 

equipment manufactured between 

December 27, 2020, and the compliance 

date for that subsector (e.g., January 1, 

2026) could be serviced, repaired, and 

have components replaced as needed 

throughout its useful life. Another 

commenter similarly advocated that 

EPA should not mandate replacement of 

any equipment that has a date of 

manufacture of the compressor-bearing 

equipment prior to the effective 

compliance date. 

Response: The Agency does not agree 

that equipment that was manufactured 

prior to a future compliance date for a 

subsector fits under subsection 

(i)(7)(B)’s ‘‘equipment in existence in a 

sector or subsector before [December 27, 

2020].’’ Any equipment manufactured 

or installed after December 27, 2020, 

plainly does not meet the statutory 

exemption. Nonetheless, all 

equipment—regardless of the date of 

manufacture or installation—may be 

serviced, repaired, and have 

components replaced as needed 

throughout its useful life. Under this 

rule as finalized, servicing, repair, or 

maintenance of equipment that was in 

existence in the sector or subsector prior 

to December 27, 2020, would generally 

not render that equipment newly subject 

to EPA’s restrictions on use of HFCs, 

except in those instances where such 

actions constitute a new installation (see 

section VI.C.2.b). 

The Agency is also not mandating the 

replacement of any equipment that is 

currently in use, regardless of the date 

of manufacture or installation of that 

equipment. This rule’s restrictions 

apply to the manufacture, import, sale, 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, and export of new products 

and the installation of new systems. 

Only where an existing system is 

modified to the point that the cooling 

capacity is increased or a threshold 

percentage of specified components is 

replaced, is it considered an installation 

of a system subject to these restrictions. 

d. Repair and Servicing 

This rule does not impose restrictions 

on the repair and servicing of products 

or systems that are currently in use. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concern about the loss of 

significant capital investment and 

economic harm should EPA restrict the 

ability to repair existing systems. 

Distributors were also concerned about 

the cost of discarding components that 

could not be sold to service or repair a 

system. Some commenters noted the 

social and economic costs associated 

with the loss of food, vaccines, and 

other commodities that would spoil if a 

refrigeration system fails and cannot be 

quickly repaired. Some commenters 

noted the impact on low-income 

communities if supermarkets or other 

retail food facilities close. Some 

commenters were concerned for their 

customers if equipment warranties 

could not be honored or if they had to 

buy a new system for the failure of a 

single component. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

concerns noted by commenters 

regarding the need to service and repair 

existing systems. Under this final rule, 

a product or system may be serviced 

and repaired throughout its useful life, 

including the replacement of 

components. 

e. Retrofit Applications 

Under the AIM Act subsection 

(i)(7)(B)(ii), EPA has authority to apply 

restrictions to ‘‘retrofit applications,’’ 

where existing equipment is upgraded 

by changing the regulated substance 

used (see AIM Act subsection (i)(7)(A)). 

The Act specifies that ‘‘retrofit’’ is 

where upgrades are made to existing 

equipment where the regulated 

substance is changed and which ‘‘(i) 

include the conversion of equipment to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73128 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

49EPA notes that while these petitioners 

requested that EPA establish restrictions on the use 

of HFCs by restricting specific HFCs or blends 

containing HFCs, it does not necessarily mean that 

these petitioners preferred this restriction format 

over establishing restrictions on the use of HFCs by 

establishing GWP limits. EPA believes that these 

petitioners requested restrictions on the use of 

specific HFCs and blends containing HFCs in this 

way to replicate the format presented in SNAP 

Rules 20 and 21. 

50AHRI suggests a definition for ‘‘New 

Refrigeration Equipment’’ as follows: equipment 

built with new components and equates to a 

nominal compressor capacity increase across the 

refrigeration appliance or an increase of the CO2

equivalent of the refrigerant in the refrigeration 

appliance. Under this suggested definition, the 

replacement of components in Existing 

Refrigeration Systems would be permissible if the 

nominal compressor capacity is not increased 

across the refrigeration appliance or the CO2

equivalent of the refrigerant in the refrigeration 

appliance is not increased. 

51A discussion on the status of safety standards 

and building codes that may impact compliance 

dates is in section VI.E.2 of this preamble. 

achieve system compatibility and (ii) 

may include changes in lubricants, 

gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or 

equipment components for that 

purpose.’’ 

EPA did not propose to address 

retrofits in this rulemaking, although the 

Agency issued in conjunction with the 

proposed restrictions an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking seeking 

information regarding certain retrofitted 

equipment. As stated at proposal, EPA 

is not addressing retrofit applications in 

this final rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter urged EPA 

to adopt separate GWP limits for 

retrofits as was done in SNAP rules 20 

and 21, and another recommended that 

EPA mandate the use of reclaimed 

refrigerant in existing retrofitted 

equipment, noting that EPA does not 

need to wait for a rulemaking under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act to do so, 

and that some reclaimed feedstock is 

available now or could be made 

available by future compliance dates. 

Other commenters supported EPA’s 

decision not to regulate retrofits of 

existing equipment as part of this 

rulemaking, citing concerns that 

replacement refrigerants for high-GWP 

substances for retrofit equipment are not 

yet available. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rule and in the Agency’s 

request for information about 

refrigerants used in retrofitted 

equipment and the prevalence of that 

equipment in certain sectors and 

subsectors, the Agency is still gathering 

information about retrofit applications. 

While we recognize the Agency’s 

authority to issue restrictions on retrofit 

applications in subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii), 

we do not view, and commenters did 

not suggest, that EPA has an obligation 

to issue such restrictions at this time. 

Those commenters who recommended 

that EPA regulate retrofit applications in 

this rulemaking did not provide 

information that altered EPA’s 

assessment that for this set of 

restrictions issued under subsection (i), 

given the early stages of implementing 

the AIM Act overall and of the 

phasedown under subsection (e), it is 

efficient and effective to focus on 

transitioning sectors and subsectors at 

this first step through prohibitions on 

the introduction of higher-GWP HFCs in 

new products and systems. 

D. How is EPA addressing restrictions 

on the use of HFCs requested in 

petitions granted? 

EPA is addressing three sets of 

petitions in this action: the 11 petitions 

granted or partially granted on October 

7, 2021; additional petitions submitted 

by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) which 

updated previously submitted petitions; 

and two petitions granted by EPA on 

September 19, 2022. EPA is addressing 

these granted petitions in a single 

rulemaking rather than through separate 

rulemakings. In some instances, 

particularly where the petitioned sectors 

and subsectors overlap, responding 

through a single rulemaking allows for 

a complete analysis in a single location. 

Consistent with EPA’s authority under 

subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act, EPA is 

also establishing restrictions on the use 

of HFCs in certain sectors and 

subsectors that were not included in 

petitions received by the Agency to 

date. 

Several commenters supported EPA’s 

decision to address the granted and 

partially granted petitions together in 

one rulemaking. These commenters 

noted that addressing the petitions 

together allows for timely action and 

will provide consistency and 

transparency for regulated entities. 

1. Petitions Granted on October 7, 2021 

On October 7, 2021, EPA granted ten 

petitions and partially granted one 

petition under subsection (i) of the AIM 

Act (86 FR 57141, October 14, 2021). 

Copies of petitions granted (including 

the full list of petitioners and copetitioners), a detailed summary of each 

petition, and EPA’s rationale for 

granting these petitions are available 

under Docket ID EPA–OAR–2021–0643. 

Five of the granted petitions specifically 

requested that EPA replicate, in varying 

degrees, certain restrictions on use of 

HFCs based on the changes of status 

contained in SNAP Rules 20 and 21. 

These five petitions were received from 

the Natural Resources Defense Council 

et al. (hereby, ‘‘NRDC’’); DuPont (two 

petitions); American Chemistry 

Council’s Center for the Polyurethanes 

Industry (hereby, ‘‘CPI’’); and the 

Household & Consumer Product 

Association and National Aerosol 

Association (hereby, ‘‘HCPA’’). These 

petitions requested restrictions on the 

use of specific HFCs or blends 

containing HFCs in refrigeration, airconditioning, and heat pump, foams, 

and aerosols sectors.49 Another five 

petitions requested that EPA establish 

GWP limits for HFCs used in certain 

stationary AC and/or refrigeration 

subsectors. These petitions were 

received from the Environmental 

Investigation Agency et al. (hereby, 

‘‘EIA’’), AHRI (two petitions), 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (hereby, ‘‘AHAM’’), and 

International Institute of Ammonia 

Refrigeration et al. (hereby, ‘‘IIAR’’). The 

one partially granted petition, submitted 

by California Air Resources Board et al. 

(hereby, ‘‘CARB’’), requested two types 

of restrictions: (1) Certain restrictions on 

the use of HFCs contained in SNAP 

Rules 20 and 21 in the RACHP, foams, 

and aerosols sectors and (2) restrictions 

on the use of HFCs based on GWP limits 

in certain stationary AC and 

refrigeration subsectors. CARB also 

requested EPA regulations should not 

limit States’ ability to further limit or 

phase out the use of HFCs in their 

jurisdictions. 

2. How is EPA addressing additional 

petitions that cover similar sectors and 

subsectors? 

EPA received two additional petitions 

from AHRI on August 19, 2021, and 

October 12, 2021. The first petition 

requested that EPA establish transition 

dates for ‘‘New Refrigeration 

Equipment’’ 50 for certain commercial 

refrigeration subsectors listed, along 

with the associated maximum GWP. 

AHRI requested that the transition dates 

be at least two years after the adoption 

of safety standards and building 

codes.51 AHRI’s second petition in this 

category requested that EPA establish 

transition dates for ‘‘New Refrigeration 

Equipment’’ for specific chiller 

applications listed, along with the 

associated maximum GWP. 

EPA is treating these two AHRI 

petitions as addenda to their October 7, 

2021, granted petitions, and not as 

separate petitions, since the subsectors 

listed in these petitions are contained in 

the granted AHRI petitions and AHRI 

refers to these as further steps in the 

transition for these uses. The main 

difference between the requested action 

in these two petitions and the granted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73129 

52The Technical Economic Assessment Panel is 

an advisory body to the parties to the Montreal 

Protocol and is recognized as a premier global 

technical body; reports available at: https://

ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap. 

53An example is CARB’s Initial Statement of 

Reasons and Standardized Regulatory Impact 

Assessment report. Available at: https://

ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020. 

petitions is the lower-GWP limits with 

later compliance dates. Since EPA 

considers these two petitions as 

addenda to petitions granted on October 

7, 2021, this rulemaking addresses these 

requests. 

3. Petitions Granted on September 19, 

2022 

On September 19, 2022, EPA granted 

two additional petitions that requested 

EPA establish restrictions on the use of 

HFCs in certain commercial 

refrigeration subsectors based on GWP 

limits. These petitions were received 

from AHRI and IIAR and covered 

similar commercial refrigeration 

subsectors contained in petitions 

granted on October 7, 2021. One 

difference to note is that both the AHRI 

and IIAR petitions requested restrictions 

on the use of HFCs for equipment types 

beyond what was covered in many of 

the petitions granted on October 7, 2021 

(i.e., all equipment with a refrigerant 

charge less than 200 lb) in listed 

subsectors. EPA granted these petitions 

based on its consideration of the (i)(4) 

factors in light of the information then 

available. Given the Agency was already 

developing the proposed rulemaking 

which addresses restrictions on the use 

of HFCs in the sector and subsectors 

contained in these newer petitions, 

recognizing the extensive overlap with 

the petitions granted on October 7, 

2021, and in an effort to streamline 

rulemakings, EPA is addressing these 

newer petitions in this rulemaking. 

Copies of the AHRI and IIAR petitions 

can be found in the docket. 

E. Subsection (i)(4) Factors for 

Determination 

Subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act 

directs EPA to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, various considerations 

when evaluating petitions and carrying 

out a rulemaking. EPA is not 

establishing regulatory text regarding 

these factors at this point; however, this 

section summarizes the Agency’s 

interpretation and application of the 

(i)(4) factors. EPA’s consideration of the 

(i)(4) factors served as the basis for the 

restrictions (for additional discussion 

see section VI.F of this preamble). 

1. How is EPA considering best 

available data? 

Subsection (i)(4)(A) of the AIM Act 

directs the Agency to use, to the extent 

practicable, the best available data in 

making a determination to grant or deny 

a petition or when carrying out a 

rulemaking under subsection (i). In this 

context, EPA interprets the reference to 

best available data as an instruction 

with respect to the other factors under 

(i)(4) rather than as an independent 

factor. Best available data may not 

always mean the latest data. For 

example, the latest data may not have 

yet had time to be peer reviewed and 

might benefit from peer review. This 

should not be interpreted as meaning 

EPA would only consider best available 

data to be peer-reviewed data, but that 

peer review is one consideration that 

could inform our understanding of what 

are the best available data in particular 

situations. 

The best available data that the 

Agency has considered in determining 

the availability of substitutes under 

(i)(4)(B) includes, but are not limited to: 

SNAP listing decisions; Montreal 

Protocol reports by the TEAP and its 

Technical Options Committees and 

Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (e.g., Task 

Forces); 52 TSDs from States with HFC 

restrictions; 53 information from other 

Federal agencies and departments (e.g., 

DOE); proceedings from technical 

conferences; and journal articles. For 

some of the factors and subfactors, EPA 

developed TSDs that provide 

information from these sources and 

others that EPA believes to be the best 

available data. Furthermore, EPA 

considered information provided to the 

Agency from industry, trade 

associations, environmental nongovernmental organizations, academia, 

standard-setting bodies, petitioners, in 

public comments and in stakeholder 

meetings that the Agency hosted, and 

other sources in response to EPA 

making the petitions publicly available 

through Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0289, to the extent that such 

information represented best available 

data. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that information contained in petitions 

is not ‘‘best available data,’’ given the 

petitions are in the self-interest of the 

petitioners and that the petitioners are 

incentivized to downplay any adverse 

consumer impacts. 

Response: EPA considered 

information from petitioners (among 

other sources) to the extent that such 

information represented best available 

data. EPA is cognizant of the potential 

biases in the petitions and stated in the 

proposed rule that the petitions formed 

merely the starting point of the Agency’s 

analysis. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

WMO and the IPCC are cited throughout 

the proposed rule but were not included 

as sources of best available data despite 

being the most authoritative resource for 

information on the environmental 

impacts of HFCs. The commenter also 

stated that the 2007 IPCC’s AR4 values 

for the GWPs of HFCs are not best 

available data, as the IPCC has updated 

these values in 2013 and 2021. The 

commenter stated that EPA is 

understating the effects of HFCs and any 

person who attempts to gather GWP 

information from the authoritative 

source (such as the IPCC) will not come 

to the same conclusions regarding 

compliant products. 

Response: EPA agrees that the IPCC 

and WMO are sources of best available 

data, especially for the environmental 

impacts of HFCs and other greenhouse 

gases. EPA’s non-exhaustive list of data 

sources referred to by the commenter 

were in the context of the subsection 

(i)(4)(B) factors for which other data 

sources are more relevant. EPA 

disagrees that the policy decision to use 

AR4 GWP values is a failure to use best 

available data. As the commenter noted, 

the exchange values for HFCs used in 

the AIM Act are the same as the AR4 

GWP values. Use of AR4 values ensures 

consistency between the different 

regulations issued by EPA under the 

AIM Act, including the production and 

consumption caps and the issuance of 

allowances. Using different values 

would make the program harder to 

implement, confuse the body of 

stakeholders required to comply with 

the regulations, and prevent the Agency 

from evaluating the benefits of this 

rulemaking within the context of the 

different regulations issued by EPA 

under the AIM Act. 

2. How is EPA considering the 

availability of substitutes? 

Subsection (i)(4)(B) of the AIM Act 

directs EPA to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, the availability of 

substitutes for use of the regulated 

substance that is the subject of this 

rulemaking or petition, as applicable, in 

a sector or subsector. Several factors 

inform the availability of substitutes for 

use in a sector or subsector, based on 

the statutory language in subsection 

(i)(4)(B). As part of EPA’s consideration 

of availability of substitutes, the AIM 

Act directs the Agency to take into 

account the following subfactors: 

technological achievability, commercial 

demands, affordability for residential 

and small business consumers, safety, 

consumer costs, building codes, 

appliance efficiency standards, 

contractor training costs, and other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73130 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

54The TEAP 2018 Quadrennial Assessment 

Report includes sections for each of the Technical 

Options Committees (TOC): Flexible and Rigid 

Foams TOC, Halons TOC, Methyl Bromide TOC, 

Medical and Chemicals TOC, and Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC. Available at: 

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap. 55 In accordance with Article 6 of the Montreal 

Protocol, every four years the parties request 

assessments from various advisory bodies, 

including the TEAP’s quadrennial assessment of the 

sectors and subsectors covered by the petitions. 

Under Decision XXVIII/2 the TEAP is also 

instructed to review HFC substitutes every five 

years. The parties also routinely request reports 

considering transitions and/or related topics (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, energy efficiency for the 

refrigeration and air conditioning sector). 

56TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) and 

2018 Quadrennial Assessment Report. Available at: 

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap. 57 Volume 3: Decision XXXIII/5—Continued 

provision of information on energy-efficient and 

low-global-warming-potential technologies, 

Technological and Economic Assessment Panel, 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 

May 2022. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/ 

system/files/documents/TEAP-EETF-report-may2022.pdf. 

58 Inclusion of a substitute, either in the preamble 

or the docket, is for informative purposes only and 

relevant factors, including the quantities 

of regulated substances available from 

reclaiming, prior production, or prior 

import. 

EPA has considered the subsection 

(i)(4)(B) subfactors collectively, with no 

one subfactor solely governing the 

restrictions for any sector or subsector. 

EPA is not required to weigh all 

subfactors equally when considering the 

availability of substitutes. Subsection 

(i)(4) directs the Agency to consider the 

factors listed in (i)(4), including 

availability of substitutes, ‘‘to the extent 

practicable.’’ EPA interprets this phrase 

to extend to its consideration of the 

subfactors in (i)(4)(B), given that these 

subfactors are to be taken into account 

in considering the availability of 

substitutes ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ 

EPA anticipates that in most situations, 

no single subfactor will be dispositive of 

its consideration of the availability of 

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

many instances, a particular 

characteristic of a substitute may be 

considered under multiple factors. For 

example, the use of a lower 

flammability refrigerant could have 

implications for commercial demands, 

safety, building codes, and contractor 

training costs. Likewise, the timing of a 

restriction’s compliance deadline could 

be affected by multiple factors such as 

commercial demands, affordability for 

residential and small business 

consumers, safety, building codes, and 

appliance efficiency standards. 

Furthermore, not all the subfactors in 

(i)(4)(B) may be applicable to each 

sector or subsector. For example, 

appliance efficiency standards are not 

applicable to aerosols. Lastly, it may not 

be practicable to consider some 

subfactors in some situations such as 

when there are not sufficient available 

data regarding a specific subfactor. EPA 

did not receive comment on its 

methodology to weigh the factors 

collectively and to the extent practicable 

and therefore is finalizing restrictions in 

this rule using that approach. 

Substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs 

have been the subject of evaluation for 

decades. EPA, State and foreign 

governments, industry standards 

organizations, and international 

advisory panels have long been 

identifying and assessing substances 

that can be used in lieu of higher-GWP 

HFCs and their predecessors, often for 

uses within the sectors and subsectors 

subject to this rule. EPA has drawn 

upon information generated by these 

efforts in considering the subsection 

(i)(4) factors in the context of this 

rulemaking, and in particular, in 

considering the availability of 

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

While these entities have evaluated 

substitutes for HFCs in other contexts, 

the information generated by these 

efforts provides a useful starting point. 

For example, in the SNAP program 

under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, 

EPA identifies and evaluates substitutes 

for ODS in certain industrial sectors, 

including RACHP, aerosols, and foams. 

To a very large extent, HFCs are used in 

the same sectors and subsectors where 

ODS historically have been used. Under 

SNAP, EPA evaluates acceptability of 

alternatives for ODS based on the 

potential human health and 

environmental risks, relative to other 

substances used for the same purpose. 

In so doing, EPA assesses atmospheric 

effects such as ozone depletion potential 

and global warming potential, toxicity 

and exposure data, flammability, and 

other environmental impacts. These 

assessments under SNAP are relevant to 

some of the subsection (i)(4) factors, 

particularly with respect to safety (and 

the resultant impact on availability of a 

substitute under (i)(4)(B)) and 

environmental impacts. We have 

therefore considered SNAP assessments 

and listings of acceptable substances in 

our consideration of the (i)(4) factors 

and establishment of use restrictions 

under subsection (i). Further, the fact 

that manufacturers and formulators 

have submitted substitutes to EPA for 

evaluation under SNAP can indicate to 

the Agency that the substitute is 

technologically achievable for a given 

sector and that there is (or will be) 

commercial demand for it. A substitute 

listed by EPA as acceptable for a given 

end-use under SNAP would most likely 

have been submitted by industry where 

the submitter thought that the substitute 

was technologically achievable and that 

there could be a market for such 

substitute. 

EPA has also considered in this 

rulemaking the work undertaken by the 

TEAP. The TEAP analyzes and presents 

technical information and 

recommendations when specifically 

requested by parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. It does not evaluate policy 

issues and does not recommend policy. 

Such information is related to, among 

other things, substitutes that may 

replace the substances controlled under 

the Protocol and alternative 

technologies that may be used without 

adverse impact on the ozone layer and 

climate. The TEAP assesses the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

substitutes for sectors and subsectors 

that use HFCs and publishes various 

technical reports through different 

technical committees, such as the 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and 

Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee.54 In the TEAP’s evaluation 

of HFC substitutes, subfactors such as 

technological achievability and 

affordability have been considered to 

some extent. For this rulemaking, EPA 

considered technical and economic 

information from the TEAP’s 2018 

Quadrennial Assessment Report and the 

recent 2022 Progress Report, including 

the response to ‘‘Decision XXXIII/5— 

Continued provision of information on 

energy-efficient and low-globalwarming-potential technologies’’ found 

in Volume 3 of the Progress 

Report.55 56 57

EPA also considered materials 

developed by, or submitted to, State and 

foreign governments that have 

requirements restricting the use of 

HFCs. Many of these jurisdictions 

highlight available substitutes that can 

be used in place of regulated substances 

in the sectors and subsectors that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. 

This is not an exhaustive list of 

sources that EPA could use in the future 

to consider the availability of 

substitutes; section VI.E.1 of this 

preamble describes additional sources 

of information that the Agency 

considers to be best available data. For 

future Agency actions under the 

Technology Transitions program, EPA 

would likely again consider information 

from these sources to assess availability 

of substitutes but the Agency may 

augment or omit sources where 

appropriate to be consistent with the 

Agency’s interpretation of subsection 

(i)(4)(A). 

EPA has identified substitutes 58 for 

use in lieu of regulated substances in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73131 

is not intended as an EPA endorsement or 

recommendation. 

specific sectors or subsectors by 

reviewing information from several of 

these sources, which the Agency 

considers to be best available data. EPA 

compiled a non-exhaustive list of 

available substitutes that informed the 

GWP limit or restriction. See American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020—Subsection (i)(4) Factors for 

Determination: List of Substitutes, 

referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘List 

of Substitutes TSD.’’ That TSD and list 

were developed after considering, to the 

extent practicable, the subsection 

(i)(4)(B) subfactors, as discussed below 

and in the other TSDs available in the 

docket. Substitutes for regulated 

substances have been identified in this 

list as available for the sectors and 

subsectors for which EPA is establishing 

restrictions. 

We note, however, that EPA’s 

identification of a substitute as 

‘‘available’’ for use in a particular sector 

or subsector is not intended as a 

determination that such substitute is 

already widely used in that sector or 

subsector, or that the subfactors in 

subsection (i)(4)(B) are fully realized as 

to that substitute (even if those 

conditions are true in some cases). For 

example, as stated in the proposed rule, 

some of the substitutes EPA lists as 

‘‘available’’ for a sector or subsector may 

not yet be available uniformly 

throughout the United States or may not 

be already permissible under building 

codes in every jurisdiction in the United 

States (see section VI.E.2.d of this 

preamble). Instead, the Agency 

interprets ‘‘available’’ in subsection 

(i)(4)(B) as permitting it to consider the 

progress and status of a substitute’s 

incorporation into a sector or subsector, 

particularly in relation to establishing 

the compliance deadlines for each 

restriction. The statute would serve 

little purpose if EPA were only 

permitted to restrict regulated 

substances where the (i)(4)(B) subfactors 

(e.g., building codes, contractor training 

costs, commercial demand) were 

already ‘‘satisfied’’ because substitutes 

were already completely adopted by the 

sector or subsector. Instead, it is 

reasonable for the Agency to consider a 

substitute to be available based on the 

expectation that, by the compliance date 

established in a restriction, many of the 

(i)(4)(B) subfactors could feasibly be 

met. We recognize that forecasting 

availability based on the (i)(4)(B) 

subfactors by an established compliance 

dates in the future is an exercise that 

inherently requires some estimation and 

uncertainty; for example, it is 

impossible to perfectly predict the 

outcome of SNAP evaluations that have 

not yet occurred or the success or failure 

of equipment redesigns and safety tests. 

In setting compliance dates for the 

restrictions under subsection (i), EPA is 

exercising its judgment and applying 

best available data regarding how far 

along a sector or subsector is in the 

transition to lower-GWP substitutes to 

determine when those substitutes will 

be sufficiently available to 

accommodate a variety of uses within 

the sector or subsector. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

in general, EPA has not adequately 

assessed available substitutes and the 

ability of these substitutes to be utilized 

in certain end uses by the dates that 

have been proposed. The commenter 

stated that it is not apparent from the 

proposed rule or the information that is 

available in the docket that EPA has 

adequately assessed each of the end 

uses in sufficient detail, or whether 

information the Agency has relied on 

correctly indicates that substitutes (as 

defined through GWP limitations) are 

technically achievable and therefore 

available. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 

Agency has not adequately assessed 

available substitutes. The commenter 

did not explain, as a general matter, 

what information relied upon by the 

Agency it believed to be unreliable or 

insufficiently detailed. EPA has 

considered information provided by the 

TEAP, which taps into global expertise 

from industry, academia, and the public 

sector. EPA also looked to its own SNAP 

program, which has evaluated more 

than 500 ODS alternatives, many of 

which are also substitutes for HFCs. 

Moreover, these were not the only 

sources of information that the Agency 

relied upon, and additional supporting 

information is cited for each of the 

finalized restrictions. 

a. Commercial Demands and 

Technological Achievability 

Two of the subfactors that subsection 

(i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent 

practicable, to take into account in its 

consideration of availability of 

substitutes are commercial demands 

and technological achievability. This 

section provides information on how 

the Agency views each term on its own, 

their potential impact on availability of 

substitutes, and their 

interconnectedness. 

EPA views commercial demands as 

interest from OEMs and system owners 

to use substitutes in products for 

ultimate sale or installation. An OEM’s 

interest in using a substitute is tied to 

their ability to meet consumer needs. As 

discussed previously, EPA considers a 

submission under the SNAP program to 

be an indicator that a chemical producer 

or formulator anticipates commercial 

demand for the submitted alternative. 

Another method to determine 

commercial demands is to assess what 

types of equipment in a sector or 

subsector are for sale and what 

regulated substances or substitutes are 

being used. Another means for assessing 

commercial demands is to review the 

information companies provide 

including, but not limited to, planned 

releases of products or equipment using 

substitutes. Likewise, use of products or 

equipment using substitutes by system 

owners can demonstrate commercial 

demands for that equipment. 

EPA views technological achievability 

as the ability for a substitute to perform 

its intended function in a sector or 

subsector. For example, technological 

achievability can be demonstrated 

through a substitute’s compliance with 

or listing by standard setting bodies 

such as ASHRAE or Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) or through testing and 

demonstration labs and projects. 

EPA provides additional information 

in the TSD American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020—Subsection 

(i)(4) Factors for Determination: 

Technological Achievability and 

Commercial Demands, referred to in 

this preamble as the ‘‘Commercial 

Demands and Technological 

Achievability TSD’’; this TSD supports 

the Agency’s consideration of the 

commercial demands and technological 

achievability subfactors and is available 

in the docket. The Commercial 

Demands and Technological 

Achievability TSD identifies products 

and systems using substitutes that are 

commercially available (i.e., products 

for sale), or where manufacturers 

indicate they soon will be available, by 

sector and subsector. EPA views 

commercial availability of products and 

systems using substitutes as an 

indication of both commercial demand 

and technological achievability. In other 

words, a product or system using an 

available substitute in a market means 

that the particular substitute is 

technologically achievable and that 

there is a commercial demand for that 

substitute. 

The Agency relied on a range of 

sources and considered where products 

and systems are already available as 

well as where they are expected to be 

available given their use in other 

countries and/or manufacturer 

announcements. These sources include, 

but are not limited to, publicly available 

data such as information on ENERGY 

STAR products, company websites, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73132 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

59See memo titled, Technical Support Company 

Announcements of Increased Production of LowGWP Substitutes in the docket that presents 

company announcements of increased production 

of lower-GWP substitutes. This memo is for 

informational purposes and does not represent 

endorsement by the Agency. EPA further notes that 

this memo is a non-exhaustive sampling of 

announcements; there may be other companies 

announcing increased production of lower-GWP 

substitutes. 

60U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products: Residential Central Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps, December 2016. Available at: https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BTSTD-0048-0098. 

61Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification 

of the Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in 

partnership with INFORUM, November 2018. 

Available in the docket. 

62See ‘‘American Innovation and Manufacturing 

Act of 2019: Compliance and Consumer Cost 

Estimates’’ document in the docket. 

SNAP listings, news articles, market 

reports, and communication with 

industry experts. EPA also considers 

information that was provided to 

relevant States as informative when 

evaluating whether a technology is 

achievable or in commercial demand for 

the purposes of evaluating available 

substitutes in their respective 

rulemakings. Another source for 

considering technological achievability 

and commercial demand is the 

information provided by petitioners. 

While EPA made every effort to gather 

information related to these subfactors, 

we recognize that given the scope of this 

rulemaking and the number of sectors 

and subsectors covered, we may not 

have considered all versions and models 

of all products or equipment in every 

sector or subsector. 

EPA is not limiting its consideration 

of commercial demands and 

technological achievability to a specific 

geographic region since products or 

systems may be introduced in a few 

markets first. The information provided 

in this rule and the Commercial 

Demands and Technological 

Achievability TSD available in the 

docket are based on the best available 

data and were considered to the extent 

practicable in this rulemaking. 

b. Consumer Costs and Affordability for 

Residential and Small Business 

Consumers 

Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to 

the extent practicable, to take into 

account consumer costs and 

affordability for residential and small 

business consumers, among other 

subfactors, in its consideration of 

availability of substitutes. EPA views 

these two subfactors as related, in many 

instances, because residential and small 

business consumers are a subset of 

consumers at large. The Act does not 

specify in what way EPA should 

consider costs and affordability to these 

consumers in determining whether a 

substitute is available. The Agency’s 

view is that the appropriate way to 

analyze consumer costs and 

affordability is to look not at the total 

cost of a product/system using a 

substitute, but rather at the difference in 

cost of a product/system resulting from 

the transition. For this rule, the Agency 

has considered the impact of its 

restrictions on the use of substitutes in 

certain subsectors to the costs of 

products or systems for consumers of all 

types. In some cases, EPA has extended 

proposed compliance dates to mitigate 

potential cost impacts to consumers, 

because in doing so, the Agency is 

anticipating that by the later compliance 

date established in the final rule, the 

HFC phasedown required under 

subsection (e) will be further along, 

there will be increased production of 

HFC substitutes, and the cost of the 

substitute will be less of a barrier to the 

availability of that substitute. 

Although some substitutes are more 

costly than HFCs today, the experience 

with the ODS phaseout has been that 

prices of substitutes generally decline as 

production increases, as more producers 

negotiate licensing agreements for 

certain chemicals, and as patents expire. 

EPA has compiled a memo in the docket 

which provides a non-exhaustive list of 

several announcements that have been 

made regarding the initiation or 

updating of production plants for 

various substitutes.59 Simultaneously, 

experience with the ODS phaseout and 

reductions in supply of HFCs in other 

parts of the world, suggest that the price 

of HFCs will increase as a result of the 

phasedown. While these are the 

anticipated trends, EPA finds that the 

cost of using a regulated substance or 

substitute generally represents only a 

small fraction of the total cost of the 

product.60 For the RACHP sector, the 

cost of refrigerant is less than one 

percent of the entire cost of the system, 

and the highest costs come from raw 

materials such as copper, steel, and 

aluminum that are used to make the 

equipment.61 Therefore, even a large 

change in the cost of the refrigerant is 

unlikely to have a significant impact on 

the overall cost of the product. 

Additionally, substitutes are more 

efficient refrigerants than the HFCs 

currently used, with some exceptions. 

This means that less refrigerant is 

necessary in the finished product. More 

importantly, this can reduce costs of the 

equipment because it requires less raw 

material such as copper, steel, and 

aluminum to create heat transfer 

elements. EPA applied the savings from 

using fewer raw materials and improved 

energy efficiency only when EPA found 

sufficient literature supporting such 

claims; however, other such cost saving 

factors may be relevant to other 

subsectors. 

In considering affordability for 

residential and small business 

consumers and consumer costs, the 

Agency has also looked at overall 

compliance costs associated with this 

rule to OEMs, importers, retailers, 

distributors, and other regulated 

entities. This is because compliance 

costs to these entities tend to be passed 

on to consumers. EPA has previously 

analyzed ‘‘consumer costs’’ in relation 

to ‘‘compliance costs’’ and found very 

little difference in these.62 EPA 

included the cost to consumers in an 

analysis of the HFC phasedown as 

stipulated in the AIM Act that Congress 

was considering in 2019. In that 

analysis, the costs to consumers were 

approximately $0 to $200 million less 

than the compliance costs, depending 

on the compliance step-down year (EPA 

analyzed 2020, 2024, 2029, and 2034). 

Compared to the total cumulative costs 

or savings estimated, these differences 

represented no more than a 20 percent 

difference, and in all cases were 

decreases in total costs or increases in 

total savings. 

EPA’s estimates of compliance costs 

include energy efficiency changes of 

equipment when switching from a 

regulated substance to a substitute, 

where data were available. To the extent 

available, EPA’s analysis factored in 

energy efficiency changes inherent to 

the substitute, which is separate from 

the energy efficiency gains from using 

new equipment subject to more recent 

efficiency standards. These costs (or 

savings) will likely impact all 

consumers of the equipment using the 

substitutes, as the ones paying for the 

electricity. In this case, the consumer 

could be a residential consumer or a 

small business consumer, for instance a 

restaurant buying a new air 

conditioning unit or a small 

convenience store using new standalone retail food refrigeration 

equipment. 

EPA’s Costs and Environmental 

Impacts TSD summarizes many of the 

Agency’s analytical results regarding the 

costs of using substitutes in the 

impacted subsectors (which in turn 

informed the Agency’s assessment of 

whether that substitute is available) as 

well as the expected costs and negative 

costs (i.e., savings) to industry 

associated with transitioning from a 

regulated substance to a substitute. This 

discussion (and the Costs and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73133 

63Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 

Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons 

under Subsection (i) of the American Innovation 

and Manufacturing Act, available in the docket. 

Environmental Impacts TSD) refers to 

the cost of manufacturing, purchasing, 

operating, and maintaining a product or 

system with a substitute that complies 

with the restrictions compared with that 

same product or system using a 

prohibited substance. For example, for 

the residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pump subsector, 

the costs of manufacturing units that use 

lower-GWP substances or blends (e.g., 

R–454B), and maintaining the operation 

of that equipment, compared to those 

costs for a baseline unit (e.g., one that 

uses R–410A including the operation 

and maintenance of that unit), are used 

to generate an approximate accounting 

of the full cost (or potential savings) of 

the transition. Depending on the 

substitute and application, this can 

result in savings or costs borne by the 

consumer. 

Data to develop the cost estimates 

summarized in the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD were 

derived from a variety of information 

sources including technical literature 

and experts. EPA provides additional 

details regarding the data used in the 

RIA addendum and its accompanying 

appendices and references cited. The 

cost factors were applied to develop 

transition scenarios consistent with this 

rule using EPA’s Vintaging Model. The 

resulting costs and abatement were used 

in a similar manner as the Marginal 

Abatement Cost analysis explained in 

the Allocation Framework RIA. 

With respect to subsection (i)(4)(B)’s 

direction to consider affordability for 

small business consumers in particular, 

the Agency also analyzed whether its 

restrictions as a whole could have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

consumers. The analysis found that 

approximately 162 of the 51,047 

potentially affected small businesses 

could incur costs in excess of 1 percent 

of annual sales and that approximately 

110 small businesses could incur costs 

in excess of 3 percent of annual sales. 

Based on this analysis, we do not 

anticipate a broad, significant economic 

impact on small businesses as a result 

of the final restrictions. We expect that 

these results largely stem from the 

anticipated reduced costs of substitute 

chemicals as compared with HFCs as 

well as potential energy savings and 

reduced material costs for equipment as 

discussed above. This rule also does not 

require any consumers to stop using and 

maintaining their existing equipment. 

Equipment manufacturers, which are 

often small businesses, have also 

already begun to transition to different 

refrigerants required by this rule in 

response to regulations being 

implemented in several States. 

Although State actions do not affect the 

entire U.S. market, many manufacturers 

have begun the transition to HFC 

substitutes to have products that can be 

sold nationally and comply with 

regulations in export markets. 

Additional information on potential 

impacts of this rule on small businesses 

can be found in the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) 63 screening analysis located 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

One factor that affects affordability for 

residential and small business 

consumers is up-front capital costs for 

new equipment. Compared to large 

businesses, both groups may be less 

likely to be able to afford high up-front 

capital costs. However, this rule does 

not require that existing equipment be 

retired by a specific date, nor are 

estimates of emission reductions 

associated with these restrictions 

predicated on the assumption that 

equipment would be retired 

prematurely. Indeed, this final rule 

makes substantial changes from the 

proposed rule to reduce costs borne by 

distributors and equipment owners 

associated with the sell-through of 

products, the repair of existing systems, 

and the continued supply of 

components. 

More salient to EPA’s analysis is 

consideration of the costs of a substitute 

and its impacts on availability, 

particularly with regard to investments 

that must be made in redesigning 

equipment to incorporate use of the 

substitute. This redesign may have 

downstream costs on consumers, both 

small business and residential. One way 

EPA has factored in these costs and 

attempted to mitigate downstream 

impacts on consumers is by establishing 

compliance dates that are further in the 

future than the one-year required under 

the AIM Act. By signaling earlier to 

regulated industry that transitions will 

be required and providing more than 

one year for compliance, EPA provides 

some economic and regulatory certainty 

to designers and manufacturers, and 

eases supply constraints on components 

that these manufacturers may need for 

the redesign. Additionally, staggering 

the compliance dates across multiple 

years, rather than having a single 

January 1, 2025, compliance date, 

lessens potential bottlenecks in the 

transition to manufacture new 

equipment, such as testing and 

certification of equipment by a 

nationally recognized testing laboratory 

(NRTL). The resultant savings may then 

be passed on to consumers. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA failed to consider higher repair and 

servicing costs over the life of these 

systems caused by the proposed rule. 

The commenter asserted that by moving 

to flammable refrigerants, service 

technicians must undertake additional 

precautions that would add to the time 

and cost to repairs; that moving from 

one refrigerant (R–410A) to multiple 

refrigerants will require costly 

redundancy of refrigerant-specific 

servicing equipment; and that newly 

designed equipment is generally less 

reliable and requires more repairs than 

established products. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

commenter. In the context of 

availability, EPA did consider repair 

and servicing. As explained elsewhere 

in this final rule, this is not the first 

transition for most of the sectors and 

subsectors covered by this rule. Many 

manufacturers already use flammable 

HFCs or HFC alternatives including in 

foams, aerosols, and RACHP. EPA 

understands that there may be 

additional technician training needed; 

however, training is often needed when 

alternatives are introduced including 

with regard to inherent characteristics of 

the alternative that could include 

flammability, glide, changes in 

compatibility with components or oils, 

and other factors. Therefore, the need 

for training or changes in how repairs 

are undertaken, for example, is not 

limited to the introduction of flammable 

alternatives. We expect that under the 

HFC phasedown, access to HFCs, both 

newly manufactured and reclaimed, 

will continue far into the future, 

particularly given that the AIM Act 

directs EPA to phase down and not to 

phase out HFC production and 

consumption and subsection (h) 

provides direction concerning 

maximizing reclamation of HFCs. A 

network of reclaimers offer reclaimed 

HFCs that can be used to service 

existing equipment for its full useful 

life. Reclaimed CFCs and HCFCs remain 

available in the United States for 

servicing equipment that was designed, 

sold, installed, and continues to be 

operated by residential and small 

business consumers. Furthermore, the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule 

finds that for many subsectors, required 

transitions will provide net savings to 

the economy over time, which may in 

turn be passed on to small business and 

residential consumers. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73134 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Safety 

Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to 

the extent practicable, to take into 

account safety in its consideration of the 

availability of substitutes. As part of 

EPA’s consideration of safety, EPA is 

providing additional information in the 

Safety TSD. This TSD supports the 

Agency’s consideration of the safety 

subfactor and is available in the docket. 

EPA has reviewed information on 

flammability and toxicity as well as the 

ability of substitutes to meet relevant 

industry safety standards. In our 

interpretation of best available data, we 

evaluated information from recognized 

industrial sources, including standardsetting bodies, the SNAP program, 

international technical committees, and 

information from petitions. Safety 

information may impact the availability 

of substitutes in a particular sector or 

subsector, for example, if there are 

restrictions on the use of a substance in 

local building codes and/or regulatory 

requirements. Industry acceptance of 

substitutes that are compliant with 

safety standards is also an indication of 

safety and, therefore, impacts the use of 

a particular substitute. 

Taking safety into account in 

considering the availability of 

substitutes is not intended to limit 

substitutes to only those that are risk 

free. This interpretation under subfactor 

(i)(4)(B) is informed by the approach 

EPA has taken under the SNAP 

program, where the Agency has likewise 

stated that it does not require 

alternatives to be risk free (59 FR 13044, 

March 18, 1994). Many industry 

standards are designed to mitigate risk 

and allow for the safe use of flammable, 

toxic, or high-pressure substitutes. EPA 

therefore understands the direction to 

take safety into account, to the extent 

practicable, as encompassing 

consideration of information on the 

risks associated with the substitute as 

well as information on risk mitigation. 

EPA has considered the listings under 

SNAP in its assessment of the 

availability of substitutes in this rule. 

The SNAP program, in making listing 

decisions for a substitute (e.g., to list as 

acceptable or unacceptable), considers 

whether a substitute presents human 

health and environmental risks that are 

lower than or comparable to such risks 

from other substitutes that are currently 

or potentially available for the same 

uses. Under this comparative risk 

evaluation, the human health risks 

analyzed include safety, and in 

particular, flammability, toxicity, 

exposure (of workers, consumers, and 

the general population) to chemicals 

with direct toxicity; and exposure of the 

general population to increased groundlevel ozone. Under the SNAP program, 

EPA makes decisions that are informed 

by its overall understanding of the 

environmental and human health 

impacts. 

Under SNAP, EPA can list substitutes 

as ‘‘acceptable subject to use 

conditions,’’ indicating that a substitute 

is acceptable only if used in a certain 

way. Use conditions can include, but 

are not limited to, warning labels, 

charge size limits, compliance with 

relevant safety standards, unique fittings 

for servicing of equipment, and 

restrictions on where a substitute is 

used (e.g., normally unoccupied spaces). 

EPA can also list substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ under SNAP, indicating that a 

substitute may be used only within 

certain specialized applications within 

an end-use and may not be used for 

other applications within that end-use. 

EPA lists an alternative as acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits because 

of a lack of available alternatives within 

the specialized application. Users of an 

alternative in this category must make a 

reasonable effort to ascertain that other 

alternatives are not technically feasible 

for reasons of performance or safety. 

Users are expected to undertake a 

thorough technical investigation of 

alternatives to the otherwise restricted 

compound. Although users are not 

required to report the results of their 

investigations to EPA, users must 

document these results and retain them 

in their files for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

EPA lists substitutes as 

‘‘unacceptable’’ under SNAP if the 

Agency determines that they may 

increase overall risk to human health 

and the environment, compared to other 

alternatives that are available or 

potentially available for the same use. 

EPA has listed substitutes as 

unacceptable considering the human 

health criteria described above, as well 

as the environmental factors considered 

under SNAP. For example, SNAP has 

listed certain substitutes as 

unacceptable due to unusually high 

ozone depletion potential, global 

warming potential, toxicity and 

exposure, flammability (where it is not 

clear how to mitigate risks sufficiently), 

and potential impacts on local air 

quality. Substitutes listed as 

unacceptable in an end-use are 

prohibited for that use for those subject 

to SNAP. 

EPA evaluates substitutes under the 

SNAP program on an ongoing basis and 

over time has listed numerous 

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

subject to use conditions,’’ or 

‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ Often, EPA applies compliance 

with relevant safety standards, such as 

those discussed in the remainder of this 

section, as a use condition to mitigate 

some of the risk associated with using 

certain substitutes, particularly those 

that are classified as flammable. 

Therefore, updates to standards can 

greatly affect how SNAP considers the 

safe use of certain substitutes, and 

expanded risk mitigation strategies 

required by standards could reduce the 

comparative risk evaluation of a 

substitute under SNAP. The SNAP 

program also often applies use 

conditions in addition to those required 

by safety standards, which can further 

reduce the risk associated with use of a 

substitute. 

In its evaluation of the safety 

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

refrigerants, EPA is also considering the 

safety group classification designated by 

ASHRAE Standard 34, and requirements 

for the safe design, construction, 

installation, and operation of systems 

under ASHRAE Standard 15, Safety 

Standard for Refrigeration Systems, and 

15.2, Safety Standard for Refrigeration 

Systems in Residential Applications. 

ASHRAE Standard 34 assigns a 

designation consisting of two to three 

alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2L or 

B1). The initial capital letter indicates 

the toxicity, and the numeral and 

trailing letter, if any, denotes the 

flammability. Under this standard, Class 

A refrigerants are those for which 

toxicity has not been identified at 

concentrations less than or equal to 400 

parts per million (ppm) by volume, 

based on data used to determine 

threshold limit value-time-weighted 

average (TLV–TWA) or consistent 

indices. Class B signifies refrigerants for 

which there is evidence of toxicity at 

concentrations below 400 ppm by 

volume, based on data used to 

determine TLV–TWA or consistent 

indices. Refrigerants that are listed 

under the B (higher toxicity) 

classification of ASHRAE Standard 34 

have been used safely and effectively for 

many years. For example, after the CFC 

phaseout, several companies offered 

comfort cooling chillers using HCFC– 

123, and at least one has since 

transitioned to the low-GWP B1 

refrigerant R–514A in part of its product 

line. These systems generally have low 

leak rates, are located away from 

building occupants in limited-access 

areas (e.g., mechanical rooms) with 

secured entrances, and utilize 

refrigerant sensors and alarms to alert 

operators of leaks. Building codes 

further reduce risks by requiring, for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73135 

64ASHRAE, 2022. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2022: Designation and Safety Classification of 

Refrigerants. 

example, mechanical ventilation to the 

outdoor space where such systems are 

placed. 

The standard also assigns refrigerants 

a flammability classification of 1, 2, 2L, 

or 3 based upon the results of 

standardized testing for flame 

propagation, heat of combustion, lowerflammability limit (LFL), and burning 

velocity. Tests for flammability are 

conducted in accordance with American 

Society for Testing and Materials E681 

using a spark ignition source at 140 °F 

(60 °C) and 14.7 psia (101.3 kPa).64 The 

flammability classification ‘‘1’’ is given 

to refrigerants that show no flame 

propagation. The flammability 

classification ‘‘2’’ is given to refrigerants 

that exhibit flame propagation, have a 

heat of combustion less than 19,000 kJ/ 

kg (8,169 BTU/lb), and have a LFL 

greater than 0.10 kg/m3. The 

flammability classification ‘‘2L’’ is given 

to refrigerants that exhibit flame 

propagation, have a heat of combustion 

less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,169 BTU/lb), 

have an LFL greater than 0.10 kg/m3, 

and have a maximum burning velocity 

of 10 cm/s or lower when tested in dry 

air at 73.4 °F (23.0 °C) and 14.7 psi 

(101.3 kPa). The flammability 

classification ‘‘3’’ is given to refrigerants 

that exhibit flame propagation and that 

either have a heat of combustion of 

19,000 kJ/kg (8,169 BTU/lb) or greater or 

have an LFL of 0.10 kg/m3 or lower. 

For flammability classifications, 

refrigerant blends are designated based 

on the worst case of formulation for 

flammability and the worst case of 

fractionation for flammability 

determined for the blend. Information 

on the ASHRAE classification of each 

substitute identified by EPA for this rule 

is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

ASHRAE Standard 15 specifies 

requirements for air-conditioning and 

refrigeration systems based on the safety 

group classification of the refrigerant 

used, the type of occupancy in the 

location for which the system is used, 

and whether refrigerant-containing parts 

of the system enter the space or 

ductwork and so that leakage in the 

space is deemed ‘‘probable.’’ ‘‘Highprobability’’ installations are those such 

that leaks or failures will result in 

refrigerant entering the occupied space. 

Occupancies are divided into six 

classifications: institutional, public 

assembly, residential, commercial, large 

mercantile, and industrial. Examples of 

these include jails, theaters, apartment 

buildings, office buildings, shopping 

malls, and chemical plants, 

respectively. Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of 

ASHRAE Standard 15 determine the 

maximum amount of refrigerant allowed 

in the system, while section 7.4 

provides an option to locate equipment 

outdoors or in a machinery room 

constructed and maintained under 

conditions specified in the standard. 

Section 7.6 of ASHRAE Standard 15 

addresses the refrigerants in this final 

rule when used for human comfort in 

‘‘high-probability’’ systems, including 

requirements for nameplates, labels, 

refrigerant detectors (under certain 

conditions), airflow initiation and other 

actions (if a rise in refrigerant 

concentration is detected), and other 

restrictions. 

ASHRAE Standard 15 is generally 

followed for several of the RACHP 

subsectors addressed in this rule, and in 

many cases is required as a use 

condition under SNAP for comfort 

cooling chillers (see 88 FR 26382, April 

28, 2023) or adoption either by reference 

or through similar language in local 

building codes. Therefore, part of our 

consideration of safety in our evaluation 

of the availability of substitutes is based 

on our knowledge of this and other 

ASHRAE Standards, and the evaluation 

of safety in these standards regarding 

substances, equipment, and use 

conditions. For example, the scope of 

ASHRAE standard 15 specifically 

excludes refrigeration systems operating 

with R–717 (ammonia) refrigerant and 

references IIAR Standard 2, American 

National Standard for Safe Design of 

Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration 

Systems. For subsectors where R–717 is 

currently widely employed (e.g., 

industrial process refrigeration, cold 

storage warehouses, ice rinks) or where 

it may be used as a substitute, our 

consideration of safety in evaluating the 

availability of substitutes also 

incorporates this standard. Where the 

standards distinguish what types of 

refrigerants may be used based on a 

feature of the equipment (e.g., charge 

size), EPA has in some instances 

considered those distinctions in setting 

the levels of restrictions or the timing of 

compliance dates. 

EPA also considered UL standards in 

factoring in safety when evaluating the 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B). In general, UL 

standards provide engineering, labeling, 

and design requirements that address 

potential safety concerns for various 

types of refrigeration, air-conditioning, 

and heat pump equipment. Updates to 

UL standards are then incorporated into 

other regulatory and industry 

assessments, such as updates to SNAP 

listings, equipment design and testing, 

and changes to building codes. In some 

cases, EPA took notice of the timing of 

a publication of an update to a UL 

standard in establishing the compliance 

date for a subsector restriction, such as 

the safety standard UL 60335–2–89. 

This standard covers chillers used for 

IPR and other IPR systems, cold storage 

warehouses, retail food refrigeration 

equipment, and commercial ice 

machines. In October 2021, the 2nd 

edition of the standard was published, 

updating safety requirements so that 

flammable and lower flammability 

refrigerants could be deployed more 

widely in commercial refrigeration 

equipment. These updates included 

safety requirements, such as sensors in 

the room to trigger refrigerant shut-off 

valves when a refrigerant leak is 

detected and updated warning labels 

that better alert technicians, equipment 

users, and firefighters that a flammable 

refrigerant is contained in the 

equipment, among others. The updates 

included in UL 60335–2–89, 2nd 

edition, enable lower-GWP flammable 

refrigerants to be used safely in 

equipment in greater amounts than 

before through expanded mitigation 

strategies. 

Based on the above, we find that 

products and systems can be used safely 

even if there are challenges with the 

HFC or HFC blend substitute being 

used. For example, most products 

within the RACHP sector will be tested 

at NRTL for conformance to the 

applicable UL standard and other 

requirements (e.g., DOE energy 

conservation standards, National 

Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 

requirements). This testing provides a 

check on the products design to ensure, 

for instance, that charge sizes of 

flammable refrigerants do not exceed 

the standard’s limit and that proper 

design and mitigation features are 

included as required. Likewise, when 

building projects are permitted, the 

authority having jurisdiction will 

typically review the design including 

specification on the refrigeration 

systems and conduct another review 

before giving permission for the 

building to commence operation. This 

too provides a check on the safety of 

such systems, for instance by ensuring 

compliance with ASHRAE Standard 15 

or similar requirements provided by the 

local building codes. 

Additional information on EPA’s 

consideration of safety is available in 

the Safety TSD in the docket. 

d. Building Codes 

Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to 

the extent practicable, to take building 

codes into account in its consideration 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73136 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

65See the U.S. Department of Energy’s Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program available at: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-andequipment-standards-program. 

66For additional information and a complete list 

of products, please refer to the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s website available at: www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/standards-and-test-procedures. 

of availability of substitutes. For certain 

types of equipment, especially in the 

RACHP sector, building codes may 

inform which substances can be used or 

may prescribe additional requirements 

before a specific substance can be used, 

thereby impacting availability of 

substitutes in some jurisdictions. This 

section summarizes EPA’s 

understanding of building code 

development across the nation generally 

and how model building codes are 

developed and adopted into local 

building codes. EPA has considered this 

information, to the extent practicable, to 

evaluate how building codes may affect 

the availability of substitutes to 

regulated substances. Additional 

information is found in the TSD 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020—Subsection 

(i)(4) Factors for Determination: 

Building Codes, referred to in this 

preamble as the ‘‘Building Codes TSD.’’ 

This TSD supports the Agency’s 

consideration of the building codes 

subfactor and is available in the docket. 

Building codes are established at the 

subnational level and can differ greatly 

across jurisdictions. Some States 

develop their own building codes and 

determine the frequency with which 

they are updated. Other states adopt 

(and sometimes amend) ‘‘model’’ 

building codes that are written by codesetting organizations. Code-setting 

organizations include the International 

Association of Plumbing and 

Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), the 

International Code Council (ICC), and 

the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA). Many States allow local 

governments to set their own building 

codes, provided they comply with the 

minimum standards established under 

State building codes. Both State and 

local building codes are periodically 

reevaluated and updated. The Agency 

did not review every jurisdiction’s 

building codes as EPA does not view 

that as practicable. 

Model building codes serve as the 

basis for many State and local building 

codes and incorporate a range of 

industry standards that establish 

specific requirements for building 

performance or design. Several of these 

standards are directly relevant to the 

availability of substitutes in the RACHP 

sector. EPA considered, to the extent 

practicable, updates to industry 

standards and if those updates may be 

incorporated into model building codes 

that will allow the future use of 

products that use substitutes. EPA also 

considered whether current building 

codes permit the installation and use of 

products and systems using substitutes, 

particularly with respect to setting 

compliance dates for restrictions. As 

noted earlier, EPA does not interpret 

subsection (i)(4)(B)’s direction to factor 

in building codes, to the extent 

practicable, as a requirement that EPA 

must find that current building codes 

already permit the use of a substitute 

before it may be deemed available. 

EPA understands that, in some cases, 

jurisdictions need to update their 

building codes for some substitutes to 

be available for certain uses. EPA finds 

it reasonable to consider that updates to 

building codes may already be 

underway to reflect updated regulatory 

requirements or safety standards, and 

for EPA to establish compliance dates 

with the expectation that jurisdictions 

will prioritize completing those updates 

with those deadlines in mind. EPA is 

aware of ongoing efforts by industry 

groups and other stakeholders to work 

with State and local officials to update 

building codes to allow for alternative 

refrigerants. EPA has had and will 

continue to have discussions concerning 

agency rulemaking and meet with 

relevant stakeholders, including State 

officials. In some cases, it will be EPA’s 

establishment of a future restriction that 

will serve as the catalyst, or at least a 

contributing factor, to the updating of 

building codes to accommodate those 

restrictions. Users may also be able to 

take other actions, usually site-specific, 

to show comparable safety to existing 

refrigerants and systems to receive 

approval from the authority having 

jurisdiction, even where building code 

updates are not yet complete. The 

Agency has therefore, for many of the 

subsectors addressed in this final action, 

provided additional time enabling those 

jurisdictions to update their building 

codes or legislation accordingly. 

Model codes are typically updated on 

a three-year cycle, and most model 

building codes were last updated in 

2021; the next scheduled updates are for 

2024. Several proposed changes in the 

current code development cycle for the 

2024 codes could enhance the 

availability of HFC substitutes under 

model building codes. For example, 

ICC, an international developer of 

model codes, standards, and building 

safety solutions, approved changes to 

many model codes that affect the 

availability of A2L refrigerants for the 

RACHP sector. These model code 

changes, which will go into effect in 

2024, are consistent with updated 

industry standards that allow the use of 

substitutes identified in this 

rulemaking. However, State and local 

building code agencies do not 

automatically adopt updates to the 

model codes and thus, they may not be 

implemented until after 2024. 

Information from stakeholders, 

including petitioners, indicates that 

several States are updating building 

codes both as part of the cyclical review 

and off cycle that would allow for the 

use of additional HFC substitutes. For 

example, Oregon, California, and 

Colorado have recently made, or are 

considering making, changes to their 

codes that would effectively incorporate 

updated industry standards as reflected 

in the model code changes that occurred 

in 2021. Updated codes may require 

automatic refrigerant leak detection 

systems, circulating fans, and labeling 

and handling instructions for flammable 

refrigerants in certain applications and 

installations. 

Additional information on EPA’s 

consideration of building codes can be 

found in the Building Codes TSD in the 

docket. 

e. Appliance Efficiency Standards 

As part of the Agency’s consideration 

of the availability of substitutes as 

directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is 

taking into account, to the extent 

practicable, appliance efficiency 

standards. EPA consulted with the U.S. 

Department of Energy regarding relevant 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

and the timing for any planned changes 

to the current standards. DOE, through 

its Building Technologies Office and 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program, sets minimum energy 

efficiency standards for more than 60 

different types of equipment, including 

appliances and equipment used in 

homes, businesses, and elsewhere.65

Several of these equipment types are 

within the RACHP sector and are 

covered in this action. Among the 

equipment relevant to this action are 

consumer products (e.g., refrigerators, 

freezers, and room air conditioners) and 

commercial and industrial systems (e.g., 

automatic commercial ice machines, 

vending machines, walk-in coolers, and 

walk-in freezers).66 EPA provides 

additional information in the memo 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020—Subsection 

(i)(4) Factors for Determination: 

Appliance Efficiency Standards, 

referred to in this preamble as the 

‘‘Appliance Efficiency Standards 

memo.’’ This memo supports the 

Agency’s consideration of the appliance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73137 

67See https://www.embraco.com/en/embracobrings-to-ahr-expo-a-case-study-with-34-energysavings-in-ice-machines. 

68Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers; EERE–2017–BT–STD– 

0022–0009_content (1); available at 

www.regulations.gov. 

69Based on ACIM type, energy use compared to 

baseline declined 18% to 25%, 8% to 18%, 7% to 

20%, 8% to 19%, 42% to 48%, and 11% to 32%. 

70Based on ACIM type, energy use compared to 

baseline declined 0% to 8%, 20% to 22%, and 3% 

to 10%. 

efficiency standards subfactor and is 

available in the docket. 

The DOE Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program regularly develops 

and updates appliance efficiency 

standards and test procedures. Future 

revisions to existing appliance 

efficiency standards could impact what 

substitutes are chosen to be used in 

equipment in specific sectors and 

subsectors. EPA is in regular 

communication with DOE so both 

agencies are aware of the schedules for 

these separate but related actions. The 

Appliance Efficiency Standards memo 

lists applicable standards in relevant 

sectors and subsectors and identifies 

standards currently undergoing 

revision. We understand that for 

redesign and testing of equipment, 

industry prefers that DOE and EPA 

regulations are synchronized where 

possible. Given that DOE and EPA 

operate under separate Congressional 

mandates, that synchronization may not 

always be possible, but sharing 

information early can reduce 

inconsistencies such that, to the extent 

possible, the refrigerants used to set 

performance standards will be available 

under the technology transitions 

program. For example, EPA discussed 

with DOE test procedures that they 

developed for Automatic Commercial 

Ice Machines (ACIMs). Based in part on 

that discussion, and as suggested in 

comments, EPA is not finalizing the 

restrictions for this subsector as 

proposed, but rather is finalizing 

restrictions in part by referencing DOE 

regulations (see section VI.F.1.g). EPA 

also recognizes the potential to greatly 

increase climate protection by both 

reducing the GWP of substances used in 

the relevant subsectors (e.g., 

construction foams, appliances foams, 

and refrigerants) covered by this action 

and supporting energy efficiency in 

such applications. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

product design changes for refrigerant 

and efficiency both require a significant 

amount of time, resources, and capital 

and that there is benefit to every 

stakeholder in the channel if these 

regulatory actions are coordinated. One 

commenter stated that new DOE 

efficiency standards for ACIMs will be 

effective between 2027 and 2029 and 

the proposed compliance dates would 

require redundant work to develop 

products that first comply with both 

requirements. Two commenters that 

manufacture ice machines stated that 

many of their products will become less 

efficient by up to 10 percent due to the 

operating differences of the refrigerants. 

Response: EPA recognizes that other 

requirements such as DOE energy 

conservation standards apply to ACIMs 

just as they apply to many RACHP 

subsectors. While EPA and DOE operate 

under different authorities and must 

follow timelines as set forth by these 

authorities, we find that the compliance 

dates finalized here broadly meet the 

commenters’ request. For remote 

ACIMs, a compliance date of 2027, and 

for self-contained ACIMs, compliance 

dates of 2026 or 2027 with a three-year 

sell-through period, comport well with 

the commenter’s prediction of DOE 

efficiency standards becoming effective 

in 2027 to 2029. DOE has already begun 

the process for such standards, and 

OEMs can choose to develop new 

products meeting the restrictions set in 

this rule while at the same time 

considering potential DOE energy 

conservation standards. 

EPA disagrees that ACIMs using 

alternative refrigerants will necessarily 

experience a drop in efficiency. One 

ACIM manufacturer recently reported 

on results of an ACIM after the R–404A 

compressor was replaced with an R–290 

one, finding a 34 percent energy savings 

and an increase of 35 percent in ice 

production.67 DOE found a similar 

improvement when using R–290 in a 

different type of ACIM.68 In its TSD for 

ACIMs, DOE in its preliminary analysis 

estimates the baseline energy can drop 

from 10% below baseline (i.e., after 

other improvements were made) to 18% 

below baseline when switching to R– 

290. The refrigerant change increased 

the energy efficiency ratio (EER) from 

6.4 to 7.4. When evaluating compressors 

for ACIMs, DOE found that R–290 

compressors were consistently more 

efficient than R–404A ones over the full 

capacity range studied (from 

approximately 1,000 BTU/h to 5,000 

BTU/h). In six other types of ACIMs, 

DOE consistently found that the energy 

use dropped by switching to R–290,69

and likewise found improvements by 

switching to R–600a in three types of 

ACIMs.70

f. Contractor Training Costs 

As part of the Agency’s consideration 

of the availability of substitutes as 

directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is 

taking into account, to the extent 

practicable, available information on 

contractor training costs, including 

training related to substitutes for 

relevant sectors and subsectors (e.g., 

certain RACHP and foam subsectors). 

EPA obtained contractor training and 

exam cost data through a review of 

publicly available literature, from 

industry trade and training associations, 

and information submitted to EPA 

during the comment period or in 

petitions under subsection (i). It is not 

feasible to obtain information and data 

on all available training programs and 

exams and our review represents an 

assessment to the extent practicable of 

information in relevant sectors and 

subsectors for contractor training costs. 

Some substitutes may require 

specialized or additional training, 

knowledge, or expertise to ensure their 

safe handling and use. This includes, 

but is not limited to, flammable (A3 or 

B3), lower flammability (A2L or B2L), 

and higher toxicity (B1, B2L, B2, or B3) 

refrigerants and other substitutes with 

unique or different characteristics such 

as those operating at higher pressures 

than HFCs. To the extent practicable, 

the Agency has considered the cost of 

trainings to contractors for handling 

products and equipment containing 

substitutes for HFCs or blends 

containing HFCs substitutes. In certain 

situations, the Agency has endeavored 

to mitigate costs associated with high 

demand for trainings associated with 

new substitutes by providing additional 

time for compliance (and, in turn, for 

those trainings to occur). 

Manufacturers and trade 

organizations often provide training and 

certification beyond what is required 

under the regulations implementing 

sections 608 and 609 of the CAA. This 

is not a new practice, especially with 

the release of new equipment. As the 

transition to lower-GWP refrigerants 

continues, more technicians are 

expected to work with flammable 

refrigerants, and a variety of training 

and education resources are anticipated 

to include the incorporation of 

flammable refrigerants into existing 

curriculum. There are already courses, 

trainings, and conferences across the 

country that focus on lower-GWP 

refrigerants among the affected 

subsectors. Costs of trainings are 

dependent on several factors, such as 

the organization providing the training, 

how it is administered, and the location. 

In some States, continued RACHP 

education is required as part of a State 

licensing requirement; training on using 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73138 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

71 In addition to quarterly data, under 40 CFR 

84.31, HFC producers, importers, exporters, 

application-specific allowance holders, reclaimers, 

and fire suppressant recyclers must annually report 

the quantity of each regulated substance held in 

inventory as of December 31 of each year. 

72Available at www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0044. 

flammable refrigerants may be 

incorporated to fulfill this requirement. 

Certain applications in the foams and 

aerosols sectors may also require safety 

training. In particular, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) requires that contractors 

providing in situ installation of spray 

foams, foam insulation, and aerosols 

receive health and safety training 

regarding the hazards of working in 

confined spaces and procedures to 

avoid injury from fall hazards. OSHA 

issued a standard reflected in 29 CFR 

part 1926 subpart AA—Confined Spaces 

in Construction, which requires that 

employers provide employees free 

training to ensure that the employee 

understands the hazards of working in 

a confined space. Additional trainings 

and exams are available beyond the 

basic required safety training and may 

vary in costs depending on the level and 

amount of training a contractor obtains. 

g. Quantities of Regulated Substances 

Available From Reclaiming, Prior 

Production, or Prior Import 

As part of the Agency’s consideration 

of the availability of substitutes as 

directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is 

taking into account, to the extent 

practicable, information on quantities of 

HFCs from reclamation and stockpiles 

of previously produced or imported 

HFCs. EPA is providing additional 

information in the TSD American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020—Subsection (i)(4) Factors for 

Determination: Quantities Available 

from Reclaiming, Prior Production, or 

Prior Import. 

HFCs available from prior production 

or import that have been stockpiled and 

HFCs that have been recovered and 

reclaimed can both smooth transitions 

to alternative technologies and ensure 

that existing equipment can continue to 

be used. The Agency knows from its 

experience under the ODS phaseout the 

important role reclamation plays by 

providing an ongoing supply of 

material. This is true not only for the 

RACHP sector but a similar approach of 

recycling of fire suppressants is also 

used for the fire suppression sector, 

where regulated substances are 

recovered and tested and/or reprocessed 

to certain industry purity standards. 

Some companies may also choose to 

stockpile substances to ensure a 

continued supply that can meet their 

needs. EPA cannot estimate how much 

material will be stockpiled for a 

particular sector or subsector or by a 

particular company; however, the 

Agency can consider this approach as a 

general matter. 

Information that EPA considered 

includes HFC reclamation data 

submitted annually in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act section 608 

reclamation program, codified at 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F; reclamation, 

production, and import data reported 

under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A; 71 data 

gathered to support development of the 

AIM Act subsection (e) regulations 

contained in the docket for the 40 CFR 

part 84, subpart A rules; 72 and data 

reported to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (GHGRP) under 

subparts OO and QQ. 

In addition, EPA is developing 

proposed regulations under the 

authority of subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act. Subsection (h)(1) of the Act 

provides that ‘‘[f]or purposes of 

maximizing reclaiming and minimizing 

the release of a regulated substance from 

equipment and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers, the 

Administrator shall promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

. . . that involves: (A) a regulated 

substance; (B) a substitute for a 

regulated substance; (C) the reclaiming 

of a regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant; or (D) the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant.’’ Such regulations, if 

finalized, could increase the level of 

reclamation in the future, such that the 

data provided in the TSD may be a 

conservative estimate of what may be 

available in the future. 

3. How is EPA considering overall 

economic costs and environmental 

impacts, as compared to historical 

trends? 

Subsection (i)(4)(C) directs the 

Agency to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts, as compared to 

historical trends. The Act does not 

prescribe how EPA should carry out its 

consideration of this factor, nor does the 

statute clearly delineate what is meant 

by the phrase ‘‘as compared to historical 

trends.’’ In light of the ambiguity, we 

interpret the language of (i)(4)(C) as 

purposefully accommodating of many 

different types and degrees of analysis 

of economic costs and environmental 

impacts (including costs and impacts 

that may be difficult to quantify) in part 

because the nature of EPA’s action when 

applying this provision can differ 

greatly depending on the circumstances. 

Subsection (i)(4)(C) applies both to 

EPA’s action on subsection (i) petitions 

and to EPA’s rulemakings under 

subsection (i). Subsection (i) requires 

EPA to grant or deny petitions within 

180 days of receipt, a time period that 

inherently limits the scope and depth of 

any potential analysis under subsection 

(i)(4)(C). EPA’s timeframe for 

promulgating a rule subject to a granted 

petition is two years from the date of a 

petition grant, and in undertaking a 

rulemaking, whether by negotiated 

rulemaking or not, EPA will 

undoubtedly perform more in-depth 

analysis of economic costs and 

environmental impacts than we would 

in the more abbreviated statutory period 

allotted for petition decisions. As 

worded, particularly read in light of 

subsection (i)(4)’s acknowledgement 

that consideration of some factors will 

be limited by practicability (i.e., ‘‘to the 

extent practicable’’), the provision has 

flexibility to permit EPA to tailor its 

consideration of this factor accordingly. 

We note also that subsection (i)(4)(C) 

applies to cases where EPA is 

considering a broad swath of 

restrictions—such as this action, which 

covers more than 40 subsectors—as well 

as cases where EPA is contemplating a 

much more limited set of restrictions, 

potentially for only one sector or 

subsector. As discussed in this section, 

EPA reviewed multiple sources of 

information when factoring subsection 

(i)(4)(C) into the use restrictions for this 

action. This information included, but 

was not limited to, the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD, 

information previously developed by 

EPA concerning HFCs and transitions, 

our experience with the ODS program, 

information developed by the TEAP, the 

Montreal Protocol’s Science Assessment 

Reports, industry reports and 

commissioned studies (e.g., JMS 

Consulting in partnership with 

INFORUM), journal articles, and other 

research. In other actions under 

subsection (i), it may be appropriate in 

some instances for EPA to prepare 

detailed analyses such those in the 

Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD, 

but also times when new analyses of 

similar detail would be unnecessary or 

not practicable. 

It is also not clear from the plain 

language of the statute what information 

EPA should consider when thinking 

about ‘‘historical trends,’’ and how EPA 

should ‘‘compare’’ ‘‘overall’’ economic 

cost and environmental impact 

information about newly contemplated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73139 

73See ‘‘Overview of CFC and HCFC Phaseout’’ 

document in the docket. 

74 Decision XXIX/10 Task Force Report on Issues 

Related to Energy Efficiency while Phasing Down 

Hydrofluorocarbons, Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel, UNEP, May 2018. Available at: 

https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/ 

TEAP_DecisionXXIX-10_Task_Force_EE_

May2018.pdf 75Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification 

of the Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in 

partnership with INFORUM, November 2018. 

Available in the docket. 76Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs 

of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010; EPA 410–R–99– 

001 Nov 15, 1999. 

77Approximately $36 billion and $111 billion, 

respectively, in 2020 dollars. 

78Approximately $33.3 billion in 2020 dollars. 

79 Velders, Guus JM, et al. ‘‘The importance of the 

Montreal Protocol in protecting climate.’’ 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

104.12 (2007): 4814–4819. 

restrictions to those trends. Here too the 

ambiguity of these phrases 

accommodates consideration of a 

variety of information and comparisons 

depending on the circumstances and the 

available information. 

In undertaking this action, EPA does 

not yet have historical overall economic 

cost and environmental impact trends 

for previous use restrictions, or 

transitions from HFCs to substitutes, 

under subsection (i) to compare with the 

overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts of the 

contemplated restrictions. However, it is 

practicable and reasonable to in part 

interpret our obligation to factor in the 

considerations under subsection 

(i)(4)(C) by looking at the overall 

economic costs and the anticipated 

environmental impacts of the 

restrictions as compared to a scenario 

where historical trends continue into 

the future (i.e., ‘‘business-as-usual’’). For 

purposes of this action, a reasonable 

reading of the business-as-usual 

scenario is the conditions that would 

occur if only the Allocation Framework 

Rule and the 2024 Allocation Rule were 

in effect. Therefore, the analysis in the 

Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD 

uses as a baseline what would occur 

absent the restrictions finalized in this 

rulemaking. As noted, subsection 

(i)(4)(C) does not require a specific type 

of analysis, such as the one EPA 

conducted for purposes of the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD, and we 

anticipate that the Agency could 

consider this (i)(4) factor using a 

different type of analysis in the future. 

As this is the first set of restrictions 

under subsection (i) requiring 

transitions from certain regulated 

substances in certain sectors and 

subsectors, it is appropriate to consider 

information from historical comparable 

technology transitions in similar 

contexts. As noted elsewhere, HFCs are 

used mainly in the same sectors and 

subsectors where ODS were used. EPA 

has considered the overall economic 

costs and environmental impacts of 

actions taken under the CAA title VI 

regulations on ODS in a memo 73

available in the docket. EPA 

acknowledges that the ODS phaseout 

and transitions from HFCs as a result of 

this rule have their own unique 

regulatory features and technological 

transitions at play, leading to different 

overall economic impacts and 

environmental impacts. The memo 

discussing the costs and environmental 

impacts of the ODS phaseout is 

included as supplemental information 

and as a relevant benchmark, as the 

transition to HFC substitutes will 

impact many of the same industries and 

entail, in some cases, similar 

technological shifts. 

One key historical trend observed 

during the ODS phaseout that may be 

relevant to the HFC phasedown is that 

technology transitions did not 

necessarily drive up the cost of products 

to the consumer or hurt the performance 

of products. A clear example of this was 

discussed in a 2018 report of the 

TEAP.74 From 1972 through 2015, 

household refrigerators sold in the 

United States underwent several design 

changes in response to regulations 

requiring transition from ODS 

refrigerant, ODS-containing insulation 

foam, and increased energy efficiency. 

Over that time, the average capacity of 

refrigerators sold in the United States 

also grew to accommodate consumer 

preferences. Even as refrigerators 

became larger, more energy efficient, 

and transitioned from use of ODS, the 

average price fell in real dollars. 

Consumers not only benefitted from the 

lower initial purchase price, but the 

greater energy efficiency also reduced 

consumers’ electricity costs. This 

example, and a similar trend seen in 

household unitary AC units, are 

discussed in more detail in the report 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2019: Compliance 

and Consumer Cost Estimates, which 

can be found in the docket.75

As described in the memo that 

summarizes the costs of the ODS 

phaseout, the most comprehensive 

analysis was in a 1999 peer-reviewed 

report from EPA to Congress.76 In that 

report, EPA summarized the costs of the 

allowance allocation and reductions for 

CFCs, HCFCs, halons, and methyl 

chloroform to be $18 billion (7 percent 

discount rate) to $56 billion (2 percent 

discount rate) in 1990 dollars.77 It was 

also noted that the transition to more 

energy efficient air conditioning using 

alternatives to HCFC–22 could lower 

this cost by $16.8 billion in 1990 

dollars.78 As opposed to this net cost, 

the Costs and Environmental Impacts 

TSD indicates that the transitions 

envisioned would yield a net savings 

through 2050 of $4.2 billion (7 percent 

discount rate) to $8 billion (3 percent 

discount rate) in compliance costs. 

The primary goal of the ODS phaseout 

was to protect the ozone layer in 

accordance with title VI of the CAA and 

the Montreal Protocol, whereas the 

primary purpose of this action is to 

restrict the use of higher-GWP HFCs, 

making the benefits difficult to compare. 

However, the phaseout of ODS also 

provided climate change benefits, as 

most ODS are also high-GWP 

greenhouse gases, as indicated by the 

exchange values for the ODS that are 

listed in subsection (e)(1)(D) of the AIM 

Act.79 Although such benefits have not 

been calculated specifically for the 

United States, we note that the U.S. was 

one of the largest producers and 

consumers of ODS, and that the benefits 

from phasing out ODS can be significant 

given the high GWPs of the most 

common ODS. 

4. How is EPA considering the 

remaining phasedown period for 

regulated substances? 

Subsection (i)(4)(D) directs the 

Agency to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, the remaining phasedown 

period for regulated substances under 

the final rule issued under subsection 

(e)(3) of the AIM Act, if applicable. In 

the Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021), EPA 

established the allocation program 

under subsection (e) of the AIM Act, 

which is codified at 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A. A key provision under 

subsection (e) requires EPA to phase 

down the consumption and production 

of the statutorily listed HFCs on an 

exchange value-weighted basis 

according to the schedule in the table in 

subsection (e)(2)(C) of the AIM Act. The 

quantity of allowances available for 

allocation for each calendar year 

decreases over time according to the 

statutory phasedown schedule. 

Currently, the United States is at the 

first step of the HFC phasedown. In 

2023, HFC production and consumption 

is limited to 90 percent of the historical 

baseline. Additional reduction steps 

occur on January 1 of 2024, 2029, 2034, 

and 2036, at which point HFC 

production and consumption will 

continue at 15 percent of the baseline. 

Starting with the allowances for 

calendar year 2024 the total quantity of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73140 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

production and consumption 

allowances that may be allocated will 

drop by one third—to 60 percent of 

baseline—and starting with calendar 

year 2029 they will decline to 30 

percent of baseline. Thus, most of the 

phasedown will occur within the next 

six years. This reduction in the supply 

of HFCs is an important factor in 

finalizing restrictions under subsection 

(i) with compliance dates and GWP 

limits that are as stringent as feasible 

under the analysis of all the (i)(4) 

factors. 

EPA also views this final rule as 

supporting the phasedown schedule. 

While promulgated under a separate 

statutory provision under the AIM Act, 

the restrictions on the use of HFCs will 

have a complementary effect in meeting 

the HFC phasedown schedule by 

facilitating necessary transitions to 

lower-GWP substitutes. This rule 

supports innovation and advances the 

adoption of substitutes where available, 

thereby reducing demand for HFCs. EPA 

anticipates new substitutes and 

technologies will continue to emerge as 

the reductions in the caps on 

production and consumption 

allowances continue. Restricting the use 

of HFCs in sectors and subsectors that 

are better positioned to transition to 

new substitutes and technologies is 

consistent with subsection (i) and 

supports the overall production and 

consumption phasedown. 

Title VI of the CAA similarly 

provided for prohibitions on the sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce of 

certain products under section 610 and 

for additional restrictions on use of 

certain ODS under section 605(a). These 

restrictions supported the ODS 

phaseout. For example, most of the 

nonessential products bans under 

section 610 were established at the very 

beginning of the ODS phaseout 

program—ahead of the overall CFC 

phaseout by a few years and ahead of 

the HCFC final phaseout by a few 

decades. By banning the use of certain 

ODS where substitutes were available, 

early transitions accrued additional 

environmental benefits and supported 

the overall economy-wide transition by 

removing uses of controlled substances 

that were no longer necessary. At the 

time, in discussing some of the statutory 

criteria to be considered in determining 

whether a product was nonessential, 

EPA noted that ‘‘where substitutes are 

readily available, the use of controlled 

substances could be considered 

nonessential even in a product that is 

extremely important.’’ (58 FR 4768, 

January 15, 1993). 

5. How did EPA determine the degree of 

the restrictions for each sector and 

subsector? 

AIM Act subsection (i)(1) grants EPA 

authority to restrict by rule the use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used, and these restrictions 

may be exercised ‘‘fully, partially, or on 

a graduated schedule.’’ In determining 

the degree of the restrictions—e.g., GWP 

level, how partially or fully to restrict 

the use, and on what schedule—EPA 

looked to the factors in subsection (i)(4). 

Specifically, we interpret subsection 

(i)(4) as directing EPA to balance 

multiple factors in establishing the level 

of the contemplated use restriction, and 

we describe in this section the guiding 

principles and methodology EPA 

employed in our consideration of those 

factors in developing the restrictions 

established in this action. In short, EPA 

selected the degree of restriction for 

each sector or subsector by weighing the 

following considerations: maximizing 

environmental benefit while ensuring 

adequate availability of substitutes (as 

informed by the subsection (i)(4)(B) 

subfactors) and with consideration of 

how this action comports with the 

overall economic costs and 

environmental benefits compared to 

historical trends. With respect to all of 

our information and analysis we strive 

to use best available data. We are also 

mindful of the HFC phasedown 

schedule in ensuring that the use 

restrictions support that schedule by 

reducing total U.S. demand for HFCs by 

transitioning uses in sectors and 

subsectors where the Agency has 

determined that substitutes are 

available. 

EPA is establishing restrictions on the 

use of HFCs by, for the most part, setting 

GWP limits by sector or subsector. In 

section VI.B, EPA highlights the benefits 

of using GWP limits, including 

achieving environmental benefits, 

smoothing the transition from higherGWP substances, supporting innovation, 

providing regulatory certainty, and 

harmonizing with approaches taken by 

other governments in establishing 

similar requirements. 

Because the use restrictions were 

requested by numerous stakeholders, 

representing a broad range of interests 

(regulated industry, environmental and 

public health organizations, and State 

and local governments), EPA considered 

the petitions—either in the form of GWP 

limits or specific substances to be 

restricted—as the starting point for the 

level of the restrictions. In some cases, 

petitioners provided information about 

substitutes that are already in use or 

would soon be ready to be in use in the 

affected sectors and subsectors and 

attested to the achievability 

(technologically, regulatory, economic, 

and otherwise) of certain substitutes. 

The substitutes discussed in the 

petitions and supporting information 

had lower GWPs, and thus reduced 

adverse impacts on climate, compared 

to the regulated substances for which a 

use restriction was requested. Many of 

the petitioners are the entities (or trade 

associations representing those entities) 

developing substitutes or manufacturing 

products using substitutes. 

The impetus for this rulemaking, in 

part, was to address the granted 

petitions. Therefore, the restrictions 

requested in those petitions, including 

specific substances or GWP limits, and 

the timing of those restrictions, were a 

natural starting point for the Agency’s 

inquiry. However, as a starting point, 

EPA was clear in the proposed rule that 

the Agency was not obligated to propose 

a rule restricted to the petitions. 

Subsection (i)(4) requires that EPA take 

into account, to the extent practicable, 

the factors described in section VI.E of 

this preamble. In following this 

statutory directive, EPA considered the 

(i)(4) factors collectively, with no single 

(i)(4) factor (or subfactor) driving the 

restrictions for any sector or subsector. 

Collective consideration of the (i)(4) 

factors is consistent with the statutory 

text, which directs EPA to account for 

all the factors, to the extent practicable, 

in carrying out a rulemaking under 

subsection (i), and which does not state 

that one factor should carry more weight 

than the others. Further, accounting for 

the (i)(4) factors together enables EPA to 

take a holistic approach in facilitating 

transition to substitute technology, one 

that considers the availability of 

substitutes, overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts, as compared to 

historical trends, and the HFC 

phasedown schedule codified by the 

Allocation Framework Rule. 

The direction in subsection (i)(4)(C) to 

factor in overall economic costs and 

environmental impacts as compared to 

historical trends does not have a clear 

meaning in the context of selecting the 

degree of a restriction for a given sector 

or subsector. The provision’s focus on 

an ‘‘overall’’ comparison makes direct 

application of this factor in setting a 

level of restriction for a specific sector 

or subsector less practicable. However, 

the focus in subsection (i)(4)(C) on 

‘‘economic costs’’ and ‘‘environmental 

impacts’’ still provides direction to the 

Agency that cost and environmental 

considerations are relevant factors for 

EPA to consider in setting the level of 

a use restriction under subsection (i), 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73141 

80These reductions would be in addition to the 

consumption reductions from the Allocation Rules. 

81For example, using the methodology finalized 

in this rule, EPA calculates that R–452B has a GWP 

of 698 and thus meets the 700 GWP limits. 

and we address how EPA did so in the 

following paragraphs. 

For these restrictions, in factoring in 

environmental impacts, our aim was 

generally to establish GWP limits for 

each sector or subsector at the lowest 

supportable level while considering the 

other factors under subsection (i), 

specifically, availability of substitutes 

and cost, as well as considerations of 

implementation and enforcement. It is 

reasonable to prioritize maximizing the 

climate change benefits of restricting the 

regulated substances that are the focus 

of this rule, given that these 

environmental impacts are and have 

been one of the central concerns with 

the use of HFCs. Much of the 

information relied upon in our analysis 

of available substitutes comes from 

SNAP, which evaluates and identifies as 

‘‘acceptable’’ those substances that 

reduce overall risk to human health and 

the environment, as well as the TEAP 

reports which speak to human health 

and environmental considerations, the 

granted petitions, and information from 

State and foreign government 

regulations. 

Therefore, in selecting the levels of 

restrictions for each sector and 

subsector, we set the GWP limit at the 

lowest level that will provide a 

sufficient range of substitutes for 

applications within a subsector. EPA 

projects the cumulative environmental 

impact of these restrictions to be 

significant; with an average annual 

additional 80 emission reduction of 4 to 

34 MMTCO2e, and an average annual 

additional consumption reduction of 28 

to 43 MMTCO2e, from 2025 through 

2050 (see Costs and Environmental 

Impacts TSD). 

EPA did not set the level of 

restrictions for this rule at precisely the 

GWPs of identified available substitutes 

in each sector or subsector. Instead, EPA 

is establishing GWP limits at regular 

intervals—i.e., 150 GWP, 300 GWP, and 

700 GWP. This approach has advantages 

over a methodology that tightly tailors 

the GWP limit for each subsector to the 

specific GWPs of the currently 

identified available substitutes for that 

particular sector or subsector (e.g., 

establishing GWP limits of 237, 258, and 

290 based on the particular substitutes 

currently available in three different 

subsectors). Establishing limits at 

regular intervals avoids changing the 

status of an alternative caused by minor 

discrepancies in the methodology used 

to calculate GWPs; 81 promotes 

development of new variations on 

substitutes that are still within the 

permissible range; allows for use of a 

wider range of substitutes (recognizing 

that not every substitute is necessarily 

available for each use within a 

subsector); and eases implementation of 

the restrictions for regulated parties, 

consumers, and enforcement. 

To ensure adequate availability of 

substitutes, EPA looked at a range of 

information relevant to the subfactors 

provided in subsection (i)(4)(B) from a 

variety of sources. In general, EPA 

aimed to establish GWP limits at a level 

that would include multiple available 

substitutes that could be used in that 

sector or subsector (taking into 

consideration the various (i)(4)(B) 

subfactors to the extent practicable). In 

the following sections, we provide 

detailed information regarding the 

availability of substitutes for each sector 

and subsector. 

Our methodology for setting the levels 

of the use restrictions also factored in 

considerations of cost, both in 

identifying availability of substitutes 

and in assessing overall costs of the 

levels of the restrictions. Some of the 

subfactors in subsection (i)(4)(B) for the 

Agency to take into account when 

determining ‘‘availability’’ are explicitly 

or implicitly related to cost. Subfactors 

that explicitly relate to cost include 

commercial demands (there would be 

no demand for a substitute that caused 

a product to be so costly as to be 

unmarketable), consumer costs, 

affordability for residential and small 

business consumers, and contractor 

training costs. Other subfactors that are 

not explicitly related to cost contain 

implicit considerations of cost. For 

example, a company generally would 

not invest in demonstrating that use of 

a substitute is technologically 

achievable in a sector or subsector if the 

use of that substitute was so cost 

prohibitive that it would never actually 

be adopted. The Agency factored in 

these cost subfactors to the extent 

practicable when considering 

availability of substitutes. 

Subsection (i)(4)(C) also specifically 

directs EPA to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, overall economic costs as 

compared to historical trends, and as 

discussed above, the Agency has 

considered numerous sources of 

information as we developed this rule, 

including the cost findings summarized 

in the Costs and Environmental Impacts 

TSD. As discussed in that TSD, we 

anticipate that the incremental 

economic cost of the restrictions will 

result in a savings to the regulated 

industry, i.e., that complying with the 

use restrictions and transitioning from 

higher-GWP regulated substances to 

lower GWP substitutes will, on the 

whole, reduce costs for industry. 

In summary, in carrying out a 

rulemaking under subsection (i), EPA 

views subsection (i)(4)(A) through (D) as 

providing overarching direction for 

setting restrictions under this section. 

Subsection (i)(4)(B) also requires the 

Agency to examine the particular 

subfactors listed therein for the sector or 

subsector in order to determine whether 

a substitute is available for use in that 

sector or subsector. Therefore, in the 

following section addressing the final 

restrictions and compliance dates for 

each sector and subsector, EPA has 

focused the bulk of its discussion on the 

identification of available substitutes 

and the Agency’s consideration of the 

relevant sub-factors informing 

availability. 

F. For which sectors and subsectors is 

EPA establishing restrictions on the use 

of HFCs? 

This section provides a description of 

each sector or subsector subject to the 

restrictions in this rule, the final use 

restrictions, and compliance dates, and 

EPA’s assessment of the availability of 

substitutes for each sector or subsector 

(see section VI.E.5). In addition, this 

section includes summaries of 

comments on specific sectors and 

subsectors and EPA’s responses. 

1. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and 

Heat Pumps 

Subsectors in the RACHP sector 

typically use a refrigerant in a vapor 

compression cycle to cool and/or 

dehumidify a substance or space, such 

as a refrigerator cabinet, room, office 

building, or warehouse. The equipment 

in this subsector, for the purposes of 

this rule, includes self-contained, 

factory-completed products and larger, 

field-assembled systems. EPA 

recognizes that these terms may be used 

under SNAP and the refrigerant 

management regulations in 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. 

a. Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR) 

IPR systems are used to cool process 

streams at a specific location in 

manufacturing and other industrial 

processes (e.g., chemical, 

pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and 

manufacturing industries). IPR systems 

are directly linked to the industrial 

process, meaning the refrigerant leaving 

the condenser and metering device is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73142 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

82The refrigerant HFC–134a has a boiling point 

slightly above ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) and R–717 has a 

boiling point slightly lower at ¥33.3 °C. R–717, 

HFC–134a, and similar refrigerants like R–450A and 

R–513A work above this temperature. 

83The refrigerants R–404A and R–410A have 

bubble (boiling) points slightly above ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F). R–404A and similar refrigerants like R– 

448A, R–449A, R–449B, R–452A, and R–410A and 

similar refrigerants like HFC–32 and the R–454 

series, work above this temperature. 

84EPA notes for all substitutes identified in 

section VI.F of this preamble, not every substitute 

listed is necessarily available across all U.S. 

markets. For example, in some cases, substitutes 

may be technologically and economically viable 

and may be in use in international markets but may 

be unavailable in specific U.S. market for other 

reasons such as building code restrictions. The lists 

of ‘‘available’’ substitutes therefore includes some 

substances which may only be ‘‘potentially 

available’’ in some areas. EPA also notes that not 

all of the identified substitutes are listed as 

acceptable under the SNAP program. See section 

VI.E.2 of this preamble for a discussion on 

availability of substitutes. 

delivered directly to the heat source 

before returning to the compressor. This 

also includes appliances used directly 

in the generation of electricity. 

Specialized refrigerated laboratory 

equipment, such as that used in the 

pharmaceutical industry, may fall under 

this subsector if it operates at 

temperatures above ¥62 °C (¥80 °F), 

and is not considered to be very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

Where one system is used for both IPR 

and other applications (such as cooling 

a room or building in which the 

industrial process is located), EPA 

considers it to be an IPR system if 50 

percent or more of its operating capacity 

is used for IPR. Cooling or IPR that 

involves using a chiller, e.g., to circulate 

a secondary fluid to the point at which 

heat is removed from the process, or to 

cool a room or building as explained in 

this section, is regulated as a chiller and 

is discussed in section VI.F.1.j. IPR 

equipment not using a chiller is 

regulated as part of the IPR subsector 

and discussed in this section. 

In the proposed rule, EPA included 

data centers and data servers in the 

description of applications that the 

Agency considers to be IPR. In this final 

rule, EPA is creating a separate 

subsector for data centers, information 

technology equipment facilities (ITEF), 

and computer room cooling equipment 

which includes appliances used for 

large scale cooling of server farms, ITEF, 

computer rooms, data centers, data 

servers, communication rooms, and 

other spaces dedicated to maintaining 

the operating temperature of electronic 

technologies. This subsector is 

discussed in section VI.F.1.b. 

Many types of foods require 

refrigeration during the production 

process. EPA considers refrigerating 

equipment used during the production 

of food and beverages in an industrial 

setting to fall under IPR. If the food 

production process requires cooling 

done directly by a refrigerant, either at 

the point where cooling is required or 

to cool a room or building in which the 

cooling is required, the equipment falls 

within the IPR subsector. If instead a 

chiller is used to cool a secondary fluid 

(e.g., water) that then provides the 

required cooling, EPA considers the use 

to be in the chillers for IPR subsector. 

The IPR subsector includes all 

equipment and operations that use a 

refrigerant to make and prepare food 

that is not immediately available for sale 

(or supply, if the food is not ‘‘sold’’) to 

the consumer and would require 

shipping or delivering it, possibly 

through intermediate points, to the 

point where such sale would occur. 

This could include facilities where food 

is processed and packaged by the food 

producer, such as a meat processor that 

prepares and packages individual cuts 

of meat within a single facility or 

building while maintaining the required 

temperatures. Although such facilities 

may be designed in a fashion similar to 

a cold storage warehouse, the fact that 

items are being processed by the food 

producer indicates that the application 

falls in the IPR subsector. However, if a 

food producer operates a refrigerated 

storage area solely for the holding of 

already packaged food, and possibly for 

packing such food in larger containers 

or bundles for shipment, that 

application would fall within the cold 

storage warehouse subsector. 

Another example of an IPR system is 

a ‘‘blast cooler’’ or ‘‘blast freezer.’’ In 

this context, ‘‘blast cooler’’ or ‘‘blast 

freezer’’ refers to a type of equipment in 

which cold air is supplied and 

circulated rapidly to a food product, 

generally to quickly cool or freeze the 

food before damage or spoilage can 

occur. This is the same description as 

the Agency has previously used for this 

equipment (see 80 FR 42901, July 20, 

2015). Such equipment might be used as 

part of a food production line in an 

industrial setting. They also can be 

placed separately at public facilities 

including hospitals, schools, 

restaurants, and supermarkets. These 

public facilities might use the blast 

cooler or freezer on food that they will 

store for later use after they receive it 

from a vendor or that they cook or 

prepare as part of their operations. Such 

units might also be placed near 

entranceways to cold storage 

warehouses, for instance to receive food 

refrigerated and shipped at one 

temperature and then to bring it down 

to a lower temperature for storage. 

IPR systems typically have large 

refrigerant charges to satisfy the 

significant cooling demands throughout 

the facility. Historically, facilities have 

commonly used R–717, hydrocarbons, 

CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs including but 

not limited to R–12, R–22, R–404A, R– 

507A, and R–134a. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for IPR systems? 

EPA is prohibiting the use of HFCs 

and blends containing HFCs in IPR 

systems at different GWP thresholds 

(150, 300, and 700) depending on a 

combination of factors including the 

size, refrigerant temperature entering 

the evaporator, and design of the 

system. These GWP limits apply to new 

IPR systems other than chillers used for 

IPR, which are discussed in section 

VI.F.1.j. EPA is establishing a 150 GWP 

limit for new IPR systems with 

refrigerant charge capacities of 200 lb or 

greater with refrigerant temperature 

entering the evaporator at ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F) or above beginning January 1, 

2026.82 EPA is establishing a 300 GWP 

limit for new IPR systems with 

refrigerant charge capacities less than 

200 lb and for the high temperature side 

of cascade systems with refrigerant 

temperature entering the evaporator at 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) or above, also 

beginning January 1, 2026. If the low 

temperature side of a cascade system 

has a charge capacity less than 200 lb 

with refrigerant temperature entering 

the evaporator at ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) or 

above, then the GWP limit is 300, 

beginning January 1, 2026. If the low 

temperature side of a cascade system 

has a charge capacity of 200 lb or greater 

with refrigerant temperature entering 

the evaporator at ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) or 

above, EPA is prohibiting the use of 

HFCs and HFC blends with a GWP of 

150 or greater in the low temperature 

side of the cascade beginning January 1, 

2026. In new IPR systems where the 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator is equal to or above ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) but less than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), 

the GWP limit is 700 beginning January 

1, 2028. EPA is currently not 

establishing restrictions for new IPR 

systems with refrigerant temperature 

entering the evaporator below ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F).83

In considering the availability of 

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

EPA identified several substitutes 84 as 

available for use in IPR systems in place 

of the higher-GWP substances that EPA 

is prohibiting. These available 

substitutes for all non-chiller IPR 

systems include HCFO–1224yd(Z) 

(GWP less than 1), R–717 (GWP 1), R– 

1270 (GWP 1.8), R–290 (GWP 3.3), and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73143 

85EPA notes that the GWP limits apply only to 

regulated substances and blends containing a 

regulated substance (e.g., R–471A, R–454A, and R– 

454C). The GWPs of the other substitutes, which do 

not contain a regulated substance, are provided here 

and in subsequent sections for context only. 

86AHRI Letter Responding to CARB’s Request for 

Input and Clarifications Following the August 6, 

2019, Public Meeting for Industrial Process 

Refrigeration and Transport Refrigeration 

Equipment. Available in the docket. 

87ASHRAE. (2022). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15– 

2022: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems. 

88UL Standard. (2021). Household and Similar 

Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2–89: 

Particular Requirements for Commercial 

Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an 

Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or MotorCompressor (Standard 60335–2–89, Edition 2). 

R–600 (GWP 4).85 EPA is aware of a 

statement by one stakeholder that R–717 

and hydrocarbons (R–600, R–1270, R– 

290) were used in 90 to 95 percent of 

the market share for IPR systems in 

2019, indicating the technological 

achievability and commercial demand 

for systems using available 

substitutes.86

In addition to the substitutes that are 

already available for use in this 

subsector, EPA has recently proposed to 

list HFO–1234yf, HFO–1234ze(E), R– 

454A, R–454C, R–455A, R–457A, and 

R–516A (with GWPs of 1, 1, 237, 146, 

146, 137, and 140 respectively) as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

under SNAP for use in IPR (88 FR 

33722, May 24, 2023). These proposed 

listings meet the GWP limit of 300 for 

this subsector, and all except R–454A 

meet the GWP limit of 150. Although 

the already available substitutes have 

been evaluated by EPA to be sufficient 

to meet these restrictions, the potential 

for a greater array of options in the 

future may further smooth the transition 

from higher-GWP HFCs. EPA continues 

to encourage innovation of refrigerants 

that meet these restrictions and 

anticipates the number of substitutes 

available for use in IPR will continue to 

grow. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed January 1, 

2025, transition date for commercial 

refrigeration, including IPR. Several 

commenters requested a January 1, 

2026, transition date for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, including IPR, 

citing the need for building codes to be 

updated and stating that the IPR 

industry (including OEMs, refrigerant 

suppliers, technicians, and system 

designers) is not ready in all regions and 

applications. One commenter added 

that even meeting a January 1, 2026, 

transition date does not allow enough 

time for OEMs and distributors to adjust 

their supply chain processes. 

Response: In this final rule, for IPR 

equipment with a refrigerant 

temperature entering the evaporator 

greater than or equal to ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F), EPA is extending the 

compliance date to January 1, 2026. For 

IPR equipment with a refrigerant 

temperature entering the evaporator 

from ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) to ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F), EPA is extending the 

compliance date to January 1, 2028, for 

reasons discussed in this section. 

The additional year for most IPR 

equipment provides time for the 

adoption of building codes that 

incorporate updated safety standards 

(e.g., UL 60335–2–89, ASHRAE 15– 

2022) allowing for the safe use of lowerGWP refrigerants.87 88 The International 

Building Code is scheduled to be 

updated in 2024, which would then 

need to be adopted by State and local 

jurisdictions. Delaying the compliance 

date to January 1, 2026, provides time 

for jurisdictions to make these updates. 

However, EPA can consider a substitute 

to be available before every building 

code in every jurisdiction across the 

United States permits its use. See 

section VI.E.2.d of the preamble for 

further discussion on how building 

codes affect the availability of 

substitutes. Based on EPA’s assessment 

of the availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B), additional time is 

warranted for a transition in IPR 

systems, with the compliance date 

depending on the temperature of the 

refrigerant entering the evaporator. The 

Agency is extending the compliance 

date to January 1, 2028, for IPR systems 

with refrigerant temperature entering 

the evaporator from ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) to 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F) because, as discussed 

further below in this section, there are 

fewer technologically achievable 

refrigerants with a sufficiently low 

boiling point such that they may be 

used in equipment used at lower 

temperatures. Therefore, more time may 

be needed to identify, test, and 

implement appropriate substitutes in 

such equipment. 

The additional year for most IPR 

systems will also help mitigate other 

issues identified by commenters 

regarding the industry’s ability to 

transition, such as the refrigerant supply 

chain, the timeline for new equipment 

design and testing, and need for 

specialized technician trainings. One 

additional year is in agreement with 

several industry commenters and 

provides time for EPA to continue its 

review of lower-GWP substitutes, such 

as the proposed SNAP Rule 26 

discussed previously (88 FR 33722, May 

24, 2023), which will likely provide 

even more refrigerant options. For these 

reasons, EPA is providing one 

additional year for most of the IPR 

subsector, and three additional years for 

IPR systems with refrigerant 

temperature entering the evaporator 

from ¥50 °C to ¥30 °C (¥58 °F to 

¥22 °F), to comply with the GWP 

restrictions established in this final rule. 

How does charge size and system design 

affect the availability of substitute 

refrigerants? 

EPA is establishing different GWP 

limits for new IPR, remote condensing 

unit, supermarket, and cold storage 

warehouse systems based on the 

refrigerant charge capacity of the 

system. Setting different GWP 

restrictions based on the charge of the 

system is consistent with information 

provided by petitioners, EPA’s 

understanding of technical challenges 

inherent to smaller charge capacity 

systems, and industry safety standards. 

In general, systems with smaller 

refrigerant charge capacities (i.e., 

smaller than 200 lb) are located inside 

and in potentially confined spaces 

where a leak of a flammable refrigerant 

could result in concentrations of 

concern. Conversely, larger refrigerant 

charge capacities (i.e., greater than or 

equal to 200 lb) are typically located 

outside the refrigerated space, where 

safety standards and building codes 

allow for greater use of flammable and 

lower flammability refrigerants. Setting 

different GWP limits for this subsector 

based on the charge capacity of 

equipment will increase the number of 

available substitutes where lower-GWP 

substitutes are limited. 

Each of the restrictions adopted in 

this action is tailored to the subsectorspecific applications and availability of 

substitutes for those applications. 

Specifically, for smaller-footprint 

applications (i.e., spaces with lower 

total air volume where smaller amounts 

of leaked refrigerant could 

disproportionately increase in 

concentration) in these subsectors, the 

use of A2Ls (lower flammability 

refrigerants) is limited by the product 

safety standard UL 60335–2–89. This 

standard, which can be referenced by 

building codes, sets charge limits for 

A2L refrigerants used indoors to 260 

times the lower flammability limit (LFL, 

in kg/m3). This allowance is near or 

under 200 lb for most A2L refrigerants. 

For example, this restriction would 

allow up to 176 lb of HFC–32 in a single 

refrigeration circuit (87 FR 45522, July 

28, 2022; 88 FR 26400, April 28, 2023). 

However, in certain applications, safety 

standard ASHRAE 15 will apply to 

equipment with charge capacities above 

this threshold, enabling the use of larger 

refrigerant charges by requiring 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73144 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

additional mitigation strategies, such as 

increased air exchange to minimize the 

concentration of leaked refrigerant in 

the air. Therefore, larger systems 

covered by ASHRAE 15 are less limited 

in their refrigerant options when 

complying with safety standards 

incorporated in building codes. 

EPA proposed to differentiate the 

subsection (i) restrictions for these 

subsectors based on refrigerant charge 

capacity to conform with applicable 

safety standards, in consideration of the 

(i)(4)(B) factors, which direct the 

Agency to consider safety, to the extent 

practicable, in assessing availability of 

substitutes. Using a 200 lb charge 

capacity threshold, rather than a lower 

one such as 50 lb as suggested by some 

commenters, allows for greater 

availability of technologically 

achievable substitutes in IPR, retail food 

remote condensing units, retail food 

supermarket systems, and cold storage 

warehouse systems of all sizes. Systems 

with refrigerant charge capacities less 

than 200 lb are restricted from using 

certain lower-GWP refrigerant options 

by safety standards, and thus require a 

higher GWP limit to ensure the 

availability of substitutes for use in 

these subsectors. 

EPA has also considered the 

availability of substitutes when cascade 

systems are used in new IPR, 

supermarket, remote condensing unit, 

and cold storage warehouse systems. A 

cascade system is a design option which 

consists of two independent 

refrigeration systems that share a 

common cascade heat exchanger. They 

are often employed in applications 

when the required temperature is very 

low. Each side of a cascade system uses 

a different refrigerant that is most 

suitable for the given temperature range. 

High temperature systems, or the ‘‘high 

temperature side,’’ have typically used 

HFCs as a refrigerant; however, it is 

technologically achievable in some 

cases and has become more common to 

use R–717. For low temperature 

systems, or the ‘‘low temperature side,’’ 

low boiling point refrigerants such as R– 

744 and R–508B have been used. 

Considerations for the choice of 

refrigerant on the high and low 

temperature sides of cascade systems 

are influenced by many factors 

including, but not limited to, a 

refrigerant’s toxicity and flammability, 

its temperature glide, and its suitability 

for the temperature application 

specifications. 

In its consideration of safety and 

building codes under subsection 

(i)(4)(B), to the extent practicable, EPA 

understands that the use of flammable 

or toxic refrigerants, such as R–717, on 

the high temperature side of a cascade 

system may be limited in certain 

circumstances (e.g., in areas that are 

heavily populated or based on building 

codes and/or standards). Therefore, EPA 

is establishing a higher GWP limit for 

HFCs used in the high temperature side 

of cascade systems to allow sufficient 

refrigerant options to comply with local 

building codes and industry safety 

standards. Because the high temperature 

side of a cascade system typically enters 

the building (i.e., in the machinery 

room), some refrigerants such as R–717 

may not be allowed by building codes 

or may be limited in the charge size 

allowed. On the other hand, the current 

edition of safety standard UL 60335–2– 

89 includes provisions that support 

higher charge sizes for A2L refrigerants, 

including some that meet a GWP limit 

of 300 but not 150, such as R–454A and 

R–457B. A GWP limit of 300, as 

compared to a GWP limit of 150, also 

allows for a greater array of available 

substitutes, such as R–515B which was 

recently listed as acceptable under 

SNAP Notice 38 (88 FR 61977, 

September 8, 2023) and R–480A which 

is pending SNAP review, which will 

further ease the transition to lower-GWP 

refrigerants. EPA notes that the 

applicable GWP limit for the low 

temperature side of a cascade system is 

dictated by the charge size of the low 

temperature side by itself. 

Comment: Some commenters from 

industry generally supported the 

proposed GWP limits based upon charge 

capacity thresholds for refrigeration 

(i.e., GWP limit of 300 for refrigeration 

systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity of less than 200 lb and GWP 

limit of 150 for refrigeration systems 

with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 

lb or more), including IPR systems, 

retail food refrigeration (remote 

condensing units and supermarket 

systems), and cold storage warehouses. 

Three other commenters recommended 

a single GWP limit for each of these 

subsectors, regardless of the 

equipment’s charge size. A couple of 

commenters stated that could 

incentivize manufacturers to move to 

higher-GWP HFCs in systems with 

smaller charges. One commenter 

requested a 150 GWP limit, citing 

adequate availability of current 

refrigerant options below that level. 

They asserted that a 300 GWP limit for 

certain charge sizes and systems was 

unnecessarily high, overly complicated, 

and could stifle innovation of very lowGWP refrigerants. Another commenter 

requested a 10 GWP limit for all 

equipment in these four subsectors, 

claiming there are no currently available 

substitutes between 10 and 300 GWP. 

Several commenters agreed with 

establishing two GWP limits for these 

subsectors by charge capacity, but urged 

EPA to adopt a 150 GWP limit for IPR, 

retail food refrigeration, and cold 

storage warehouses with a charge 

capacity threshold of 50 lb, instead of 

200 lb as proposed. In support of 

shifting the threshold to 50 lb, these 

same commenters noted that 

California’s regulations establishing 

GWP limits and EPA’s section 608 

Refrigerant Management Program both 

use 50 lb as a charge capacity threshold 

and that having the same charge 

capacity threshold as California’s GWP 

restrictions would allow for nationwide 

consistency instead of a patchwork of 

requirements. They also noted that 

updated safety standards and building 

codes have made a range of substitutes 

available for use in this subsector for 

equipment with charge sizes between 50 

and 200 lb. Another commenter 

described a 10 lb charge capacity cutoff 

as more appropriate for these subsectors 

than 200 lb for purposes of safety, but 

still requested a single GWP limit 

regardless of charge size. 

These same commenters also 

disagreed with EPA’s proposal to set a 

separate GWP limit for the high 

temperature side of cascade systems. 

Instead, they requested that EPA group 

cascade systems with other types of 

direct refrigeration systems in the 

subsector containing a single refrigerant 

loop. Such restrictions would be similar 

to California’s regulations, which do not 

include a separate requirement for 

cascade systems. One commenter stated 

that there does not appear to be a clear 

rationale articulated in the proposed 

rule for separating cascade systems into 

a separate subsector category for GWP 

limit, nor any criteria or requirement 

limiting the HFC or HFC-blend charge 

size of the refrigerant used in the high 

temperature side of a cascade system. 

Several commenters pointed to the 

availability of substitutes below 150 

GWP, such as R–744 and R–717, making 

the proposed 300 GWP limit 

unnecessarily high for equipment of 

certain charge capacities (ranging from 

no lower limit to 50 lb) and for the high 

temperature side of cascade systems. 

One commenter acknowledged that EPA 

has assessed R–717 as being 

prohibitively toxic for use in certain 

locations based on building codes, but 

they asserted that R–717 may only be 

prohibited by a small number of 

localities and stated that it is otherwise 

a suitable refrigerant option to meet a 

150 GWP limit in most cases. This 

commenter stated that cold storage 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73145 

89European Union Law. 2014. Regulation (EU) 

No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the 

Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse 

gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 

Text with EEA relevance. Available at: http://

eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ 

?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG. 

warehouses and IPR systems have 

widely used R–717, historically, and 

they claimed R–744 is a suitable 

alternative in cases where R–717 cannot 

be used. Another commenter noted that 

continuing to use HFC blends up to a 

GWP of 300 in new systems, especially 

in sectors where refrigerant leaks are 

widespread, poses dramatically more 

harm to the climate than use of nonHFCs and expressed concern that new 

refrigeration systems will place 

significant demand on a dwindling 

supply of HFCs when it will be needed 

to service existing equipment in other 

subsectors such as residential AC. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a GWP limit of 10 for IPR, 

remote condensing units, supermarket 

systems, and cold storage warehouses. 

EPA agrees with commenters that some 

of the refrigerants available for use in 

these subsectors, such as R–744 and R– 

717, have GWPs of less than 10. As 

noted in section VI.E.5, this action 

establishes GWP limits at regular, 

grouped intervals, to ease compliance 

and enforcement and also to ensure that 

there are adequate available substitutes 

for various applications within the 

subsector. Some of the lowest-GWP 

refrigerants, particularly those with nonfluorinated chemistry, may not be 

appropriate in all situations (e.g., R– 

717). Moreover, the GWP limits EPA is 

finalizing allow for additional 

refrigerants to be used and for continued 

innovation. The Agency does not agree 

that this approach will unnecessarily 

incentivize the use of higher-GWP 

refrigerants than would otherwise have 

been used, and is finalizing restrictions 

consistent with our review of the (i)(4) 

factors for each of the sectors and 

subsectors. 

After review of the comments, EPA is 

finalizing the refrigerant charge capacity 

threshold at 200 lb for non-chiller IPR 

equipment, with refrigerant entering the 

evaporator (for IPR systems that are not 

chillers) with a temperature of ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F) or above, as proposed. For 

purposes of subsection (i) and its 

evaluation of the availability of 

substitutes for use in a sector or 

subsector, EPA is aligning the 

refrigerant charge capacity threshold 

with applicable safety standards (e.g., 

UL 60335–2–24, UL 60335–2–40, and 

UL 60335–2–89) rather than aligning 

with thresholds established by States. 

EPA recognizes there may be benefits to 

greater consistency between regulatory 

requirements. However, EPA must 

consider the (i)(4) factors, to the extent 

practicable, and these lead EPA to base 

the GWP threshold on the industry 

safety standards, which limit the 

allowable charge of flammable 

refrigerants based on the flammability 

limit of each refrigerant to minimize risk 

from their use. In particular, the 

industry safety standard for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, UL 60335–2– 

89, restricts charge sizes of A2L 

refrigerants at approximately 200 lb in 

a single circuit in equipment where 

leaks would likely enter an occupied 

space, whereas ASHRAE 15 allows for 

larger charge sizes in machinery rooms 

and outdoors by requiring additional 

mitigation strategies, such as certain 

rates of air exchange. Equipment 

installed in machinery rooms or outside 

has greater flexibility to meet the 

requirements of safety standards and 

building codes, while smaller 

equipment is more constrained by 

available space and may need more 

refrigerant options that minimize the 

footprint of refrigerating systems. 

Therefore, by harmonizing charge 

capacity thresholds with UL 60335–2– 

89, EPA is ensuring adequate 

availability of substitutes for equipment 

with charge capacities below 200 lb. 

Concerning the suggestion to use a 50 

lb charge capacity cutoff, EPA’s 

refrigerant management program under 

CAA section 608 applies leak repair 

requirements to certain appliances with 

a full charge of 50 or more pounds of 

any ODS refrigerant or blend containing 

an ODS refrigerant (see 40 CFR 

82.157(a). The factors for determination 

of availability of substitutes listed in 

subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act do not 

lead the Agency to conclude that 

aligning the charge capacity threshold 

for these subsectors’ restrictions with 

the threshold used for ODS leak repair 

requirements is appropriate. The 

refrigerant charge capacity threshold of 

10 lb was suggested by one commenter 

as being more technically appropriate as 

a way of addressing safety than 200 lb 

without explanation. EPA therefore does 

not agree that 10 lb is a more 

appropriate charge capacity threshold 

than 200 lb. Further discussion on 

EPA’s decision to choose a 200 lb cutoff 

to determine GWP limits for IPR, remote 

condensing units, supermarket systems, 

and cold storage warehouses can be 

found earlier in this section. 

EPA considers it unlikely that 

establishing size thresholds will create 

an incentive to build more smaller 

refrigeration systems rather than fewer 

large refrigeration systems. Drivers for 

selection of a commercial refrigeration 

system, such as cost, amount of product 

needing to be cooled, ability to control 

temperature, durability, support from 

the vendor, and ease of servicing, are 

not likely to push the system user 

uniformly toward purchasing a 

refrigerant with a GWP of 300 compared 

to a refrigerant with a GWP of less than 

150. Rather, EPA expects that a 

company would use a smaller system 

with a refrigerant with a GWP between 

150 and 300, such as the HFC/HFO 

blends R–454A or R–515B, instead of a 

lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R–744 

(GWP 1), or the HFC/HFO blend R–454C 

(GWP 146) if they determined 

refrigeration systems with lower-GWP 

refrigerants would take up too much 

space. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

suggestion to remove the 300 GWP limit 

for the high temperature side of cascade 

systems. Technical constraints related to 

temperature, pressure, efficiency, and 

glide limit the available refrigerants for 

the high temperature side of cascade 

systems. As discussed in the proposed 

rule (87 FR 76775; December 15, 2022), 

building codes and safety 

considerations may also limit the 

availability of flammable and/or toxic 

refrigerants in the high temperature side 

of cascade systems. By establishing a 

GWP limit of 300, rather than 150, 

additional substitutes are available that 

overcome the technical constraints and 

subsection (i)(4) factors that limit the 

number of refrigerant options in 

subsectors using cascade systems. 

How does operating temperature affect 

the availability of substitute 

refrigerants? 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that GWP limits for nonchiller IPR systems be based on 

operating temperature ranges, similar to 

the current European Union (EU) F-Gas 

regulations 89 and CARB regulations. A 

few of these commenters suggested EPA 

provide flexibility with higher GWP 

limits for systems with lower 

temperature ranges. One such 

commenter requested a GWP limit of 

700 for IPR equipment with refrigerant 

evaporating temperatures greater than 

¥25 °C (¥13 °F) and a 2,200 GWP limit 

for IPR equipment with refrigerant 

evaporating temperatures from ¥25 °C 

(¥13 °F) to ¥45 °C (¥49 °F). That 

commenter stated that flammable and 

toxic alternatives that meet the original 

GWP limits of 150 or 300 would not be 

viable for new or retrofit IPR facilities 

due to safety risks, technical feasibility, 

and cost. Several commenters also 

requested exemptions from restrictions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73146 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

for IPR systems using flooded or liquid 

overfed evaporators. 

Regarding IPR systems operating at 

colder temperatures, many commenters 

requested clarification for systems with 

very low temperatures that may or may 

not be exempt from GWP limits under 

EPA’s proposed rule, including those for 

laboratory equipment and IPR chillers. 

One commenter proposed an exemption 

for all IPR applications with a 

refrigerant evaporating temperature 

below ¥45 °C, and suggested that all 

IPR systems, including both direct 

process cooling and chiller systems, 

have the same GWP limits, as the same 

refrigerant selection challenges exist for 

both system designs. Another 

commenter suggested that EPA exempt 

specialty applications for systems 

designed for ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) exiting 

fluid temperatures or create a formal 

variance process, similar to California 

and Washington State regulations. One 

commenter stated that to meet the 

technical demands of the laboratory 

products industry’s specialized 

applications, new sustainable 

substitutes—or a sudden and 

transformative advance in refrigeration 

science—would be necessary to meet 

the schedule of the proposed rule. The 

commenter strongly encouraged EPA to 

consider providing clear, concise 

exceptions for equipment utilized in a 

laboratory setting or provide for a longer 

compliance window so that there is 

adequate time to make substantive 

changes to delicate and complex 

laboratory equipment. 

Response: After review of the 

comments and further consideration of 

the availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act, EPA is 

establishing separate GWP thresholds 

for IPR equipment based on the 

temperature of the refrigerant entering 

the evaporator. This provides more 

options for specialized equipment that 

must achieve temperatures significantly 

lower than 0 °F, considering 

technological achievability as a factor 

limiting the availability of substitutes in 

such equipment. 

EPA largely agrees with the 

commenter that asserted IPR systems 

with evaporating temperatures below 

¥25 °C (¥13 °F) require the same 

refrigerant options as chillers for IPR in 

which EPA proposed a GWP limit of 

700, as the same technical constraints 

related to refrigerating at colder 

temperatures apply (e.g., fewer 

refrigerants have such a low boiling 

point). EPA is therefore finalizing a 

GWP limit of 700 for IPR equipment 

with refrigerant entering the evaporator 

with a temperature less than ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F) but greater than or equal to 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F), regardless of the 

refrigerant charge capacity or whether 

the equipment is part of a cascade 

system. 

EPA disagrees with the comment that 

the threshold be at ¥25 °C (¥13 °F) 

because the same constraints on the 

availability of substitutes under the 

(i)(4)(B) analysis that can be used at 

lower temperatures apply in other 

subsectors, such as for chillers for 

comfort cooling and chillers for IPR; 

hence, EPA is finalizing the same GWP 

threshold based on the same 

temperature threshold as for chillers for 

IPR at ¥30 °C (¥22 °F). This also allows 

for greater simplicity and ease of 

determining which GWP threshold 

applies than if there were different 

thresholds for chillers for IPR and for 

other IPR systems. One of the 

commenters has stated that refrigerant 

with an evaporating temperature of less 

than ¥25 °C should be able to use 

refrigerants such as R–513A, which has 

a GWP of 630 (between 300 and 700). 

Such equipment would have the same 

refrigerant options as chillers for IPR. 

EPA also disagrees that a GWP limit 

up to 2,200 would be appropriate, given 

the sufficiently available substitutes 

with GWP below 700 for use in this 

exiting fluid temperature range, such as 

R–513A (GWP 630). Furthermore, as 

indicated by considerations described in 

recently proposed SNAP listings for use 

in IPR (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023), 

there may be additional available 

substitutes for this equipment in the 

future, such as HFO–1234yf (GWP 1), 

HFO–1234ze(E) (GWP 1), R–457A (GWP 

137), R–516A (GWP 140), R–455A (GWP 

146), R–454C (GWP 146), and R–454A 

(GWP 237). 

For IPR equipment with refrigerant 

entering the evaporator with a 

temperature of ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) or 

higher, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter who requested the Agency 

finalize a GWP limit as high as 700. EPA 

has identified HCFO–1224yd(Z) (GWP 

less than 1), R–717 (GWP 1), R–1270 

(GWP 1.8), R–290 (GWP 3.3), and R–600 

(GWP 4) as suitable for use in 

equipment operating above ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F), and all have a GWP below 

150. In comparison, equipment with 

temperatures between ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) 

and ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) could require 

higher volumetric capacity (e.g., to 

replace R–404A) and would have fewer 

refrigerants able to attain lower boiling 

points, so a wider range of refrigerants 

with higher GWPs are needed compared 

to equipment with temperatures at 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) and above. EPA is 

therefore finalizing the GWP limits of 

150 and 300 for this type of equipment, 

depending on the refrigerant charge 

capacity and whether the refrigerant is 

used in the high temperature side of a 

cascade system, based on the 

technological achievability of using 

identified substitutes at these warmer 

evaporating temperatures. 

EPA disagrees with comments that 

requested exemptions for all IPR 

systems using flooded or liquid overfed 

evaporators. Many of the technological 

challenges associated with using lowerGWP refrigerants in IPR equipment are 

related to the temperature of the 

refrigerant going into the evaporator. 

Therefore, EPA has not set restrictions 

for IPR equipment, including those 

using flooded or liquid overfed 

evaporators, operating below ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) at this time. 

In the case of IPR equipment with 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator lower than ¥50 °C (¥58 °F), 

EPA recognizes that most of the 

refrigerants used for such equipment 

have relatively high GWPs. The Agency 

expects that after further research and 

development, there may be additional 

refrigerants available for these low 

temperatures, given the growing 

demonstrations of technological 

achievability; additional reviews of 

refrigerants for safety, health, and 

environmental impacts under the SNAP 

program; and changes to industry 

standards that allow for larger charge 

sizes of flammable refrigerants, such as 

ethane. However, upon evaluating the 

availability of substitutes for IPR 

equipment operating at very low 

temperatures, EPA is not restricting the 

use of HFCs and HFC blends in new IPR 

equipment with refrigerant entering the 

evaporator or chillers for IPR with 

exiting fluid temperatures lower than 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F) in this final rule. Given 

that this equipment is not covered in 

this final rule, EPA declines to 

implement an individual variance 

process as requested by the commenter. 

Note that EPA may choose to set 

restrictions in the future as the 

availability of lower-GWP substitutes 

continues to grow. 

Concerning one commenter’s request 

for either an exception or a longer 

period to comply for refrigerated 

laboratory equipment, to the extent that 

equipment used in the laboratory has 

exiting fluid temperatures of ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) or lower, EPA notes that this 

equipment will also not be restricted 

from using HFCs or HFC blends under 

this final rule. Refrigerated laboratory 

equipment operating at temperatures at 

or above ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and less than 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) is considered part of 

IPR, and will have three years longer 

than proposed, until 2028, for new 

equipment to transition to substitute 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73147 

refrigerants. Laboratory refrigerated 

equipment that operates at temperatures 

higher than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), also part 

of IPR, is similar to retail food 

refrigerators and freezers with 

alternatives that are already available 

(e.g., R–290), and under this final rule, 

they will have one year longer than 

proposed, until 2026. 

b. Data Center, Information Technology 

Equipment Facility, and Computer 

Room Cooling Equipment 

In the proposed rule, EPA indicated 

that appliances used to cool data centers 

and data servers were considered part of 

the IPR subsector. After review of the 

comments and relevant industry 

standards in consideration of the 

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

EPA is creating a new subsector for data 

center, ITEF, and computer room 

cooling equipment, subject to a 700 

GWP limit beginning January 1, 2027. 

Such cooling equipment is designed 

specifically for large-scale cooling or AC 

of information technology (IT). 

Examples include server farms, ITEFs, 

computer rooms, data centers, data 

servers, communication rooms, and 

other spaces dedicated to maintaining 

the operating temperature of electronic 

technologies. Equipment typically has 

large refrigerant charge capacities to 

satisfy the significant cooling demands 

of the heat-generating equipment. 

Historically, cooling equipment within 

this subsector has commonly used 

HCFC–22, moving to R–410A and to a 

lesser extent R–407C after the 2010 ban 

on production of HCFC–22 for new 

equipment. Historically, some facilities 

may have been cooled by chillers using 

CFC–12, particularly if the facilities date 

back to before the 1994 CFC production 

and consumption phaseout, or they may 

use HFC–134a; nonetheless, with the 

establishment of this subsector under 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act, EPA 

considers such equipment to be within 

its own subsector rather than the 

chillers subsector, both subject to a 700 

GWP limit. As communications and 

information technology has developed 

over the past few decades, the heat 

produced and the cooling demand has 

increased significantly, complicating 

designs in consideration of the weight 

and location of the cooling equipment 

and how these issues might impact 

structural requirements of the facility. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that equipment used to cool 

data centers, computer rooms, server 

farms, and ITEFs, including chillers for 

this market, should not be included 

within the IPR subsector, and should 

instead either be classified as its own 

subsector or included under the 

residential and light commercial AC 

subsector. Several commenters 

described the system design and 

refrigerant selection of data center and 

IT equipment cooling as closer to those 

for building AC applications than those 

for IPR, including indirect cooling 

through AC by chillers or direct 

expansion (DX) systems. Commenters 

noted that such equipment indirectly 

cools through AC equipment rather than 

through refrigeration as in IPR, and that 

new technologies such as dielectric 

fluids for direct contact systems and full 

immersion chip heat exchangers are also 

being used. Additionally, some of these 

commenters noted that data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment has higher heat loads than 

traditional AC equipment, and although 

it may be more similar to equipment in 

the residential and light commercial AC 

subsector than to that in the IPR 

subsector, considerably larger 

refrigerant charges (per square foot of 

the building being cooled) differentiate 

this equipment from that in those two 

subsectors. 

Commenters also highlighted that 

data center, ITEF, and computer room 

cooling equipment falls within the 

scope of the UL Standard 20335–2–40, 

4th edition, which covers electrical heat 

pumps, air conditioners, and 

dehumidifiers, and not UL 60335–2–89, 

which covers commercial refrigeration 

equipment used in IPR. Commenters 

therefore recommended that EPA 

consider data centers, ITEF, and 

computer room cooling equipment to be 

a separate subsector, similar to how 

DOE classifies this type of cooling 

equipment under their energy 

conservation standards. Further, 

commenters asserted that data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment are subject to unique 

operating conditions and important 

safety considerations not shared by 

other subsectors, such as year-round 

cooling and non-stop, continuous 

cooling operation and technical designs 

that maintain temperatures in a wide 

range of weather conditions, in addition 

to reliability mandated by the critical 

nature of the equipment. 

Commenters also noted that EPA’s 

original SNAP rulemaking and 

Applicability Determination Index 

document for control number C960015 

do not include IT cooling equipment 

within the definition of IPR (59 FR 

13037, March 18, 1994). Other 

commenters noted that CARB defined 

this type of cooling equipment under 

‘‘Air Conditioning Equipment.’’ 

Response: EPA agrees with 

commenters that the cooling needs for 

data centers, ITEFs, and computer 

rooms are sufficiently different from 

those of industrial processes to merit a 

separate subsector. As commenters 

noted, equipment for this purpose has 

been granted its own annex in the 4th 

edition of UL 60335–2–40, ‘‘Household 

and Similar Electrical Appliances— 

Safety—Part 2–40: Particular 

Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, 

Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers,’’ 

and is in the process of being added to 

ASHRAE 15–2022, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Refrigeration Systems.’’ EPA proposed 

to include data centers and server farm 

cooling equipment within the IPR 

subsector. Based on a review of the 

comments, including information on 

how the availability of substitutes for 

data centers, ITEF, and computer rooms 

can be affected by the safety standards 

covering the equipment, EPA has 

decided to consider data center, ITEF, 

and computer room cooling equipment 

as a separate subsector, independent of 

the IPR subsector, for the purposes of 

establishing GWP restrictions for this 

equipment. 

Additionally, rather than including 

data center, ITEF, and computer room 

cooling equipment in the residential 

and light commercial AC subsector, also 

covered by the UL 60335–2–40 safety 

standard, EPA agrees with most 

commenters that the significantly larger 

charge sizes and delays in being 

addressed by safety standards warrant 

independent evaluation of the 

availability of substitutes for this 

subsector. 

EPA recognizes how defining 

categories of equipment consistently 

with other regulatory authorities can 

minimize confusion for stakeholders. 

However, while CARB considers IT 

cooling equipment to be part of 

residential and light commercial AC and 

SNAP considers this equipment to be 

part of IPR, in this rulemaking EPA is 

establishing a separate subsector to 

enable EPA to evaluate the availability 

of substitutes for use in data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment together, independently of 

other similar equipment types. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing a separate 

subsector to better consider the (i)(4) 

factors, and particularly the availability 

of substitutes under (i)(4)(B) when 

setting restrictions on the use of HFC 

and HFC blends in new data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for data center, ITEF, 

and computer room cooling equipment? 

EPA is prohibiting the installation of 

new data center, ITEF, and computer 

room cooling equipment that uses HFCs 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73148 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and HFC blends with GWPs of 700 and 

above beginning January 1, 2027. EPA 

proposed to consider equipment in this 

subsector to fall within IPR, with a 150 

GWP limit for equipment with charge 

capacities greater than or equal to 200 

lb and a 300 GWP limit for equipment 

with charge capacities less than 200 lb 

and for the high temperature side of 

cascade systems, effective January 1, 

2025. However, after review of the 

comments received and consideration of 

the subsection (i)(4) factors of the AIM 

Act, EPA is finalizing a separate 

subsector for data center, ITEF, and 

computer room cooling equipment to 

allow evaluation of the availability of 

substitutes in consideration of the 

significantly different technical 

specifications of equipment designed for 

this purpose. 

In considering the availability of 

substitutes for data center, ITEF, and 

computer room cooling equipment 

under subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA 

identified several substitutes that could 

replace the higher-GWP substances, 

such as R–410A, that will be restricted 

under this rule. Finalizing a GWP limit 

of 700 allows the use of available 

substitutes that meet the technical 

requirements for this subsector, notably 

the high heat loads generated in the area 

in which the computer equipment is 

installed. These available substitutes 

include HFO–1234ze(E) and R–513A, 

for which equipment has recently been 

introduced, as well as refrigerants being 

developed and implemented in other 

AC subsectors, such as HFC–32 (GWP 

675) and R–454B (GWP 465). As the 

technology develops, other available 

refrigerants with even lower GWPs may 

prove practicable for this subsector, 

including nonflammable refrigerants R– 

744 (GWP 1), R–471A (GWP 144), R– 

480A (GWP 291), and R–482A (GWP 

144), or additional A2L refrigerants such 

as R–454A (GWP 237), R–454C (GWP 

146), and R–457A (GWP 137). 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments requesting a 700 GWP limit 

for data center, ITEF, and computer 

room cooling equipment. Given the 

technological similarities to residential 

AC equipment and chillers, commenters 

explained that this type of equipment 

therefore also requires additional 

substitutes above 150 to 300 GWP to 

meet its cooling needs. One such 

commenter pointed to refrigerants 

historically used in data center, ITEF, 

and computer room cooling equipment 

as also used in commercial AC, such as 

the high-pressure refrigerant R–410A 

and to a lesser extent, R–407C. Thus, 

this commenter requested the continued 

use of high-pressure substitutes 

identified for commercial AC 

equipment, R–454B and HFC–32, with 

GWPs up to 675. Another commenter 

noted how IT cooling equipment is 

subject to requirements under UL 

60335–2–40, showing its congruence to 

other subsectors within this standard’s 

scope, while another highlighted an 

insufficient number of suitable 

components, specifically compressors, 

currently available for use by the 

industry with refrigerants below the 

proposed 150 or 300 GWP limit. 

Additionally, a commenter asserted that 

the high-pressure operating conditions 

of IT cooling equipment relative to 

residential and commercial AC 

equipment further limit the number of 

suitable refrigerants for this subsector, 

and that the proposed 150 or 300 GWP 

limit would impose excessive economic 

costs without appreciable 

environmental gains. 

Response: As noted in the discussion 

above, EPA agrees that data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment is sufficiently different from 

other IPR applications to warrant 

creating a distinct subsector, separate 

from IPR. While EPA identified 

alternatives in the proposed rule below 

the proposed threshold, EPA 

understands from the commenters that 

the operating conditions for this 

subsector suggest a higher GWP limit is 

appropriate. Therefore, EPA is finalizing 

a 700 GWP limit for data center, ITEF, 

and computer room cooling equipment. 

In establishing a distinct subsector for 

this equipment, EPA evaluated the 

refrigerant options available for use, in 

consideration of the factors under 

subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act, in IT 

cooling equipment independently of 

IPR. The Agency is establishing a 700 

GWP limit rather than the proposed 

GWP restrictions on use of HFCs and 

HFC blends for IPR of 150 or 300 GWP 

based on a review of the comments and 

reconsideration of the (i)(4) factors, 

including a review of the relevant safety 

standards and technological challenges 

for this new subsector. EPA determined 

that there would be an insufficient 

number of available substitutes for these 

particular uses under the proposed 

restrictions. 

Moreover, the type of equipment used 

in this new subsector is generally 

similar to equipment for residential and 

light commercial AC and chillers for 

comfort cooling, which are all covered 

by the safety standard UL 60335–2–40. 

EPA proposed, and is now finalizing, 

GWP limits of 700 for residential and 

light commercial AC and chillers for 

both comfort cooling and IPR in this 

rule. Analogous technical challenges 

remain for equipment in the data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment subsector transitioning to 

substitutes with GWPs lower than 700. 

EPA notes that challenges associated 

with compressors and other 

components, requiring continued use of 

higher-pressure refrigerant options, such 

as HFC–32 and R–454B, also apply to 

equipment in this subsector. For further 

discussion on EPA’s decision to set a 

700 GWP limit for chillers for comfort 

cooling and IPR and for residential and 

light commercial AC, see sections 

VI.F.1.j and VI.F.1.k. 

As noted by commenters, data center, 

ITEF, and computer room cooling 

equipment faces even greater obstacles 

than those for smaller equipment within 

the scope of UL 60335–2–40. Refrigerant 

capacities necessary to cool high-heat 

load equipment and spaces are 

significantly greater than those typical 

of residential and light commercial AC 

equipment, highlighting the need for a 

700 GWP limit for this type of 

equipment. The challenges of using 

flammable refrigerants to cool sensitive 

data and information systems 24/7 in 

facilities, requiring 100 percent 

reliability compared to other types of 

AC equipment, were also stressed by 

commenters in their request for EPA to 

consider IT cooling equipment 

separately from IPR. Commenters who 

requested a separate subsector 

unanimously agreed that setting GWP 

restrictions at the same level as 

residential and light commercial AC and 

chillers for IPR would offer a sufficient 

number of available substitutes, 

provided there is adequate time to 

transition. Therefore, EPA is 

establishing the same GWP restrictions 

for the manufacture and installation of 

new equipment in this subsector as in 

other analogous AC subsectors. The 

Agency has identified many refrigerant 

substitutes that are likely to meet the 

requirements of this subsector that are 

below this GWP limit, including HFC– 

32, R–454B, and R–513A, with the 

possibility to also use R–450A, R–452B, 

R–454A, R–454C, and R–457A, 

considering the additional time 

provided for the reasons discussed in 

the response to comments below. The 

list of available substitutes includes the 

nonflammable options R–450A and R– 

513A, which may be used where 

flammable refrigerants remain 

prohibited for safety reasons or are not 

technologically achievable. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments regarding the proposed 

January 1, 2025, compliance date for IPR 

as it would apply to data center, ITEF, 

and computer room cooling equipment. 

Many commenters requested additional 

time to comply with GWP restrictions, 

in addition to higher limits. Several 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73149 

90 4th edition of UL Standard 60335–2–40. 

91https://sustainability.fb.com/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/02/Public-Water-Reporting_

Expanding-the-Operating-Envelope.pdf. 

92By ‘‘supermarket systems,’’ EPA means systems 

that operate with racks of compressors installed in 

a machinery room where different compressors turn 

on to match the refrigeration load necessary to 

maintain temperatures using direct or indirect (e.g., 

cascade) systems. These systems are described 

further in the section of the rule pertaining 

specifically to retail food refrigeration— 

supermarket systems, section VI.F.1.c.iv. Grocery 

stores, warehouse stores, convenience stores, 

supermarkets, and bodegas may not use a 

‘‘supermarket system’’ as described in this rule and 

instead may be using stand-alone units and/or 

remote condensing units. The presence of a 

refrigeration system in a supermarket does not on 

its own mean that it falls within the retail food 

refrigeration—supermarket subsector. 

commenters requested a January 1, 

2029, compliance date, while one 

requested the compliance date be no 

earlier than January 1, 2027, or later 

than January 1, 2029, and another 

generally stated IT cooling equipment 

may need additional time beyond 2026. 

Two commenters expressed support for 

the proposed date, provided EPA 

finalized a GWP limit of 700. 

Commenters requested compliance 

dates two years or more later than those 

proposed. These commenters noted a 

variety of reasons for this request, 

including time needed for IT equipment 

cooling design, prototyping, and testing; 

accommodation for 20-month lead-times 

for component manufacturing; and time 

to train designers and regulators on new 

provisions in codes and safety 

standards. Other commenters noted that 

the UL standard allowing for the use of 

lower-GWP A2L refrigerants in data 

centers, ITEF, and computer room 

cooling equipment was updated 

relatively recently in December 2022.90

These commenters highlighted that 

SNAP has yet to adopt the most recent 

edition of UL 60335–2–40, and 

requested additional time for SNAP to 

incorporate the updates included in the 

4th edition. A commenter also asked for 

additional time to allow further safety 

standard development, such as 

finalizing Addendum ‘‘t’’ to ASHRAE 

15–2022, which would address IT 

cooling equipment, specifically. 

Certain commenters stated that 

building codes currently prohibit use of 

flammable lower-GWP substitutes in 

this subsector. Commenters also noted 

that building codes are updated on a 

fixed development cycle and that 

adopting A2L refrigerants into these 

codes may take many years. 

Response: EPA has identified 

available substitutes that meet the 

restrictions for this subsector, given the 

similarity of the equipment to 

equipment in the residential and light 

commercial AC subsector and chillers 

for comfort cooling and the identical 

GWP limits. However, EPA is finalizing 

a January 1, 2027, compliance date for 

data center, ITEF, and computer room 

cooling equipment, providing additional 

time consistent with a review of the 

subfactors in subsection (i)(4)(B). In 

particular, the updates to safety 

standard UL 60335–2–40, allowing 

sufficiently large charge sizes of A2L 

refrigerants to be used in this 

equipment, were only published in 

December 2022. Thus, the regulatory 

evaluations under SNAP, equipment 

redesign and testing, and updates to 

building codes that typically follow 

updates to UL safety standards are all in 

somewhat early stages. The additional 

time for compliance provided by this 

final rulemaking will enable updates to 

the UL standard, and future 

harmonizing updates to ASHRAE 15– 

2022, to be incorporated in these areas, 

increasing the number of available 

substitutes for use in this subsector by 

January 1, 2027. See sections VI.E.2.c 

and VI.E.2.d for further discussion on 

how EPA considers these factors in its 

evaluation of substitutes. 

EPA is finalizing a date that the 

Agency has determined to be reasonable 

after reviewing the comments and 

applying the subsection (i)(4) factors to 

this new subsector. While some 

commenters asked for compliance dates 

beyond the January 1, 2027, date being 

finalized, the Agency does not agree that 

more time is reasonable. Design and 

testing of substitute refrigerants in 

equipment for this subsector is already 

underway, and a number of nonflammable refrigerants that meet the 

GWP restrictions for some equipment 

are already available (e.g., R–513A and 

R–744). Certain server farms are cooled 

exclusively with water through direct 

evaporative cooling.91 Commenters also 

noted that new technologies such as 

dielectric fluids for direct contact 

systems and full immersion chip heat 

exchangers are other possible cooling 

methods. 

Equipment used for the purposes of 

cooling IT equipment generally 

resembles traditional AC equipment, 

cooling either through indirect chillers 

or DX systems. The Agency understands 

that the high heat load of data centers, 

ITEF, and computer rooms can be very 

large compared to typical building 

cooling; however, by allowing 

continued use of certain high-pressure 

refrigerants, such as HFC–32 and R– 

454B, challenges associated with 

designing new equipment will be 

minimized. Further, building codes 

must also be updated for many other 

subsectors that are likely to transition at 

least partly to flammable refrigerants, 

such as retail food refrigeration, IPR, 

residential and light commercial AC, 

and chillers, among others, and such 

industries have indicated confidence 

that such updates can be completed by 

compliance dates finalized in this rule. 

The Agency has therefore determined 

that setting the compliance date for new 

manufactures and installations in this 

subsector beginning January 1, 2027, is 

reasonable for the reasons discussed 

above. 

c. Retail Food Refrigeration 

Retail food refrigeration is 

characterized by storing and displaying 

food and beverages, generally for sale, at 

different temperatures for different 

products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). 

The designs and refrigerating capacities 

of such equipment vary widely. Retail 

food refrigeration is composed of four 

main categories of equipment, and EPA 

is treating these categories as separate 

subsectors under the Technology 

Transitions program: stand-alone 

equipment in retail food refrigeration 

(hereafter, ‘‘stand-alone units’’); 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment; remote 

condensing units in retail food 

refrigeration (hereafter, ‘‘remote 

condensing units’’); and supermarket 

systems.92

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for new retail food 

refrigeration? 

EPA proposed a 150 GWP limit across 

retail food refrigeration, with exceptions 

for remote condensing units and 

supermarket systems with refrigerant 

charge capacities greater than or equal 

to 200 lb, and for the high temperature 

side of these subsectors’ cascade 

systems, where a 300 GWP limit would 

apply. After review of the comments, 

EPA is finalizing the GWP limits as 

proposed for retail food refrigeration in 

stand-alone units, remote condensing 

units, and supermarket systems. For 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment covered by 

edition 7 of UL Standard 621, Ice Cream 

Makers (UL 621) and for equipment 

with charge sizes greater than 500 g, 

EPA is not finalizing a GWP limit, but 

rather prohibiting the use of certain 

refrigerants. For refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

not covered by UL 621 and with charge 

sizes less than or equal to 500 g, EPA 

is finalizing the 150 GWP limit as 

proposed. 

EPA proposed a January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for all four categories 

of retail food refrigeration. After review 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73150 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

93Commenters noted that some refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment utilizes two 

refrigeration systems: one to process the food/drink 

and a separate one to cool a holding tank to 

maintain the food/drink at the required 

temperature. In those situations, each separate 

refrigeration system must comply with the 

applicable HFC restrictions. 

of the comments, EPA is finalizing a 

January 1, 2025, compliance date for 

stand-alone units, as proposed. For 

remote condensing units, EPA is 

finalizing a compliance date of January 

1, 2026. For supermarket systems, EPA 

is finalizing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2027. For refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment, 

EPA is finalizing different compliance 

dates depending on the specific 

equipment: January 1, 2028, for 

equipment within the scope of UL 621; 

January 1, 2026, for other refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment with charge sizes of 500 g or 

less; and January 1, 2027, for other 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment with charge sizes 

greater than 500 g.93 After review of the 

comments on the proposed rule and the 

availability of HFC and HFC-blend 

substitutes for these subsectors, and 

considering the subsection (i)(4) factors 

under the AIM Act, the Agency 

concludes that finalizing these 

restrictions on the use of regulated 

substances by the specified timeframes 

is appropriate. 

EPA received comments regarding the 

proposed restrictions and compliance 

dates applicable across the entire retail 

food refrigeration subsector, which are 

addressed in this section. EPA also 

received comments that addressed 

issues specific to certain subsectors 

within retail food refrigeration, and 

those are summarized and responded to 

separately, below. 

Comment: Many commenters 

addressed the proposed GWP limits for 

the entire retail food refrigeration 

subsector. Most commenters from 

industry generally supported the 

proposed GWP limits. One industry 

commenter requested increases to the 

proposed GWP limits to that of existing, 

readily available refrigerants such as R– 

513A (GWP 630) and R–449A (GWP 

1,396), citing lack of trained technicians 

to service and install new systems, 

unavailability of lower-GWP refrigerant 

options, safety concerns, and 

disproportionate economic burden on 

disadvantaged communities. The 

commenter noted that the refrigerants 

EPA identified with GWPs less than 150 

for this subsector, such as R–454C, R– 

471A, and R–455A, have not been 

SNAP-approved for use in a retail 

environment. The commenter pointed 

out that the flammability of these 

substitutes poses significant health and 

safety concerns, and also stated that the 

toxicity concerns of substitutes like R– 

717 prevents their widespread adoption 

across the subsector. Further, the 

commenter asserted that R–744 is not a 

viable option for retail food refrigeration 

in many cases due to efficiency 

concerns, leak detection challenges, 

costs, and other technological 

constraints associated with a highpressure refrigerant. 

Several environmental groups urged 

EPA to lower the proposed GWP limits 

in the retail food refrigeration subsector. 

One organization recommended that 

EPA adopt a 150 GWP limit across retail 

food refrigeration, regardless of charge 

size, citing adequate availability of 

existing refrigerant options. As 

discussed in section VI.F.1.c.i, they 

asserted that the 300 GWP limit for 

certain charge sizes and systems was 

unnecessarily high and overly 

complicated, could provide potential for 

a regulatory loophole, and could stifle 

innovation of very low-GWP 

refrigerants. 

Response: EPA has considered 

comments requesting uniform 

restrictions across retail food 

refrigeration—those seeking both 

increased and decreased stringency 

from EPA’s proposed limits—and has 

determined that uniform restrictions 

and compliance timeframes are not 

appropriate, given the differences in 

availability of substitutes for use in 

these subsectors. EPA proposed GWP 

limits for retail food refrigeration based 

on the availability of substitutes specific 

to each subsector. For these four 

subsectors, EPA considered all 

subsection (i)(4)(B) factors to the extent 

practicable, including carefully 

evaluating the circumstances associated 

with technological achievability of 

substitutes given the varying equipment 

types, location of the equipment, 

servicing challenges, and technological 

specifications and constraints. Selecting 

a single GWP limit for all retail food 

refrigeration oversimplifies the 

technologies and substitutes available 

for use in this subsector. Therefore, the 

Agency discusses available HFC and 

HFC-blend substitutes in the following 

sections to describe the appropriateness 

of the finalized GWP limits in the 

context of each subsector. 

EPA does not agree with commenters 

seeking a higher GWP limit for all retail 

food refrigeration subsectors. As 

discussed in the List of Substitutes TSD 

and in the sections that follow, EPA has 

considered, to the extent practicable, the 

subsection (i)(4)(B) factors and 

identified lower-GWP refrigerant 

substitutes that are available for use to 

meet the Agency’s GWP limit. To the 

extent that the availability of some 

substitutes is currently constrained for 

certain uses within the retail food 

refrigeration subsectors, such as R–454C 

and R–455A, as noted by one 

commenter, EPA has considered those 

constraints and is providing additional 

time for compliance for some of the 

subsectors and uses. Since issuing the 

proposed rule, EPA has listed R–471A 

as acceptable for use in these subsectors. 

EPA does not agree that the concerns 

raised by a commenter—potential lack 

of trained technicians, unavailability of 

lower-GWP refrigerant options, and 

safety concerns—warrant establishing a 

uniformly higher GWP limit for the four 

retail food refrigeration subsectors. The 

Agency has analyzed these concerns 

specific to the systems and equipment 

in each subsector within retail food 

refrigeration and adjusted the 

restrictions and compliance timeframes 

as appropriate. For example, the 

concerns raised by a commenter about 

R–744 and R–717 use in retail food 

refrigeration are relevant to certain 

subsectors where these options have 

been identified as substitutes, such as in 

supermarket systems, but not 

necessarily others. Such considerations 

are discussed in the context of the 

relevant subsectors rather than in this 

section, which applies generally to all of 

retail food refrigeration. 

EPA also does not agree that it would 

be appropriate to establish uniform 

GWP limits across the retail food 

refrigeration subsector, regardless of the 

charge size of equipment. For further 

discussion on EPA’s decision to finalize 

GWP restrictions based on a 200 lb 

refrigerant charge capacity threshold for 

certain subsectors, see section VI.F.1.a. 

With respect to those commenters 

seeking GWP limits below 150, the 

Agency acknowledges that some 

refrigerants identified as available for 

use, such as R–744 and R–717, meet that 

threshold, but EPA does not agree that 

it is appropriate to adopt restrictions 

based only on the lowest GWP 

substitutes. Doing so would 

inappropriately limit the overall 

availability of substitutes for that 

subsector (see section VI.E.5). Setting 

restrictions at least at 150 GWP for the 

subsectors in retail food refrigeration 

ensures that multiple available 

substitutes may be used, which eases 

constraints on commercial demands, 

costs, and training needs specific to 

certain substitutes. Allowing a variety of 

substitutes acknowledges the fact that 

not every substitute can be used for 

every application within a subsector 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73151 

and ensures a smooth transition from 

higher-GWP HFCs. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments supportive of the proposed 

GWP limits that requested additional 

time to comply. Some commenters 

requested a January 1, 2026, compliance 

date, noting several concerns affecting 

the subsector’s ability to meet the 

January 1, 2025, date. Other commenters 

requested a much longer timeframe for 

compliance for the retail food 

refrigeration subsector, including 

compliance dates that would not 

become effective until January 1, 2032. 

A couple of commenters who 

requested additional time for 

compliance noted the delayed updates 

to UL Standard 60335–2–89 in the 2nd 

edition, published in October 2021, 

relative to publication dates of similar 

updates to other industry standards 

(e.g., UL 60335–2–40 and ASHRAE 15). 

They highlighted how it takes time for 

updates in safety standards to be 

adopted and implemented. After a 

safety standard is updated, it must be 

reflected in equipment testing and 

certification, manufacturing facility 

updates, building codes, and be adopted 

where appropriate under SNAP. The 

commenter stated that the updated UL 

Standard 60335–2–89, which covers 

commercial refrigeration, has not yet 

been fully incorporated and addressed 

in these ways. Commenters stated that 

the retail food refrigeration subsector 

has fewer available substitutes than 

other subsectors (such as residential AC 

and heat pumps) where the updates to 

their applicable UL standards were 

published earlier. Therefore, these 

commenters asserted that additional 

time for compliance with the GWP 

limits for retail food refrigeration would 

allow for manufacturers to design and 

test equipment to comply with the 

updated UL standards and address other 

concerns, such as building code 

adoption, that could limit the ability to 

install and operate such equipment. The 

commenters assert that without this 

extra time, it would be unreasonable to 

consider certain refrigerant substitutes, 

particularly certain flammable 

substitutes, to be ‘‘available.’’ 

The need for more time to test new 

equipment and refrigerants was 

highlighted by a few commenters. Two 

commenters noted that providing 

further time for compliance would help 

NRTLs test and list equipment using 

new lower-GWP substitutes prior to the 

compliance date. Additional time was 

also requested to evaluate the safety and 

efficiency of systems using flammable 

refrigerants, which the commenter 

stated have yet to be evaluated by 

retailers for effectiveness. According to 

commenters, after such systems are 

evaluated, manufacturing facilities 

would need to be upgraded for the safe 

storage and handling of flammable 

refrigerants. One commenter highlighted 

how the retail food refrigeration 

subsector’s role in providing groceries 

and supplies to the public mandates 24/ 

7 reliability, and that some systems 

using low-GWP substitutes, such as R– 

744, are not yet reliable. This 

commenter stated that additional time 

would allow them to develop and test 

systems to ensure that they meet all of 

the sector’s reliability, performance, and 

safety requirements. 

Additionally, commenters noted that 

building codes in certain areas could 

impede the transition to substitute 

refrigerants because they currently do 

not allow for use of flammable 

refrigerants in new buildings. These 

commenters requested a delay in the 

compliance date to allow those 

jurisdictions to continue to update their 

codes to reflect the expanding list of 

safe, lower-GWP refrigerant options in 

response to updated safety standards. 

Finally, commenters highlighted that 

relevant SNAP listings for refrigerants in 

retail food refrigeration, in response to 

the updates to UL 60335–2–89, have yet 

to be finalized. Commenters cited 

additional SNAP listings for A2Ls and 

expanded charge sizes for R–290 in this 

subsector as necessary to comply with 

the proposed GWP limits, and that 

additional time would provide the 

opportunity for EPA to finalize 

pertinent SNAP listings before the 

compliance date. 

Response: EPA has considered these 

comments and agrees that additional 

time for compliance is appropriate in 

some instances. EPA does not agree that 

such additional time is required for 

every subsector in retail food 

refrigeration, and therefore addresses 

these concerns and requests for 

extensions in the subsector-specific 

sections that follow. This section 

discusses in general terms the extent to 

which EPA considered how the timing 

of UL standards’ publications impacts 

other factors that inform availability of 

substitutes for retail food refrigeration as 

part of the decision to provide a later 

compliance date. 

Most retail food refrigeration 

equipment falls under the scope of 

safety standard UL 60335–2–89. In 

October 2021, the 2nd edition of this 

standard was published, updating safety 

requirements so that flammable and 

lower flammability refrigerants could be 

deployed more widely in commercial 

refrigeration equipment. EPA recognizes 

the time it can take for an updated UL 

standard to be widely incorporated and 

for the updates to be applied across 

industry. Many other relevant changes 

affecting the availability of substitutes 

and facilitating transition to the use of 

those substitutes generally occur after 

the UL standard is updated, including 

evaluation of substitutes under the 

SNAP program, adoption of new 

editions into building codes, equipment 

testing and certification, safety updates 

to manufacturing facilities, and training 

of technicians. All of these are 

considerations for EPA’s assessment of 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B). Further discussion 

on how updates to UL 60335–2–89 

affect the availability of substitutes for 

equipment within the safety standard’s 

scope can be found in section VI.E.2. 

Typically, following updates to safety 

standards for retail food refrigeration, 

EPA evaluates substitutes through the 

SNAP program’s comparative risk 

framework, where the Agency considers 

safety by assessing exposure 

assessments, toxicity data, and 

flammability, among several regulatory 

criteria. EPA is currently evaluating 

many of the refrigerants impacted by the 

updates to UL 60335–2–89 and has 

proposed to list many refrigerants as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

under SNAP for use across retail food 

refrigeration (88 FR 33722, May 24, 

2023). Although those evaluations 

under SNAP are ongoing, the Agency 

anticipates that given the number of 

substitutes currently proposed as 

acceptable for use, users in the retail 

food refrigeration subsector will likely 

have an expanded set of available 

substitutes from which to choose in the 

coming years. EPA has considered its 

ongoing retail food refrigerant 

evaluations under SNAP on a subsectorspecific basis, and the adjusted 

compliance timeframes reflect these 

evaluations and their potential impact 

on the availability of substitutes for use 

in each individual subsector. Further 

discussion on the intersection of SNAP 

listing decisions and AIM Act 

subsection (i)(4) can be found in section 

VI.E.2. 

As noted by many commenters, 

building codes can limit refrigerants 

available for use based on their 

flammability, the charge size of the 

equipment, and other relevant safety 

factors, and take time to adopt changes 

to safety standards. These code updates 

are generally made in each specific 

jurisdiction, and the timeframe for 

adoption of new editions of safety 

standards can vary greatly. In certain 

jurisdictions, users may be unable to 

utilize certain flammable substitutes 

identified by EPA for use in retail food 

refrigeration, even if they are SNAPVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Oct 23, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24OCR2.SGM 24OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73152 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

approved, until building codes 

incorporate the updates in the 2nd 

edition of UL 60335–2–89. However, 

EPA may still consider a substitute to be 

available before every building code in 

every jurisdiction across the United 

States permits its use. See section 

VI.E.2.d for discussion on EPA’s 

consideration of building codes and the 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4). 

Further, EPA agrees with commenters 

that updates to UL standards must also 

be incorporated into equipment design, 

testing, and certifications. Even after 

manufacturers develop equipment using 

substitutes, NRTLs must certify that the 

new equipment meets UL safety 

standards. NRTL equipment 

certification requires substantial testing, 

site visits, and labor input before new 

equipment can be used. For a subsector 

as large as retail food refrigeration, 

NRTLs could struggle to complete 

certification of new equipment by the 

proposed January 1, 2025, compliance 

date for the subsector. 

EPA also anticipates that the use of 

lower-GWP refrigerant options like R– 

744, with very high pressure, or the use 

of flammable substitutes may require 

more specialized training. Such 

trainings are available and underway, 

but more trained technicians would 

benefit the commercial refrigeration 

industry in the transition to lower-GWP 

refrigerants. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

manufacturing facilities not currently 

using flammable refrigerants will need 

to incorporate safety updates before 

using flammable refrigerants on site. 

EPA acknowledges that these changes to 

manufacturing facilities could require 

financial and time investments; 

however, the use of flammable 

refrigerants has steadily increased over 

the last ten years, meaning some 

manufacturers have already made such 

upgrades. In the cases where these 

updates have yet to be made, EPA 

understands that they could delay when 

those facilities are able to factory-charge 

new substitutes into their appliances or 

pre-charged components. 

EPA has therefore determined, in 

consideration of the need for certain 

SNAP approvals, updates to building 

codes, equipment design, testing, and 

certifications, technician trainings, and 

manufacturing facility upgrades, that 

providing additional time to comply is 

reasonable for certain subsectors in 

retail food refrigeration. Considering 

these factors, noted by many 

commenters, the Agency is finalizing 

delayed compliance dates for certain 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment, remote 

condensing units, and supermarket 

systems. This additional time will 

provide an opportunity for additional 

SNAP listings to be finalized; 

jurisdictions to consider the latest 

edition of UL 60335–2–89 and 

incorporate the updated safety 

requirements into their building codes 

to enable the use of certain substitutes; 

further development, testing, and 

certification of equipment using new 

substitutes; a greater number of 

specialized trained technicians; and 

completion of remaining safety updates 

to facilities. 

EPA understands that the lagging 

effects of updating UL 60335–2–89 do 

not affect stand-alone units and certain 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

compliance date of January 1, 2025, for 

stand-alone units and certain 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment as proposed. 

Further discussion on EPA’s decision to 

finalize the compliance dates for these 

subsectors can be found in sections 

VI.F.1.c.i and VI.F.1.c.ii. 

i. Retail Food Refrigeration—StandAlone Units 

Stand-alone units are equipment 

where all refrigeration components are 

integrated and, for the smallest types, 

the refrigeration circuit is entirely 

brazed or welded. Stand-alone units are 

charged with refrigerant at the factory 

and typically require only an electricity 

supply to begin operation. Examples 

include refrigerators, freezers, and 

reach-in coolers (either open or with 

doors). EPA considers these to be 

products according to the definition of 

stand-alone units finalized in this 

rulemaking. 

Medium-temperature stand-alone 

units maintain a temperature above 

32 °F (0 °C). Most are typically designed 

to maintain food and beverages at 

temperatures roughly between 32 °F 

(0 °C) and 41 °F (5 °C). Low-temperature 

stand-alone units are designed to 

maintain food and beverages at 

temperatures roughly between ¥40 °F 

(¥40 °C) and 32 °F (0 °C) (i.e., freezers). 

Today, HFC–134a is the most commonly 

used refrigerant in stand-alone units, 

with R–404A also commonly used in 

low temperature applications and some 

high-capacity applications. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for new stand-alone 

units and why? 

EPA is prohibiting the manufacture 

and import of stand-alone units that use 

HFCs and HFC blends with a GWP of 

150 or greater beginning January 1, 

2025. This GWP limit applies to new 

stand-alone units, irrespective of 

compressor capacity or evaporator 

design. After review of the comments 

received, EPA is finalizing these 

restrictions as proposed. 

Comment: In addition to the general 

retail food refrigeration comments 

discussed in section VI.F.1.c, EPA 

received comments on the proposed 

GWP limits for stand-alone units, 

specifically. One commenter, a private 

citizen, expressed support for the 150 

GWP limit. Another commenter 

requested a 300 GWP limit for standalone units, claiming that refrigerants 

between 150 and 300 GWP offer 

increased energy efficiency benefits and 

require smaller charge sizes. In 

particular, the commenter advocated for 

a limit that accommodates the use of R– 

454A (GWP 237), which they asserted is 

the only substitute that can exceed the 

capacity of the refrigerant currently 

used by the commenter, R–404A, and 

the use of which would allow for a fast 

and simple transition. According to the 

commenter, the only other substitute 

identified by EPA with comparable 

volumetric capacity that would meet the 

150 GWP limit is R–455A (GWP 146), 

which the commenter claimed poses 

non-ideal glide conditions for 

equipment transitioning out of R–404A. 

The commenter stated that EPA was not 

permitted to rely on State HFC 

regulations to fulfill its statutory duty to 

evaluate substitutes under the AIM Act, 

that EPA was required to comply with 

AIM Act subsection (i)(5), and that there 

was no indication in the record that 

EPA had complied with the requirement 

in subsection (i)(4)(A) to consider best 

available data. 

Response: After review of the general 

retail food refrigeration comments and 

the comments specific to stand-alone 

units, EPA is finalizing the GWP limits 

for stand-alone units as proposed. The 

Agency agrees with the comment that a 

150 GWP limit is appropriate for this 

subsector. The Agency disagrees with 

the commenter requesting a 300 GWP 

limit for stand-alone units, given the 

availability of substitutes with GWPs 

below 150 for use in this subsector 

under subsection (i)(4). Further, EPA 

does not agree with the commenter’s 

assessment that the Agency has not 

relied on best available data in 

determining the availability of 

substitutes nor do we agree that EPA 

was obligated to evaluate substitutes 

under (i)(5) in carrying out a rulemaking 

(see section VI.E.1). 

The commenter asserts that EPA 

should revise its restriction for standalone units on the basis that its 

preferred substitute, R–454A, is the only 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73153 

94 In most cases, little or no reengineering will be 

required to use HFC/HFO blends in place of 

regulated substances. The largest amount of 

reengineering will be required for R–744, due to its 

higher pressure, and for the hydrocarbon refrigerant 

R–290, because of its higher flammability. However, 

industry is already in the process of adopting those 

refrigerants. For example, R–290 is already being 

used to replace R–404A in retail food stand-alone 

units like ice cream cabinets and plug-in display 

cases. (RTOC, 2022) 

95RTOC, 2022. TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 

2022) available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/ 

assessment/teap. 

96True Manufacturing, 2019, Hydrocarbon 

(Natural Refrigerant) Brochure. Available at: https:// 

www.truemfg.com/support/resource-center/ 

#panel2. 

97Carel, March 2020. Six Reasons to Use Propane 

as Refrigerant. Available at: https://www.carel.com/ 

blog/-/blogs/six-reasons-to-use-propane-asrefrigerant. 

98Mastrullo, Rita & Mauro, Alfonso & Menna, 

Laura & Vanoli, G.P. (2014). Replacement of R404A 

with propane in a light commercial vertical freezer: 

A parametric study of performances for different 

system architectures. Energy Conversion and 

Management. 82. 54–60. 10.1016/ 

j.enconman.2014.02.069. 

99See Commercial Demands and Technological 

Achievability TSD in the docket for a list of 

products in the affected sectors and subsectors 

using substitutes. 100See TEAP 2022 Assessment Report, section 5. 101California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 

Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. 

currently available substitute that ‘‘can 

exceed’’ the volumetric capacity of R– 

404A. But subsection (i)(4) does not 

require EPA to set restrictions in a way 

that would accommodate transition only 

when the substitutes under 

consideration outperform the regulated 

substances currently being used. While 

setting a limit at 300 would permit the 

use of more substitutes than the 

Agency’s limit of 150, and therefore 

potentially provide a ‘‘faster and 

simpler’’ transition for this subsector, 

that does not mean that the substitutes 

identified by the Agency for use in 

stand-alone units are not ‘‘available.’’ 

The commenter does not demonstrate 

that the substitutes EPA identified as 

currently available for use in standalone units cannot be used, for instance 

by adjusting or reengineering equipment 

models to overcome issues of 

volumetric capacity,94 or that EPA 

should not have considered any of its 

identified substitutes to be available per 

any of the subsection (i)(4)(B) factors. 

Further, as noted elsewhere, EPA has 

recently proposed to approve additional 

alternatives (e.g., R–454C, R–455A, R– 

457A, and R–516A) and increase the 

allowable charge size for existing 

alternatives (e.g., R–290), that may 

address the commenter’s concern (88 FR 

33722, May 24, 2023). Tests on HFC/ 

HFO blends such as R–454C, R–455A, 

and R–457A show a volumetric capacity 

either identical or varying in the range 

of ±5 percent, compared to HCFC–22, 

indicating that the blends should not 

create a significant change in volumetric 

capacity that would require 

reengineering.95 The Agency’s 

assessment is that a 150 GWP limit is 

appropriate for stand-alone units after 

considering the (i)(4) factors, to the 

extent practicable, and, particularly 

relevant to the commenter’s points, after 

evaluating under (i)(4)(B) the 

availability of substitutes for use in 

these units. We also note that EPA’s 

ongoing evaluation of additional 

substitutes under the SNAP program, 

including for use in stand-alone units, 

may facilitate the availability of more 

options for compliance by January 1, 

2025. EPA continues to encourage 

innovation of refrigerants that meet 

these restrictions and anticipates the 

number of substitutes available for use 

in stand-alone units will continue to 

grow. 

For new equipment, the Agency has 

identified R–744 (GWP 1), R–290 (GWP 

3.3), R–600a (GWP 1), R–441A (GWP 3), 

HFO–1234ze(E) (GWP 1), and HFO– 

1234yf (GWP 1) as available substitutes 

for the higher-GWP HFCs currently used 

in stand-alone units. In addition to their 

lower GWPs, some of these substitutes 

offer additional environmental and 

economic benefits via increased energy 

efficiency. Multiple sources, not peerreviewed, indicate that R–290 offers 

significant efficiency benefits as 

compared to traditional higher-GWP 

refrigerants used for commercial 

refrigeration, claiming reduced energy 

usage of 11 to 63 percent for R–290 

models compared to similar equipment 

using HFC–134a 96 and reduced energy 

consumption of approximately 30 

percent with R–290 compared to R– 

404A.97 A peer-reviewed study found 

that energy use in a stand-alone freezer 

unit can be reduced as much as 34 

percent, depending on operating 

conditions, when using R–290 instead 

of R–404A.98

Use of R–290, R–600a, and other 

lower-GWP refrigerants in stand-alone 

equipment has increased significantly in 

recent years, particularly since SNAP 

Rules 17, 19, and 21 listed various 

substitutes as acceptable and provided 

use conditions that enable these 

substitutes, including those that are 

flammable, to be used safely (76 FR 

78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, 

April 10, 2015; and 81 FR 86778, 

December 1, 2016). EPA is aware of 

several available low and medium 

temperature stand-alone unit models 

using substitutes such as R–290 and R– 

600a. Commercial demand exists for 

equipment types that use R–290, 

including reach-in refrigerators and 

freezers, beverage coolers, and food 

service equipment, as well as beverage 

coolers and vending machines that use 

R–744.99 These lower-GWP refrigerants 

have had significant use in other regions 

of the world.100 The increased 

prevalence of these substitutes in standalone equipment indicates their 

availability for use in this subsector, 

both in terms of technological 

achievability and commercial demand. 

Several States have legal restrictions 

on the use of high-GWP HFCs and HFC 

blends in stand-alone equipment.101

These restrictions became effective 

between 2020 and 2022. Stand-alone 

equipment using lower-GWP substitutes 

in compliance with State regulatory 

requirements are currently being sold in 

these markets, clearly indicating that 

these types of equipment can use 

substitutes that are available. The 

Agency does not agree with the 

commenter that EPA has relied on State 

prohibitions to fulfill its statutory duty 

under subsection (i). We have factored 

in, to the extent practicable, those 

factors in subsection (i)(4) in 

determining the use restrictions 

finalized in this action. The Agency 

discussed in the proposed rule and a 

TSD that the State regulations 

prohibiting the use of HFCs and 

requiring the use of substitutes is one 

source of information that is relevant to 

EPA’s assessment of the availability of 

substitutes in stand-alone units, 

particularly in terms of technological 

achievability. See the Availability of 

Substitutes TSD for further information 

on available HFC and HFC-blend 

substitutes for stand-alone units. 

In addition to the lower-GWP 

refrigerants already available, EPA 

continues to evaluate substitutes under 

the SNAP program and has authority to 

do so under subsection (i)(5) of the AIM 

Act as well. The Agency anticipates that 

this continuing evaluation of additional 

substitutes, including for use in standalone units, may help facilitate the 

availability of even more options for 

compliance by January 1, 2025. For 

example, under the SNAP program, EPA 

has proposed to list several additional 

refrigerants that would comply with the 

final restrictions as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, for use in stand-alone 

units: HFO–1234ze(E), HFO–1234yf, R– 

457A, R–516A, R–455A, and R–454C 

(with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, and 

146, respectively) (88 FR 33722, May 24, 

2023). Concerning the ability to meet 

appliance efficiency standards, one 

study found R–454C, R–455A, and R– 

457A reduced energy consumption by 

2.07 to 2.45 percent, 2.95 to 2.9 percent, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73154 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

102Ranges represent without a receiver to with a 

receiver. Llopis, Rodrigo, et al., International 

Journal of Refrigeration, June 2019. DOI: 10.1016/ 

j.ijrefrig.2019.06.013, available at: http://

www.energiazero.org/aermec/gas/Llopis_Low_

GWP_R404A_MT_final.pdf. 103See www.energystar.gov/productfinder. 

and 10.48 to 10.69 percent, respectively, 

compared to R–404A in a stand-alone 

unit.102 To the extent that a 

manufacturer chooses not to use a 

specific refrigerant because of glide, R– 

744, R–600a, R–290, HFO–1234ze(E), 

and HFO–1234yf are all single 

component refrigerants and therefore 

have no glide, and R–516A has been 

listed under ASHRAE Standard 34 as an 

azeotropic blend, with glide comparable 

to that of R–404A. The Agency therefore 

does not agree with the commenter 

urging EPA to establish GWP limits for 

stand-alone units that are less stringent 

than the limit proposed, given that the 

best available data indicate an existing 

array of available substitutes. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

requesting an extension of the proposed 

January 1, 2025, compliance date for 

stand-alone units. One commenter 

noted that HFC/HFO-blends often have 

significantly lower GWPs than HFConly refrigerants, and that SNAP has 

listed many HFC blends as acceptable 

for stand-alone units, implying 

relatively minimal environmental 

impact of their continued use. They 

agreed that although many 

manufacturers of stand-alone units have 

already transitioned to R–290 (GWP 

3.3), others chose non-flammable SNAPapproved refrigerants that would not 

meet the new 150 GWP limit. According 

to the commenter, additional time is 

needed for these manufacturers, whose 

products include ENERGY STAR 

certified units with non-flammable 

HFC/HFO blends, to transition to lowerGWP options. Another commenter 

pointed to the recent updates to UL 

60335–2–89 allowing for increased 

charge sizes up to 500 g for A3 

refrigerants in stand-alone units. The 

commenter concluded that increased 

charge sizes are necessary to move to 

substitutes with GWPs less than 150 and 

that if SNAP does not address larger 

charge sizes for flammable refrigerants 

in the next several months, then the 

compliance date should be delayed 

until January 1, 2026. 

A third commenter cited the need for 

an additional year for research and 

development to manufacture new 

equipment that will meet DOE energy 

efficiency requirements, for 

coordinating with compressor and other 

component manufacturers, and for 

NRTLs to work through a ‘‘backlog’’ of 

testing that will result from the 

transition. They also noted that building 

codes still need to be updated to allow 

for use of flammable refrigerants and 

that manufacturing facilities need time 

for redesigns to safely handle them. 

Response: After review of the general 

retail food refrigeration comments and 

the comments specific to stand-alone 

units regarding the proposed January 1, 

2025, compliance date, EPA is finalizing 

the compliance date as proposed. HFC 

and HFC blends already identified by 

the Agency as available substitutes can 

support the final GWP limits for new 

stand-alone units. In addition, this rule 

would not prevent a manufacturer from 

seeking and receiving ENERGY STAR 

certification for units using refrigerants 

with a GWP less than 150. Numerous 

models using the lower-GWP 

refrigerants R–290 or R–600a, for 

example, are already listed under the 

ENERGY STAR Product Finder,103 as 

well as those using the higher-GWP, 

non-flammable HFC/HFO blends 

mentioned by the commenter. 

As discussed above, EPA has taken 

into account the delayed publication of 

updates to UL standard 60335–2–89 and 

the subsequent incorporation of those 

updates by electing to extend the 

compliance dates for many subsectors in 

retail food refrigeration. However, the 

Agency does not agree that for standalone units, a delay in the January 1, 

2025, compliance date is appropriate. In 

general, charge sizes for stand-alone 

units are relatively small, and standalone units containing A3 refrigerants 

have been in use for several years. The 

transition to lower-GWP substitutes is 

further along than in other subsectors 

within retail food refrigeration. 

Therefore, challenges associated with 

the need to update building codes; 

evaluate substitutes under SNAP; 

research, develop, test, and certify 

equipment; update manufacturing 

facilities; and ensure an adequate 

supply of trained technicians are less 

present for smaller charge refrigeration 

equipment. For other retail food 

subsectors with complications that 

could contribute to delays in their 

transition, EPA is providing additional 

time to comply for the reasons 

discussed in the section above. 

ii. Retail Food Refrigeration— 

Refrigerated Food Processing and 

Dispensing Equipment 

Refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment is designed to 

make or process and subsequently 

dispense cold food and beverages, 

including equipment that functions as a 

holding tank to deliver the food or 

beverage at the desired temperature or 

to deliver chilled ingredients for their 

processing, mixing, and preparation. 

This equipment can be self-contained or 

can be connected via refrigerant piping 

to a dedicated condensing unit located 

elsewhere. Some may use a refrigerant 

in a heat pump or utilize waste heat 

from the unit to provide hot beverages. 

Some may also provide heating 

functions to melt or dislodge ice or for 

sanitation purposes. Examples include 

equipment used to make and dispense 

chilled and frozen beverages; frozen 

custards, gelato, ice cream, Italian ice, 

sorbets and yogurts; milkshakes, 

‘‘slushies’’ and smoothies; and whipped 

cream. 

Refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment historically used 

CFC–12 and HCFC–22 and has more 

recently adopted HFC–134a and R– 

404A in medium and low temperature 

applications, respectively. Both HFC– 

134a and R–404A are potent GHGs with 

GWPs of 1,430 and 3,922, respectively. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for new refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment and why? 

For new refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing equipment, EPA 

proposed a 150 GWP limit restriction 

that would take effect starting January 1, 

2025. EPA received comments, 

summarized and responded to below, 

that pointed out that much of the 

equipment in the refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing subsector is 

covered by a different UL standard (UL 

621) that has not yet been revised to 

enable the effective use of flammable 

refrigerants for certain charge sizes. EPA 

has therefore modified the proposed 

restrictions in this final action by 

establishing different restrictions and 

compliance dates where availability of 

substitutes is constrained by these 

factors. 

Specifically, in new stand-alone 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment that is outside 

the scope of UL 621 and has a 

refrigerant charge size less than or equal 

to 500 g, EPA is setting a GWP limit of 

150 GWP, as proposed, but beginning 

two years later than proposed, on 

January 1, 2027. For new refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment with a charge size greater 

than 500 g, within the scope of UL 621, 

and for systems that use remote 

condensing units, EPA is not finalizing 

a GWP limit restriction as proposed, but 

is instead prohibiting the use of the 

following HFCs or HFC blends, which 

have GWPs as high or higher than HFC– 

134a: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, R– 

407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73155 

104RB–276 is also known as Free Zone and HCFC 

Blend Delta. 

105See the TSD on building codes in the docket 

for additional information on building codes and 

list of substitutes. 

407H, R–408A, R–410A, R–410B, R– 

411A, R–411B, R–417A, R–417C, R– 

420A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

426A, R–427A, R–428A, R–434A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, HFC–134a, 

HFC–227ea, R–125/290/134a/600a (55/ 

1/42.5/1.5), RB–276,104 RS–24 (2002 

formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), 

GHG–X5, or Freeze 12 (within this 

section, EPA refers to this list as the 

‘‘prohibited refrigerants’’). New selfcontained refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing equipment with charge 

sizes greater than 500 g outside the 

scope of UL 621 and systems that use 

remote condensing units must comply 

with the prohibitions beginning January 

1, 2027. New stand-alone equipment 

within the scope of UL 621 must 

comply with the prohibitions beginning 

January 1, 2028. 

Comment: In addition to the general 

retail food refrigeration comments, EPA 

received a comment from a private 

citizen in support of the proposed 150 

GWP limit for refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment, 

specifically. Another commenter 

approved of the 150 GWP limit, but only 

for equipment that is self-contained and 

with charge sizes less than or equal to 

500 g. Commenters also requested 

greater GWP limits than proposed for 

this subsector. One commenter 

requested a 3,920 GWP limit to apply to 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment, while another 

requested a 1,450 GWP limit for remote 

condensing units and equipment with 

charge sizes greater than 500 g. This 

commenter discussed the applicability 

of certain safety standards (e.g., UL 621 

versus UL 60335–2–89) to various 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment and noted that 

flammable refrigerants are not yet 

permitted in equipment within the 

scope of UL 621 with charges greater 

than 150 g, greatly limiting the number 

of available substitutes. Additionally, 

EPA received comments requesting an 

exception for refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

within the scope of UL 621. 

Response: After review of the general 

retail food refrigeration comments and 

the comments specific to refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment regarding the proposed 150 

GWP limit, EPA is finalizing the GWP 

limit as proposed for stand-alone 

equipment outside the scope of UL 621 

with charge sizes less than or equal to 

500 g. EPA agrees with the commenters 

who expressed their support of the 

proposed GWP limit for this type of 

equipment, and understands the 

available HFC and HFC-blend 

substitutes to be sufficient to replace 

refrigerants with GWPs greater than 150 

for this type of equipment. EPA initially 

identified substitutes such as R–744 and 

R–717 as available for use in this 

subsector for its consideration of 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B) for the HFCs and 

HFC blends that EPA is restricting. EPA 

acknowledges that in some situations, 

particularly in public areas, R–717 may 

not be allowed by building codes or may 

be limited in the charge size allowed. R– 

744 technology continues to advance, 

allowing for improved appliance energy 

efficiency in climates found in most of 

the United States. Additionally, 

companies expressed interest in using 

other lower-GWP substitutes for this 

subsector, with one commenter 

indicating they are already using 

refrigerants like R–290 (GWP 3.3) in 

some of their equipment. Proposed 

SNAP Rule 26 listings for refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment, enabled by updates to UL 

60335–2–89 and other safety standards, 

will likely provide further refrigerant 

options for such types of stand-alone 

equipment outside the scope of UL 621 

and with charge sizes less than or equal 

to 500 g, once finalized. EPA has 

proposed to list HFO–1234ze(E), HFO– 

1234yf, R–290, R–457A, R–516A, R– 

455A, R–454C, R–454A (with GWPs of 

1, 1, 3.3, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 237, 

respectively) as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, under SNAP for use in 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment (88 FR 33722, 

May 24, 2023). All but one of these 

substances meet the GWP limit of 150 

for this type of equipment in this 

subsector, further easing the transition 

to lower-GWP refrigerants. EPA 

continues to encourage innovation of 

refrigerants that meet these restrictions 

and anticipates the number of 

substitutes available for use in 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment will continue to 

grow. 

The Agency therefore disagrees with 

commenters requesting a higher GWP 

limit or an exemption uniformly across 

all types of refrigerated food processing 

equipment, given the identified 

available substitutes below 150 GWP for 

this type of equipment. EPA is aware of 

actions being taken in various States 

and local jurisdictions that have or will 

amend building codes that will increase 

the availability of substitutes by 

permitting additional substitutes, 

including certain flammable substitutes, 

with GWPs below the proposed GWP 

limit.105 See section VI.E.2.d for further 

discussion on EPA’s consideration of 

building codes in identifying available 

substitutes under subsection (i)(4) of the 

AIM Act. 

For self-contained products within 

the scope of UL 621, for self-contained 

products with charge sizes greater than 

500 g, and for refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing systems 

using remote condensers, EPA is not 

finalizing a GWP limit as proposed, and 

is instead prohibiting certain listed 

refrigerants. The Agency agrees with 

commenters that these types of 

equipment face additional challenges to 

using lower-GWP substitutes. 

Prohibiting specific refrigerants retains 

the use of nonflammable options even if 

such equipment is not added to the 

scope of UL 60335–2–89 or other 

appropriate safety standards to allow for 

additional flammable options in the 

necessary charge sizes. In addition, 

refrigerant options for units with charge 

sizes greater than 500 g or for systems 

using remote condensing units may not 

be supported by the expected updates to 

the safety standards. Therefore, the 

Agency finds that a more reasonable 

approach to transitioning such 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment to lower-GWP 

options is by prohibiting higher-GWP 

refrigerants such as R–404A and HFC– 

134a. The GWPs of the prohibited 

refrigerants range from 1,430 (HFC– 

134a) to 3,985 (R–507, R–507A), which 

is similar to the request of one 

commenter to set a GWP limit of 1,450 

for certain types of refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment. 

One commenter indicated it has already 

transitioned some of its equipment to R– 

449A, which is not one of the prohibited 

refrigerants. Other nonflammable 

options, such as R–448A and R–449B, 

are also available for these types of 

equipment and EPA has proposed 

further low-GWP options. As stated in 

section VI.B of this preamble, this 

approach—restricting specific 

substances instead of setting a GWP 

limit for a given subsector—gives EPA 

time to identify an appropriate GWP 

limit for this subsector while still 

restricting those substances that have 

the highest adverse environmental 

impact. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments on the proposed January 1, 

2025, compliance date for various types 

of refrigerated food processing 

equipment. Many comments requested 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73156 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

additional time for compliance for 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment within the scope 

of UL 621—Ice Cream Makers—relative 

to other applications in this subsector. 

These comments noted that equipment 

within the scope of UL 621, such as ice 

cream, yogurt, custard, and milk shake 

machines, are not covered by the UL 

60335–2–89 standard, and that UL 621 

does not yet contain updated safety 

requirements enabling the use of 

flammable refrigerants in necessary 

charge sizes. Additional time to allow 

for analogous updates to UL 621, as in 

the 2nd edition of UL 60335–2–89, was 

requested, ranging from two to six years, 

including one request that the 

compliance date for equipment covered 

by UL 621 be no earlier than six years 

after updates to that standard are 

published, or that such equipment be 

exempted outright. Until updates have 

been made to UL 621 to allow for use 

of flammable refrigerants, commenters 

requested additional time to comply 

with restrictions (in this case, the 

prohibited refrigerant list in lieu of a 

GWP limit) for equipment within the 

scope of UL 621 or with charge sizes 

greater than 500 g. One commenter 

noted the proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for this type of 

equipment (remote condensing units or 

stand-alone units with charges greater 

than 500 g) as appropriate if the Agency 

raises the GWP limit to 1,450. 

Other issues related to the compliance 

date for all types of refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

were flagged by commenters such as 

building codes, time for NRTLs to test 

and list new equipment, glide issues 

with using A2Ls in direct contact 

cooling applications, time to source 

compressors and other components 

appropriate for use with flammable 

refrigerants, and design challenges for 

equipment using the lower-GWP 

substitutes identified by the Agency. 

One commenter discussed how food 

service equipment has unique testing 

requirements and must be certified by 

the National Sanitation Foundation 

standard, which could take an 

additional four to six months. The 

commenter stated that equipment must 

also meet DOE efficiency standards, and 

was concerned about hydrocarbon 

refrigerants working efficiently in larger 

charge equipment. This commenter 

requested a 5- to 10-year extension of 

the proposed compliance date for this 

subsector. 

Other commenters noted that UL 621 

does not currently allow toxic 

refrigerants such as R–717, a substitute 

identified by EPA for use in refrigerated 

food processing equipment. According 

to these commenters, using higher 

toxicity refrigerants (ASHRAE Standard 

34 safety group classification ‘‘B’’ 

substances) in equipment for producing 

fresh food for consumption could 

potentially lead to harm if ingested by 

the consumer under circumstances of a 

refrigerant leak. Commenters also 

pointed to challenges of transitioning to 

high-pressure refrigerants, such as R– 

744, in small equipment. For these 

reasons, commenters requested a 

delayed compliance date for refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment under the scope of UL 621 

(e.g., ice cream makers) with charge 

sizes less than or equal to 500 g. 

Response: After review of the 

comments related to refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

and consideration of the (i)(4) factors, 

EPA is finalizing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2027, for self-contained 

equipment outside the scope of UL 621 

(for both those with charge sizes less 

than or equal to 500 g and those with 

charge sizes greater than 500 g) and for 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment with a remote 

condenser. EPA is establishing a January 

1, 2028, compliance date for selfcontained refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing products within the 

scope of UL 621. 

After further evaluation of the 

substitutes available to this subsector, 

EPA agrees that the proposed January 1, 

2025, compliance date would not 

provide sufficient time for refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment within the scope of UL 621. 

The current status of UL 621 limits the 

availability of flammable lower-GWP 

refrigerants for use in equipment 

covered by that standard. EPA agrees 

with commenters that for equipment in 

this subsector within the scope of UL 

621, additional time is warranted to 

ensure the availability of 

technologically achievable refrigerants. 

In particular, approximately two more 

years will be needed to update UL 621, 

or incorporate this type of equipment 

into another standard such as UL 

60335–2–89, to support the use of 

lower-GWP, flammable refrigerants and 

then another two years for EPA to list 

substitutes for use with UL 621 if those 

mentioned above do not prove feasible 

and for manufacturers to design and test 

equipment following the updated UL 

621 standard. EPA is therefore finalizing 

a compliance date of January 1, 2028, to 

provide additional time for publication 

of updates to UL 621 to allow the use 

of flammable refrigerants. However, 

EPA disagrees that a delay of up to ten 

years following updates to UL 621 or an 

outright exemption for equipment 

within the standard’s scope would be 

appropriate, given the updates that are 

already underway for this subsector. 

EPA is delaying the compliance dates 

for other equipment in this subsector to 

allow further progress under SNAP 

evaluations, safety standards, 

equipment design, and building codes. 

EPA finds a two-year delay to January 

1, 2027, to be sufficient for stand-alone 

equipment not covered by UL 621 with 

charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g 

because UL 60335–2–89 addresses some 

types of self-contained refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

allowing up to 500 g of A3 refrigerants. 

While similar equipment in the standalone unit subsector has already begun 

using hydrocarbon refrigerants such as 

R–290 in recent years, review of these 

substitutes for use in refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment is 

still ongoing under SNAP and 

necessitates further research, 

development, and testing of equipment 

using substitutes that meet the 150 GWP 

restriction. Therefore, the Agency is 

finalizing a compliance date of January 

1, 2027, for stand-alone equipment not 

covered by UL 621 with charge sizes 

less than or equal to 500 g. 

In alignment with many commenters, 

EPA is also delaying the compliance 

date by two years, to January 1, 2027, for 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment outside the scope 

of UL 621 with either a greater than 500 

g charge size (for self-contained 

equipment) or with a remote condenser. 

EPA appreciates that one commenter 

found the proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date appropriate for 

equipment with larger charge sizes, 

given the tremendous product 

development the organization has 

already completed for refrigerants below 

1,450 GWP. However, after considering 

the comments as a whole, and that the 

list of prohibited refrigerants for these 

types of equipment may not exactly 

conform with the GWP limit suggested 

by the commenter agreeing to a 2025 

compliance date, EPA is providing two 

additional years to comply for this class 

of equipment. This additional time will 

allow manufacturers to investigate and 

implement substitutes such as R–448A, 

R–449A, and R–449B (all A1 

refrigerants) for types of equipment that 

would not be able to use A3 refrigerants 

such as R–290 or R–600a under the UL 

60335–2–89 safety standard. It will also 

provide time for resolution of current 

obstacles to adopting A2L refrigerants 

such as building codes, testing, 

development, and certification of 

equipment, and pending SNAP listings. 

EPA disagrees that a compliance delay 

of up to ten years would be appropriate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73157 

106The GWP limit for the low temperature side 

of a cascade system, either 150 or 300, is based on 

the refrigerant capacity of the low-side system. The 

300 GWP limit applies to the high temperature side 

of a cascade system regardless of the total 

refrigerant capacity. 

107See section VI.F.1.a of this preamble for a 

description of cascade systems. 

for this type of equipment, given the 

updates that are already underway for 

this subsector, including an updated UL 

safety standard and availability of 

substitutes. 

iii. Retail Food Refrigeration—Remote 

Condensing Units 

The third category of equipment 

under retail food refrigeration, remote 

condensing units, exhibit refrigerating 

capacities typically ranging from 1 kW 

to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) 

and are composed of one (and 

sometimes two) compressor(s), one 

condenser, and one receiver assembled 

into a single unit, normally located 

external to the sales area. This 

equipment is connected to one or more 

nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food 

and beverages stored in display cases 

and/or walk-in storage rooms. A cascade 

system might be used, e.g., to reach low 

temperatures in a long-term storage 

room. Remote condensing units are 

commonly installed in convenience 

stores and specialty shops such as 

bakeries and butcher shops. Having 

historically used HCFC–22, newly 

manufactured units now primarily use 

R–404A or HFC–134a. Other HFC 

blends—including R–407A, R–407C, R– 

407F, and R–507A—are also used. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for systems using new 

remote condensing units and why? 

EPA is finalizing GWP limits for 

remote condensing units as proposed. 

Analogous to supermarket systems, IPR 

systems, and cold storage warehouses, 

EPA is distinguishing systems using 

remote condensing units by their 

refrigerant charge capacity. See section 

VI.F.1.a for a discussion of EPA’s 

decision to finalize this distinction. 

Systems with refrigerant charge 

capacities greater than or equal to 200 

lb have a GWP limit of 150. Systems 

with refrigerant charge capacities less 

than 200 lb, and for the high 

temperature side of cascade systems 

irrespective of the charge capacity, have 

a GWP limit of 300.106 In response to 

comments, and after further 

consideration of the (i)(4) factors, EPA is 

finalizing a compliance date of January 

1, 2026, rather than January 1, 2025. 

Comment: In addition to the retail 

food refrigeration comments that are 

applicable to this subsector, discussed 

in section VI.F.1.c, EPA received 

comments from several environmental 

groups requesting more stringent 

restrictions for systems using remote 

condensing units related to the varying 

technical distinctions of the equipment. 

In general, commenters urged EPA to 

lower the proposed GWP limits, 

decrease the proposed 200 lb charge size 

threshold to 50 lb or remove it entirely, 

and/or remove the distinction for the 

high temperature side of cascade 

systems. 

One such commenter urged a 10 GWP 

limit for all charge sizes of remote 

condensing units, pointing to R–744 as 

the only currently acceptable option 

below the 150 GWP limit for 

supermarkets, an example they claim 

applies similarly to remote condensing 

units. The commenter expressed 

confusion concerning EPA’s decision to 

set GWP limits up to 300 when other 

refrigerant options in the 10 to 300 GWP 

range will be unavailable for use before 

the proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date. Further summary of 

comments related to the differing GWP 

limits based on technical distinctions in 

IPR, supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, and cold storage 

warehouses can be found in the IPR 

section, VI.F.1.a. 

Response: After reviewing the 

comments, EPA is finalizing GWP limits 

for this subsector as proposed. These 

final limits are consistent with 

comments supporting the GWP limits 

proposed for the entire retail food 

refrigeration sector and are supported by 

the substitutes identified by the Agency 

as available for use in remote 

condensing units under subsection 

(i)(4)(B). EPA identified available 

substitutes for the restricted substances, 

including R–744 (GWP 1) and R–717 

(GWP 1). R–744 remote condensing 

units are commercially available in 

several global markets, including in the 

United States. EPA’s SNAP program 

recently listed R–471A (GWP 144) and 

R–515B (GWP 287) as acceptable in 

supermarket systems (September 8, 

2023, 88 FR 61977). Additionally, EPA 

has proposed to list HFO–1234ze(E), 

HFO–1234yf, R–457A, R–516A, R– 

455A, R–454C, R–454A (with GWPs of 

1, 1, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 237, 

respectively) as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, under SNAP for use in 

supermarket systems (88 FR 33722, May 

24, 2023). Other technologically 

achievable substitutes that may 

potentially become available in the 

future for supermarket systems in the 

high temperature side of a cascade 

system or where charge capacities are 

less than 200 lb, include R–480A (GWP 

291) and R–457B (GWP 249). All of 

these substances would meet the GWP 

limit of 300 for this subsector, and all 

except R–454A and R–457B meet the 

GWP limit of 150. The already available 

substitutes have been evaluated by EPA 

to be sufficient to meet these restrictions 

while the potential for a greater array of 

options in the future will further ease 

the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. 

EPA continues to encourage innovation 

of refrigerants that meet these 

restrictions and anticipates the number 

of substitutes available for use in retail 

food remote condensing units will 

continue to grow. 

Comment: EPA did not receive 

comments on the proposed January 1, 

2025, compliance date specific to 

remote condensing units, though the 

Agency did receive comments regarding 

the proposed compliance dates for retail 

food refrigeration generally. 

Response: After consideration of the 

subsection (i)(4) factors under the AIM 

Act, EPA is finalizing a January 1, 2026, 

compliance date rather than the 

proposed date of January 1, 2025, for 

remote condensing units. For EPA’s 

response to these comments and 

discussion on the Agency’s decision to 

provide an additional year to comply, 

see section VI.F.1.c.iv. 

iv. Retail Food Refrigeration— 

Supermarket Systems 

Supermarket systems are the fourth 

category of equipment under retail food 

refrigeration, also known as multiplex 

or centralized systems. They operate 

with racks of compressors installed in a 

machinery room where different 

compressors turn on to match the 

refrigeration load necessary to maintain 

temperatures. Two main designs are 

used: direct and indirect systems. In a 

direct system, the refrigerant circulates 

from the machinery room to the sales 

area, where it evaporates in display-case 

heat exchangers, and then returns in 

vapor phase to the suction headers of 

the compressor racks. Supermarket 

walk-in cold rooms are often integrated 

into the system and cooled similarly, 

but a dedicated condensing unit can be 

provided for a given storage room. 

Indirect supermarket designs include 

secondary loop systems and cascade 

refrigeration systems.107 Indirect 

systems use a chiller or other 

refrigeration system to cool a secondary 

fluid that is then circulated throughout 

the store to the cases. Compact chiller 

versions of an indirect system rely on a 

lineup of 10–20 units, each using small 

charge sizes. As the refrigeration load 

changes, so does the number of active 

chillers. Each compact chiller is an 

independent unit with its own 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

108The GWP limit for the low temperature side 

of a cascade system, either 150 or 300, is based on 

the refrigerant capacity of the low-side system. The 

300 GWP limit applies to the high temperature side 

of a cascade system regardless of the total 

refrigerant capacity. 

109https://www.climatefriendlysupermarkets.org/ 

map, accessed August 29, 2023. 

110 ‘‘GreenChill Certified Store Achievements,’’ 

web page, accessed September 20, 2023. Available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/greenchill/greenchillcertified-store-achievements. 

111ATMOsphere (2023). Natural Refrigerants: 

State of the Industry. Available at: https://

issuu.com/shecco/docs/2022_atmo_marketreport. 

112 Global Transcritical CO2 Systems Market by 

Function (Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Heating), 

Application (Heat Pumps, Food Processing, Others), 

Region, Global Industry Analysis, Market Size, 

Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast 2018 to 2025, 

FiorMarkets, March 2019. Report description 

available at: https://www.fiormarkets.com/report/ 

global-transcritical-co2-systems-market-byfunction-refrigeration-376006.html. 

refrigerant charge, reducing the 

potential volume of refrigerant that 

could be released from leaks or 

catastrophic failures. Despite the term 

‘‘chiller’’ used in the description, these 

systems are considered supermarket 

systems under this rulemaking. 

Another type of supermarket design, 

often referred to as a distributed 

refrigeration system, uses an array of 

separate compressor racks located near 

the display cases rather than having a 

central compressor rack system. Each of 

these smaller racks handles a portion of 

the supermarket load, with 5 to 10 such 

systems in a store. 

Supermarket rack systems historically 

used CFC–12, R–502, HCFC–22, and 

other blends containing HCFCs in a 

centralized design. While some of these 

systems remain in use, others have been 

retrofitted to replace the ODS refrigerant 

using a blend containing an HFC (e.g., 

R–404A, R–422A, R–422B, R–422D, R– 

427A, R–438A, and R–507A) or have 

been replaced with a newly 

manufactured system with refrigerant 

blends containing HFCs (e.g., R–404A, 

R–507A, R–407A, R–407C, and R–407F). 

More recently, some new supermarket 

systems have also been using nonfluorinated refrigerants, such as CO2, or 

HFC/HFO blends, such as R–448A, R– 

449A, and R–449B. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for supermarket 

systems? 

Analogous to remote condensing 

units, IPR systems, and cold storage 

warehouses, EPA is distinguishing 

larger and smaller supermarket systems 

by their refrigerant charge capacity. See 

section VI.F.1.a for a discussion of the 

safety standards driving this distinction. 

EPA is prohibiting the installation of 

new supermarket systems using HFCs 

and HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or 

greater when the refrigerant charge 

capacities are greater than or equal to 

200 lb, beginning January 1, 2027. For 

new supermarket systems with 

refrigerant charge capacities less than 

200 lb, and for the high temperature 

side of cascade systems irrespective of 

the total charge capacity, EPA is 

establishing a GWP limit of 300,108

beginning January 1, 2027. 

EPA is finalizing GWP limits for 

supermarket systems as proposed; 

however, in response to comments 

received on the proposal and in 

consideration of the subsection (i)(4)(B) 

factors under the AIM Act, the Agency 

is finalizing a compliance date that is 

two years later than proposed (i.e., 

January 1, 2027, rather than January 1, 

2025). 

For its consideration of availability of 

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

EPA identified substitutes that are 

available in place of the restricted 

substances for systems with larger 

refrigerant charge capacities. These 

include R–717, which can be used in a 

secondary loop (indirect) supermarket 

refrigeration system, and R–744, which 

can be used for centralized direct and 

indirect supermarket refrigeration 

systems. Further, the restrictions EPA is 

finalizing would allow for the use of 

HFC/HFO blends. For example, EPA has 

recently proposed HFC/HFO blends R– 

454C, R–457A, R–455A, and R–516A as 

acceptable for use in supermarket 

systems under SNAP (88 FR 33722, May 

24, 2023) and all have GWPs below the 

150 limit. Further, EPA’s SNAP program 

has listed additional lower-GWP 

substitutes as acceptable for use in 

supermarket systems (88 FR 61977, 

September 8, 2023) since issuing the 

proposed rule, including R–471A and 

R–515B (with GWPs of 144 and 287, 

respectively). Other lower-GWP 

refrigerants that might become available 

in the future include HFC/HFO blends 

such as R–459B, R–465A, R–468A, R– 

476A, R–479A, and R–482A . 

These final restrictions support the 

transition to lower-GWP substitutes and 

innovative technologies that have been 

used widely in other parts of the world, 

such as Europe and Canada, and have 

seen increased use in the United States. 

EIA maps multiple supermarkets where 

lower-GWP refrigerants are being used, 

which includes Texas and Florida.109

EPA’s GreenChill Partnership includes a 

Certified Store program where 

individual food retail stores voluntarily 

submit applications detailing the types 

of refrigerants used in the store, 

refrigerant emissions, and refrigerant 

quantities; to date, 47 percent of 

certified stores have used refrigerants 

with a GWP less than 150, primarily R– 

744. The number of platinum-level 

certified stores in the South, Southwest, 

and Southeast regions, most using 

refrigerants with a GWP less than 150, 

increased 40 percent from 2021 to 

2022.110 ATMOsphere indicated that as 

of December 2022 there were over 1,000 

stores globally using transcritical CO2

systems.111 The global market of 

transcritical R–744 systems, which are 

manufactured by multiple U.S. 

companies, was expected to grow at a 

compound annual growth rate of 12.69 

percent between 2018 and 2025.112 R– 

744 systems may also provide 

additional environmental and economic 

benefits via increased energy efficiency 

in some cases, though R–744 systems 

can experience declining efficiencies in 

high ambient temperatures. 

Comment: In addition to the general 

retail food refrigeration comments 

discussed below, EPA received 

comments on the proposed GWP limits 

specific to supermarket systems. One 

industry commenter supported the 

proposed GWP limits of 150 and 300 

based on the 200 lb charge size, in 

addition to the 300 GWP limit for the 

high temperature side of a cascade 

system. Another suggested either a 

1,500 or 700 GWP limit, citing 

difficulties converting supermarkets to 

A2L refrigerants, and that EPA should 

allow economics to be a design factor. 

Similarly, another commenter objected 

to the 300 GWP limit for supermarkets 

with charge capacities less than 200 lb, 

citing heightened impacts on food 

deserts, which rely on small, local 

convenience stores for their access to 

food, and typically use smaller 

refrigerant capacity systems. Instead, the 

commenter suggested a 1,500 GWP limit 

for supermarket systems with charge 

sizes less than 50 lb. 

Environmental groups urged EPA to 

finalize lower GWP limits than 

proposed for supermarket systems, 

decrease the proposed 200 lb charge size 

threshold to 50 lb or remove it entirely, 

and/or remove the distinction for the 

high temperature side of cascade 

systems. One commenter claimed that 

there is no need for indirect cascade 

systems when the same capacity direct 

expansion system can be designed with 

refrigerants that have GWPs less than 

150. Another asserted that because R– 

744 is currently used in supermarkets in 

California, an area with a hot climate, 

such systems are therefore suitable for 

supermarkets across the country. 

Another commenter urged a 10 GWP 

limit for all charge sizes of supermarket 

systems, pointing to R–744 as the only 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73159 

113 88 FR 61977 (Sept. 8, 2023). 

currently acceptable option below the 

150 GWP limit. They discussed how 

fluorinated substances like R–454C, 

with a GWP of 146, are not yet available 

on the market, will impose unknown 

costs to businesses, have significantly 

greater potential impacts on global 

climate change compared to R–744, and 

could pose environmental justice 

concerns not addressed by the proposed 

rule. This commenter also stated that 

having two GWP limits based on charge 

size could encourage manufacturers to 

move to smaller systems with higherGWP HFCs instead of transitioning from 

HFCs altogether. The commenter 

expressed confusion over the Agency’s 

proposal to set GWP limits up to 300, 

when other supermarket system 

refrigerant options in the 10 to 300 GWP 

range will be unavailable for use before 

the proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received, the Agency 

disagrees with assertions that EPA 

should adopt GWP limits as high as 700 

or 1,500, or as low as 10, for this 

subsector. Instead, the Agency has 

determined that providing additional 

time for compliance, rather than 

increasing GWP limits, is a more 

appropriate way to address the concerns 

raised by commenters about the 

availability of substitutes for use in 

supermarket systems. As discussed in 

this section, a number of substitutes for 

use in this subsector are already 

currently available and in use in all 

regions of the country, and EPA has 

identified a number of additional 

substitutes that will meet the GWP 

limits at the levels the Agency proposed 

that will be available, consistent with 

the subsection (i)(4)(B) factors, by 

January 1, 2027. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the level of the GWP limits for 

supermarket systems as proposed. 

The Agency does not agree that the 

higher limits suggested by commenters 

are reasonable in consideration of 

subsection (i)(4)(B) factors, given that 

many refrigerant options with GWPs 

lower than 150 and 300 are already 

available for use in this subsector. As 

other commenters noted, currently 

available substitutes include R–717, 

which can be used in secondary loop 

(indirect) supermarket refrigeration 

systems, and R–744, which can be used 

for centralized direct and indirect 

supermarket refrigeration systems. 

Many supermarket systems in various 

regions of the United States already use 

refrigerants with GWPs below the GWP 

limits, including R–744 even in warmer 

climates. Additionally, consistent with 

the Agency’s position at proposal that 

the options for this subsector will 

continue expand, EPA’s SNAP program 

has recently listed two non-flammable 

blends, R–471A (GWP 144) and R–515B 

(GWP 287), as acceptable for use in 

supermarket systems.113

Similarly, the Agency does not agree 

that a higher GWP limit (e.g., 1,500 

GWP) is appropriate for systems with 

refrigerant charge capacities less than 

200 lb, including those with charge 

sizes less than 50 lb as requested by one 

industry commenter. EPA recognizes 

that convenience stores and smaller 

food retailers can be critical to 

communities, sometimes referred to as 

food deserts, that are not served by 

larger supermarkets. However, these 

establishments often do not use 

supermarket systems, as described in 

this subsector, but rather use smaller 

charge systems such as self-contained 

cases and remote condensing units. 

Many currently available models of selfcontained cases are already using 

refrigerants with a GWP of less than 

150, and, as discussed in section 

VI.F.1.c.iii., EPA has determined that, 

given existing and expanding options of 

lower-GWP refrigerants, new remote 

condensing units will be able to meet 

the 150 and 300 GWP limits by January 

1, 2026. Even some larger supermarkets 

are implementing innovative designs 

using stand-alone equipment or smaller, 

remote condensing units operating with 

R–744 or hydrocarbon refrigerants, such 

as R–290 and R–600a, to supplement, or 

even replace, supermarket rack systems. 

See the Availability of Substitutes TSD 

for further information on available HFC 

and HFC-blend substitutes for 

supermarket systems. We therefore do 

not agree that a GWP limit of up to 

1,500 is necessary to ensure that smaller 

supermarkets or convenience stores, 

which we agree are critical for food 

security in certain communities, have 

options for new equipment. 

In addition to R–744, R–717, and 

hydrocarbons that are already available 

for use in this subsector, and the 

recently listed R–471A and R–515B, 

EPA has proposed to list HFO– 

1234ze(E), HFO–1234yf, R–457A, R– 

516A, R–455A, R–454C, R–454A (with 

GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 

237, respectively) as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, under SNAP for use 

in supermarket systems. All of these 

substances meet the GWP limit of 300 

for this subsector, and all except R– 

454A meet the GWP limit of 150. 

Although the already available 

substitutes have been evaluated by EPA 

to be sufficient to meet these 

restrictions, the potential for a greater 

array of options in the future will 

further ease the transition to lower-GWP 

refrigerants. EPA continues to encourage 

innovation of refrigerants that meet 

these restrictions and anticipates the 

number of substitutes available for use 

in supermarket systems will continue to 

grow. ASHRAE continues to receive 

applications for the designation of new 

refrigerants in the ASHRAE 34 standard. 

There has also been a notable increase 

in submissions for new refrigerants 

under EPA’s SNAP program for this 

subsector. As discussed further in EPA’s 

response to comments regarding the 

compliance deadline for supermarket 

systems, below, EPA understands that 

allowing additional time to comply will 

provide an opportunity for the 

applicable UL safety standard updates 

to be reflected in ways that will 

continue to increase the availability of 

substitutes for use in this subsector. 

While EPA is not certain what was 

meant by the comment to ‘‘allow 

economics to be a design factor,’’ EPA 

agrees that the AIM Act’s phasedown of 

HFCs will mean that HFCs will become 

increasingly scarce, and scarcity may 

lead to price increases in the event that 

demand also remains high. However, 

EPA does not agree that the HFC 

phasedown established by the AIM Act 

negates the need to promulgate 

regulations under subsection (i) 

including the establishment of GWP 

limits for supermarket systems. 

EPA is also not electing to establish 

restrictions as low as 10 GWP for this 

subsector, even though, as commenters 

pointed out, some of the refrigerants 

available for use in supermarket 

systems, such as R–744 and R–717, have 

very low GWPs. EPA does not agree that 

it is appropriate to adopt restrictions 

based only on the lowest GWP 

substitutes, as doing so would 

inappropriately limit the overall 

availability of substitutes to meet the 

restrictions. Rather, EPA has established 

limits for this subsector to encourage the 

continued development and innovation 

of substitutes, and to ensure that there 

will be sufficient substitutes to support 

a smooth transition of this subsector 

away from higher-GWP HFCs. See 

section VI.E.5 for further discussion on 

EPA’s decision not to tailor restrictions 

to the GWPs of specific substitutes. 

Regarding the request for EPA to use 

a 50 lb or lower refrigerant charge 

capacity rather than a 200 lb capacity as 

the threshold between the 150 GWP 

limit and the 300 GWP limit, EPA does 

not agree that a 50 lb refrigerant charge 

capacity threshold is appropriate in this 

context. Further discussion on EPA’s 

decision to finalize the 200 lb cutoff and 

the distinction of a high temperature 

side of cascade systems when setting 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

114As discussed in section VI.E.2, EPA considers 

the listing of substitutes as acceptable under the 

SNAP program, which evaluates safety and other 

characteristics, to be informative in its evaluation 

of the availability of those substitutes. 115See Building Codes TSD at 5–6. 

GWP limits can be found in section 

VI.F.1.a. 

For these reasons, in addition to those 

described in the Agency’s response to 

comments that are relevant to all of 

retail food refrigeration, EPA is 

finalizing the 150 and 300 GWP limits 

for the supermarket systems subsector 

as proposed and is extending 

compliance dates to mitigate some of 

the concerns raised by the commenters 

regarding availability of substitutes in 

the near term. 

Comment: In addition to the 

comments received on compliance dates 

applying to all of retail food 

refrigeration, two commenters urged 

EPA to provide additional time to 

comply for supermarket systems, 

specifically. One commenter requested a 

January 1, 2026, compliance date to 

provide additional time for A2L design 

development. Another commenter 

requested flexibility based on 

availability of refrigerants, installation 

availability, and other supply chain 

constraints and objected to EPA’s 

inclusion of R–454C, R–471A, and R– 

455A as available substitutes given they 

are not SNAP-approved.114 The 

commenter noted that even if such 

options were SNAP-approved, building 

codes limit the implementation of A2Ls 

in supermarkets and would also need to 

be updated prior to A2L use. They also 

referenced challenges related to R–744 

systems, noting strained supply as the 

global market turns to R–744, 

technological challenges, limited 

technical expertise, and increases in 

energy costs when used in warmer 

climates. Additionally, one comment 

from industry appears to apply to the 

entire retail food refrigeration section 

subsector, but EPA considers many of 

the concerns described to be mostly 

relevant to supermarket systems. This 

comment requested a 2032 compliance 

date for retail food refrigeration and can 

be found summarized in section 

VI.F.1.c. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received regarding the 

proposed January 1, 2025, compliance 

date for retail food refrigeration, 

generally, and supermarket systems, 

specifically, EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2027, for 

supermarket systems. 

EPA understands that supermarket 

systems planning to transition to lowerGWP substitutes may need building 

codes to be updated before transitioning 

to mildly flammable, flammable, or 

toxic refrigerant options in certain 

jurisdictions. As discussed in the 

Building Codes TSD, such updates can 

take several years, and many 

jurisdictions have yet to adopt recent 

editions of safety standards that permit 

the use of flammable or toxic 

refrigerants in larger quantities through 

the requirement of additional mitigation 

strategies. However, to date, the vast 

majority of States have amended their 

regulatory codes or have passed 

legislation to specifically permit the use 

of SNAP-listed low-GWP refrigerants. 

Fewer than a dozen States still require 

additional legislative or regulatory 

updates to permit the use of low-GWP 

refrigerants in building codes.115 EPA is 

aware of ongoing efforts by industry 

groups and other stakeholders to work 

with State and local officials to update 

building codes to allow for alternative 

refrigerants. EPA has had and will 

continue to have discussions concerning 

agency rulemaking and meet with 

relevant stakeholders, including State 

officials. In providing two additional 

years for compliance, EPA is enabling 

those remaining jurisdictions to update 

their building codes or legislation 

accordingly, an approach recommended 

by many industry commenters. 

However, EPA can consider a substitute 

to be available before every building 

code in every jurisdiction across the 

United States permits its use (see 

section VI.E.2). 

EPA recognizes that for certain 

subsectors, moving to flammable 

refrigerants will require new design 

considerations, equipment testing, 

trainings, and safety precautions. 

However, many food retailers already 

use hydrocarbons for other retail food 

refrigeration subsectors such as standalone units, and that experience will 

ease the adoption of flammable 

refrigerants in this subsector. Design, 

testing, and implementation of A2L 

refrigerants in future stores is underway, 

but still ongoing. Therefore, EPA is 

delaying the compliance date for this 

subsector to better accommodate the 

design cycle of equipment following 

adoption of safety standards and to 

ensure availability of substitutes for use, 

as one of the factors considered. 

EPA disagrees that finalizing a 

compliance date as late as 2032 for 

supermarket systems would be 

appropriate, given that supermarkets 

across the country, in varied climates, 

have already successfully transitioned 

to refrigerants meeting the limits 

finalized in this rule. As discussed in 

detail in responses to comments 

regarding the adoption of updates to 

safety standards UL 60335–2–89 in 

section VI.F.1.c, EPA considered the 

impacts and required timing needed to 

reflect the updates to those safety 

standards in building code updates, 

SNAP listings, equipment testing and 

design, and service technician training, 

and the Agency accordingly adjusted a 

number of compliance deadlines for the 

restrictions applicable to the retail food 

refrigeration subsector. EPA’s 

finalization of the January 1, 2027, 

compliance date for the supermarket 

systems subsector reflects the time 

necessary for those remaining issues 

associated with safety standard updates 

to be resolved. We note that the safety 

standards were updated in 2021, and 

many commenters from industry 

indicated that a one-year extension to 

January 1, 2026, would be sufficient to 

resolve remaining issues. The additional 

two years beyond the proposed 

compliance date provided in this final 

action will ensure that the handful of 

States and jurisdictions (fewer than a 

dozen) that do not yet allow for use of 

newer refrigerants (e.g., lower 

flammability refrigerant blends) will 

make needed updates to building codes 

or laws, that industry continues training 

technicians to install and service these 

systems, which EPA acknowledges will 

differ compared to other types of 

servicing needs, and will provide 

necessary time for equipment design 

and testing. Further, EPA recognizes the 

costs associated with moving to 

substitutes, but the relative cost 

difference of using substitutes in place 

of HFCs will diminish over time as the 

phasedown continues. The AIM Act’s 

phasedown of HFCs will mean that 

HFCs will become increasingly scarce, 

and scarcity may lead to price increases 

in the event that demand also remains 

high. In this respect, the estimated costs 

are conservative because such effects are 

not incorporated into the analysis in the 

RIA Addendum or the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD. Moreover, 

as detailed in the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD, EPA is 

assuming cost savings accrue over time 

with the transition to CO2 supermarket 

systems. Information from industry 

commenters showed that four different 

types of CO2 supermarket systems 

displayed lower energy consumption 

compared to the baseline system in the 

most populous city in the United States 

(New York), two CO2 supermarket 

system types resulted in lower energy 

use in the second most populous city in 

the United States (Los Angeles), and one 

type of CO2 supermarket system 

reduced energy consumption in all 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73161 

116 January 30, 2023. Available at https://

www.regulations.gov in Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0643–0209. 

117Coca-cola, January 2014, Coca-cola Installs 1 

Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing 

5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2. Available at: https:// 

www.coca-colacompany.com/press-releases/cocacola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler. 118PepsiCo, 2020. Sustainability Focus Area: 

Climate. Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/ 

our-impact/sustainability/focus-area/climate. 119 Karnes, B, March 2021, Revisions to UL 541, 

the Standard for Refrigerated Vending Machines. 

Available at: https://www.ul.com/news/revisions-ul541-standard-refrigerated-vending-machines. 120NAMA, 2019. NAMA Foundation Annual 

Report 2019. Available at: https://namanow.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019-NAMA-Foundation-AnnualReport.pdf. 

121Coca-Cola’s HFC-free cooler count reaches 2.5 

million’’, R–744.com, dated November 29, 2017. 

Available online at https://r744.com/coca-cola-hfcfree-coolers-count-reaches-2-5-million/. 

122 ‘‘NAMA Partners With DOE On More EnergyEfficient Vending Machines,’’ Vending Times, Dec. 

16, 2019. Available online at: https://

www.vendingtimes.com/blogs/nama-partners-withdoe-on-more-energy-efficient-vending-machines; 

Press release, ‘‘NAMA Presses Congress on ERTC 

Fix During 2022 Fly-In & Advocacy Summit,’’ July 

18, 2022. Available online at: https://namanow.org/ 

nama-presses-congress-on-ertc-fix-during-2022-flyin-advocacy-summit. 

cities shown, by 10% (Houston) to 35% 

(New York).116

Although noted as available 

substitutes in the proposed rule and 

TSD, EPA recognizes that refrigerants 

such as R–454C and R–455A have not 

yet been SNAP-approved for use in 

supermarket systems. However, 

following the updates to UL 60335–2– 

89, discussed in greater detail in section 

VI.E.2.c and VI.F.1.c, EPA has proposed 

to list many additional refrigerant 

options as acceptable for use in 

supermarket systems, including HFO– 

1234ze(E), HFO–1234yf, R–457A, R– 

516A, R–455A, R–454C, R–454A (with 

GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 

237, respectively). Further, since the 

proposed rule, EPA’s SNAP program has 

listed additional lower-GWP substitutes 

as acceptable for use in supermarket 

systems (September 8, 2023; 88 FR 

61977), including R–471A and R–515B 

(with GWPs of 144 and 287, 

respectively). EPA anticipates that by 

the extended deadline of January 1, 

2027, manufacturers will have more 

available substitutes from which to 

select for the design of new systems, 

and that the additional time will allow 

further research, development, and 

safety testing of new equipment using 

newer refrigerants. For these reasons, in 

addition to those described in the 

Agency’s response to comments that are 

relevant to all of retail food 

refrigeration, EPA has determined 

extending the compliance date for 

supermarket systems by two years to be 

reasonable. This approach is consistent 

with many of the comments received 

from industry, including large trade 

associations that represent this 

subsector. 

d. Vending Machines 

Vending machines are a type of selfcontained commercial refrigeration 

product that includes mechanical and 

electronic components required to 

secure, sell, and dispense refrigerated 

food and beverages, including cold 

drinks in cans or bottles, ice cream, 

milk, cold drinks in cups, and 

perishable food items. Hot beverages 

may also be provided via a heat pump 

or through recycled waste heat from the 

refrigeration cycle, particularly for dual 

hot/cold beverage vending machines. 

Lower-GWP refrigerants, primarily R– 

290 and R–744, are technologically 

achievable for use in vending machines 

and the use of these substitutes is 

increasing, indicating commercial 

demands. Two of the largest vending 

machine customers in the U.S. market, 

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, have been using 

R–744 over the past decade.117 118

Industry safety standards and model 

building codes were also revised in 

2021 to allow the use of other lowerGWP substitutes. ASHRAE amended the 

safety standard ASHRAE 15 to allow 

vending machines with up to 114 grams 

of R–290 to be used in locations where 

they were not previously allowed under 

previous editions of industry standards. 

UL also modified standard UL 541, 

‘‘Standard for Safety for Refrigerated 

Vending Machines,’’ covering this 

equipment ‘‘for the unrestricted 

placement of vending machines 

refrigerated with advanced, 

environmentally-friendly coolants.’’ 119

Beginning January 1, 2020, the National 

Automatic Merchandising Association 

(NAMA) Foundation partnered with 

DOE in a two-year, $400,000 

cooperative research and development 

agreement on energy efficient vending 

machines utilizing refrigerants such as 

R–290.120

For its consideration of availability of 

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

EPA identified available substitutes in 

place of the restricted substances, 

including R–290 (GWP 3.3), R–600a 

(GWP 1), R–744 (GWP 1), and R–441A 

(GWP 3). Other refrigerants that meet 

this GWP limit and are currently under 

development and evaluation include R– 

451A (GWP 147), R–454C (GWP 146), 

R–455A (GWP 146), R–457A (GWP 137), 

R–471A (GWP 144), and R–476A (GWP 

147). 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for vending machines? 

EPA is prohibiting the manufacture 

and import of vending machines that 

use HFCs and blends containing HFCs 

that have a GWP of 150 or greater 

beginning January 1, 2025. Effective 

January 1, 2026, EPA is prohibiting the 

subsequent sale, distribution, offer for 

sale or distribution, or export of new 

vending machines manufactured or 

imported before January 1, 2025, that 

use HFCs with GWPs that exceed the 

limit. EPA is finalizing both the GWP 

limit and compliance date for vending 

machines as proposed. 

Comment: EPA received one comment 

disagreeing with the proposed 150 GWP 

limit for vending machines. This 

commenter requested a 300 GWP limit 

instead, citing the proposed limit as 

unnecessary and unrealistic. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that setting a vending 

machine GWP limit at 300 would be 

appropriate. Already, models with very 

low-GWP refrigerants such as R–744 

and R–290 are available, providing 

substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs and 

HFC blends. For example, Coca-Cola 

had installed 1.5 million beverage 

coolers, fountains, and vending 

machines using R–744 or R–290 

worldwide and almost 100,000 such 

pieces of equipment in North America 

by 2015.121 Further, DOE and vending 

machine manufacturers worked together 

beginning December 2019 and identified 

R–290 as a ‘‘viable, business-tenable and 

sustainable alternative’’ to high-GWP 

refrigerants as of 2022.122 Current 

information shows that there are 

refrigerants available with a GWP of less 

than 150 for vending machines. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the GWP 

limit for this subsector as proposed. 

Comment: EPA received one comment 

requesting EPA extend the proposed 

January 1, 2025, compliance date for 

vending machines noting that even the 

petitioned January 1, 2026, date by 

AHRI was too early. The commenter 

cited barriers to transition including the 

supply chain for components, outdated 

building codes, safety standards and 

their respective testing and listing 

requirements, and the necessity of 

satisfactory performance for food 

industry equipment for maintaining 

food safety. 

Response: In consideration of the 

comment received and the availability 

of substitutes for use in this subsector, 

EPA is finalizing the January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for vending machines 

as proposed. The Agency recognizes 

that there are challenges associated with 

moving to more flammable refrigerant 

options, however, the commenter itself 

stated that some of the products have 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73162 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

123Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat 

Pumps Technical Options Committee 2018 

Assessment Report, Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel, UNEP, February 2019. Available 

at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019- 

04/RTOC-assessment-report-2018_0.pdf. 

124 ICF, 2016. Market Characterization: Fire 

Suppression, Commercial Comfort Cooling, Cold 

Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing and 

Dispensing Equipment, and Household 

Refrigeration Industries in the United States. 

Prepared for U.S. EPA. March, 2016. 

125 Ibid. 

already changed to lower-GWP 

refrigerants identified by EPA. R–744 

has also been in use for over a decade, 

signaling that the transition for vending 

machines is well underway. Vending 

machines have smaller charge sizes than 

other types of commercial refrigeration 

equipment and are therefore less 

affected by building codes. Relevant 

standards have already been updated to 

allow up to 114 g of A3 refrigerant in 

vending machines, with many models 

already using R–290. Non-flammable 

refrigerants like R–744 have also been 

implemented in models where 

flammability may pose greater safety 

concerns. EPA understands that NRTLs 

must test and list new equipment to 

certify compliance with various safety 

standards. However, given that much of 

the subsector has already transitioned, 

fewer models will need to be updated 

and certified to comply with restrictions 

by the date of compliance. Therefore, for 

the reasons described, EPA is finalizing 

the compliance date as proposed. 

e. Cold Storage Warehouses 

Cold storage warehouses are 

refrigerated facilities used for the 

storage of temperature-controlled 

substances. Refrigeration systems within 

cold storage warehouses can be divided 

into two categories: central plant 

systems and packaged systems. Central 

plants are custom-built refrigeration 

systems that are typically used in large 

refrigerated warehouses with cooling 

capacities that range from 20 to 5,000 

kW. Central plant systems deliver cool 

air to the refrigerated space through 

evaporators, which are typically 

suspended from the ceiling in the 

refrigerated space. The evaporators are 

connected through a piping network to 

multiple compressors located in a 

central machine room, and a condenser, 

which is typically mounted outside near 

the compressor. Central plant systems 

may have a direct or indirect (secondary 

loop) design. Direct systems circulate a 

primary refrigerant throughout the 

refrigerated space. In an indirect system, 

a primary refrigerant cools a secondary 

refrigerant in the machine room, and the 

secondary refrigerant is then circulated 

throughout the refrigerated space. 

Packaged systems (also known as 

unitary systems) are self-contained 

systems that combine an evaporator, 

compressor, and condenser in one 

frame. Packaged systems are commonly 

installed on the roof of a refrigerated 

warehouse above the air-cooling units 

that are within the refrigerated space. 

The evaporator is located inside the 

refrigerated space while the condensing 

unit, which is usually protected by 

weather resistant housing, is located 

outside. Packaged systems are most 

commonly used in small, refrigerated 

warehouses that have a capacity of 20 to 

750 kW. 

In response to the phaseout of ODS 

under the CAA and the Montreal 

Protocol, many cold storage warehouses 

transitioned from using CFCs to HCFC– 

22, and then later from HCFC–22 to 

HFCs—primarily R–404A and R–507A, 

which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, 

respectively.123 Manufacturers 

transitioned to R–717, as well. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for cold storage 

warehouses? 

As proposed, EPA is prohibiting the 

installation of new cold storage 

warehouse systems using HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs with a GWP of 

150 or greater when the system’s 

refrigerant charge capacity is equal to or 

greater than 200 lb. For cold storage 

warehouse systems with refrigerant 

charge capacities less than 200 lb and 

for the high temperature side of cascade 

systems, EPA is establishing a GWP of 

300. In response to comments received 

on the proposal, EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2026, one 

year later than the proposed compliance 

date of January 1, 2025. 

As with supermarket systems, IPR 

systems, and remote condensing units, 

EPA is distinguishing between larger 

cold storage warehouse systems and 

smaller systems with a refrigerant 

charge capacity of 200 lb being the 

dividing line. EPA is also establishing a 

higher GWP limit of 300 for the high 

temperature side of a cascade system, 

based on safety standards as discussed 

in section VI.F.1.a of the preamble. 

For its consideration of availability of 

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

EPA identified several substitutes that 

are available in place of the substances 

that EPA is restricting. For systems with 

refrigerant charge capacities equal to or 

greater than 200 lb, these include R–717 

vapor compression (GWP 1), R–744 

(GWP 1), and HCFO–1233zd(E) (GWP 

4). Another substitute is R–471A (GWP 

144), which SNAP has listed as 

acceptable for cold storage warehouse 

use under Notice 38 (88 FR 61977, 

September 8, 2023). Additionally, EPA 

has proposed to list as acceptable R– 

454C (GWP 146) for use in larger cold 

storage warehouse systems and R–454A 

(GWP 237) for use in smaller systems, 

subject to use conditions. Other lowGWP refrigerants EPA has proposed 

acceptable for these systems are HFO– 

1234yf (GWP 1), HFO–1234ze(E) (GWP 

1), R–457A (GWP 137), and R–516A 

(GWP 140). (88 FR 33722, May 24, 

2023). Newer technologies with smaller 

charge sizes of R–717 that are removed 

from the general public are low-charge 

packaged ammonia systems, ammonia/ 

CO2 cascade systems, and ammonia 

secondary loop systems.124 Given that 

EPA’s evaluation of these refrigerants is 

underway, the Agency anticipates 

additional substitutes below the GWP 

limits may be available for use in this 

subsector in the future. Several other 

types of systems that operate using 

thermodynamic cycles other than vapor 

compression such as absorption, 

evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, 

and Stirling cycle systems can also be 

used in this subsector and may be 

appropriate for meeting the restrictions 

finalized. 

A significant portion of cold storage 

warehouses have transitioned from, or 

completely avoided, using higher-GWP 

HFCs. Most cold storage warehouses in 

the United States use R–717. ASHRAE 

designates R–717 as a lower 

flammability, higher toxicity (B2L) 

refrigerant and it is not used extensively 

in many other subsectors of the RACHP 

sector. However, many users consider 

R–717 to be a cost-effective option for 

use in cold storage warehouses given its 

long-standing use, lower cost per 

kilogram, and energy savings 125 despite 

a higher capital cost for the equipment 

compared to HFC systems. Certain 

characteristics of cold storage 

warehouses also tend to reduce their 

proximity to people and thus the risk of 

using R–717. For example, because cold 

storage warehouses are often large in 

order to achieve economies of scale and 

require a large amount of land use—as 

opposed to other systems that might be 

located on a building roof or a small 

slab next to the building—they are 

typically located away from population 

centers where land costs and taxes may 

be higher. In addition, the 

transportation of goods is typically done 

in large volumes—by truck or train—to 

reduce costs, which in turn reduces the 

workforce needed and the number of 

people at the warehouse and, in 

particular, near the refrigeration 

equipment. 

Comment: Several commenters 

generally supported EPA’s proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73163 

126Packages—Design and Build, Toromont | 

CIMCO Refrigeration. Available at: https://

www.cimcorefrigeration.com/packages-designbuild. 

GWP limit of 150 for commercial 

refrigeration equipment with over 200 lb 

of refrigerant charge; however, many of 

these commenters recommended that 

EPA eliminate or modify the GWP limit 

of 300 that was proposed for charge 

sizes less than 200 lb. Some commenters 

recommended a 50 lb charge size 

threshold and noted this would be 

consistent with California’s regulations. 

One group described a 10 lb charge 

capacity cutoff as more appropriate than 

200 lb and recommended a single GWP 

limit of 10 for all charge sizes. A 

summary of other comments related to 

the GWP restrictions and charge sizes 

can be found in the IPR section VI.F.1.a. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received, EPA is finalizing, as 

proposed, a 150 GWP limit for units 

with refrigerant charge capacities greater 

than or equal to 200 lb, a 300 GWP limit 

for new cold storage warehouses with 

refrigerant charge capacities less than 

200 lb, and a 300 GWP limit for units 

in the high temperature side of cascade 

systems, irrespective of the charge 

capacity. See response above in the IPR 

section VI.F.1.a for more discussion 

about the relationship between GWP 

restrictions and charge size. 

Comment: One commenter objected 

generally to the proposed GWP limits 

for cold storage warehouses due to a 

lack of available replacement 

technology sufficient for transition. 

Many commenters expressed that EPA’s 

proposed GWP limits may require the 

use of toxic and/or flammable 

refrigerant options and stated that for 

safety reasons, A1 refrigeration options 

are needed for their operations. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

the commenters’ assertions that there is 

a lack of available alternatives. The 

Agency noted a number of available 

alternatives earlier in the section, in the 

proposed rule, and in other supporting 

information. EPA identified several 

substitutes in place of the restricted 

substances for cold storage warehouses. 

Of these, options with an ASHRAE 

classification of A1 (low toxicity, 

nonflammable at standard conditions) 

are HCFO–1233zd(E) and R–471A. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed 2025 transition 

date for commercial refrigeration, 

including cold storage warehouses. 

Some commenters requested a date of 

January 1, 2026, to allow for updated 

building codes, equipment readiness, 

testing of new refrigerants, and SNAP 

listing of replacements. Many 

commenters stated the compliance dates 

are unrealistic, and that more time was 

needed for manufacturers to find a 

solution that can be designed, tested, 

sold, and produced by these dates. One 

commenter stated the compliance date 

of January 1, 2025, is extremely 

challenging for cold storage warehouses, 

and a major limitation on the HFC 

transition was the lack of SNAPapproved low-GWP listings for 

refrigeration, hindering their ability to 

conduct field trials and installations. 

See other comments related to the 

proposed compliance date in IPR 

section VI.F.1.a. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received applicable to the 

proposed compliance date for cold 

storage warehouses, and consideration 

of the (i)(4) factors under the AIM Act, 

EPA is finalizing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2026, rather than the 

proposed date of January 1, 2025. EPA’s 

assessment is that in many cases cold 

storage warehouses already use 

refrigerants with GWPs below the limit 

the Agency is finalizing today; however, 

the Agency’s understanding, informed 

by the comments, is that for certain 

situations, particularly where updates 

for building codes are necessary, 

additional time is needed. EPA does not 

agree with the commenters’ assertions 

that there is a lack of available 

alternatives. As described above, EPA 

identified several substitutes in place of 

the restricted substances for cold storage 

warehouses. For EPA’s response to these 

comments and discussion on the 

Agency’s decision to provide an 

additional year to comply, see section 

VI.F.1.e. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed some opposition to EPA’s 

comment that cold storage warehouses 

are typically located away from 

population centers, reducing their 

proximity to people and thus reducing 

the risk of using R–717. The 

commenters stated that cold storage 

warehouse locations are based on 

market demand, land, and freight costs, 

but for servicing reasons, they must be 

close to the population centers. 

Response: EPA acknowledges there 

may be certain circumstances where it 

is beneficial for cold storage warehouses 

to be built near population centers; 

however, EPA understands that there 

has been and continues to be a tendency 

for cold storage warehouses to be 

located away from densely populated 

areas for the reasons described above. 

Other alternative refrigerants besides R– 

717 are available, as noted above, which 

can be used if the cold storage 

warehouse is located in closer proximity 

to people. 

f. Ice Rinks 

Ice rinks use a system of refrigeration 

equipment to move a fluid through 

pipes embedded in concrete flooring to 

freeze layers of water. Ice rinks may be 

used by the public for recreational 

purposes as well as by professionals. 

These systems frequently use secondary 

loop refrigeration systems, in some 

cases consisting of a chiller along with 

associated pumps that move the chilled 

water or glycol working fluid. Another 

configuration sometimes used is a direct 

expansion system wherein the 

refrigerant flows under the ice and 

directly back to a compressor and 

condenser. System capacities vary based 

on the size of the ice rink and the 

required cooling load. Typical sizes for 

ice rink chillers are 50-, 100-, 150-, or 

200-ton units. The ice surface is ideally 

maintained between 24 to 28 °F (¥4.4 to 

¥2.2 °C) depending on the application 

and users of the ice rink (e.g., figure 

skating versus hockey). 

Ice rinks used CFC/HCFC refrigerants 

prior to restrictions under the Clean Air 

Act, and then higher-GWP HFC blends 

such as R–404A and R–507A. More 

recently, some ice rinks used the HFCs 

blends R–449A, R–450A, and R–513A. 

R–717 and R–744 are also commonly 

used. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for ice rinks? 

EPA is prohibiting the installation of 

ice rink systems using HFCs or blends 

containing HFCs that have a GWP of 700 

or greater beginning January 1, 2025. 

EPA had proposed restrictions for 

installation of new ice rinks to begin 

January 1, 2025, but had proposed a 

GWP limit of 150 rather than 700. 

For its consideration of availability of 

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

proposal, EPA identified the following 

available substitutes: R–717 (GWP 1), R– 

744 (GWP 1), and HCFO–1233zd(E) 

(GWP 4). R–471A (GWP 144) also meets 

the GWP limit and can serve as a 

potential substitute. Under the 

restriction being finalized, R–450A 

(GWP 601) and R–513A (GWP 630) are 

also potentially available substitutes. 

Most new ice rinks use R–717 as a 

refrigerant due to its energy efficiency, 

while others are being designed to use 

R–744 and other lower-GWP 

substitutes.126 Although R–717 is a B2L 

(higher toxicity, lower flammability) 

refrigerant, risks to the general public 

are addressed by confining the R–717 to 

separate equipment (i.e., the hightemperature side of a chiller) in 

locations with access limited to trained 

service personnel only. In TSDs 

submitted with their petition, CARB 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73164 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

127Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, 

CARB, October 2020. Available at: https://

ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020. 

128EPA is not combining the categories of chillers 

and ice rinks in this rule, nor does EPA plan to 

change the SNAP end-uses to combine chillers and 

ice-skating rinks into a single end-use. 

estimated that more than 80 percent of 

ice rinks in California use R–717.127

According to EIA’s petition, a majority 

of National Hockey League ice arenas 

also employ R–717, and the use of R– 

744 is becoming an increasingly popular 

option for ice rinks. This information 

indicates the technological achievability 

and commercial demand of these 

substitutes. 

In areas where safety or toxicity 

reasons prevent the use of R–717, lowerGWP (hydrochlorofluoroolefin) HCFO 

or HFO chillers and lower-GWP 

transcritical R–744 systems are options 

available for use in ice rink systems. 

EPA has also recently listed HCFO– 

1233zd(E) as acceptable through the 

SNAP program for use in new ice rinks 

(87 FR 3037, January 20, 2022). 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the GWP limit for ice 

rinks be increased to 700. The 

commenters proposed chillers and ice 

rinks be categorized the same since 

chillers are used for ice rinks, except for 

minor differences in certain components 

and controls. The commenters stated 

that this would also prevent costs and 

delays that would occur by making a 

specialized category for ice rinks. 

Increasing the GWP limit to 700 would 

preserve the ability for industry to have 

a wider choice of refrigerant options. 

One commenter expressed support for 

the GWP limit of 150 and noted that 

there is no clear information available to 

suggest a significant number of 

jurisdictions have local codes that do 

not allow the use of R–717. Ammonia 

has been widely used for many years 

and other refrigerant systems using less 

than 150 GWP refrigerants, including R– 

744 systems, are available for use in 

locations that prefer to avoid use of R– 

717. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received, EPA is finalizing a 

700 GWP limit for ice rinks. The Agency 

maintains that there are available 

substitutes with GWPs below 150; 

however, EPA is applying a 700 GWP 

limit to use of HFCs in ice rinks because 

EPA agrees with commenters that many 

of these refrigerant systems would 

utilize chillers that are available for 

other applications. Most ice rink 

systems are similar to chillers and 

frequently use secondary loop 

refrigeration systems, which typically 

cool water, that is circulated for cooling 

purposes. In most chiller applications 

the cool water or working fluid is used 

for comfort cooling throughout a 

building or other location, but for ice 

rinks, the cool water or working fluid is 

used to freeze layers of water, which 

forms the ice. Although the water or 

working fluid may be used for different 

cooling purposes in each application, 

equipment used across these two 

subsectors is commonly used 

interchangeably. We therefore agree that 

ice rinks and chillers should be 

similarly restricted under this rule. 

Because ice rinks typically maintain the 

ice surface between 24 and 28 °F (¥4.4 

to ¥2.2 °C), it is inappropriate to adopt 

the temperature thresholds of ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F) and ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) that 

apply to chillers for comfort cooling and 

for IPR.128

With respect to the comments 

requesting a GWP limit of 700, the 

Agency agrees that this limit is 

reasonable under the (i)(4) factors and 

with the technical similarities to 

chillers. While the Agency 

acknowledges more substitutes may be 

available with a GWP limit of 700, 

including R–450A and R–513A, the 

Agency understands that the lower GWP 

refrigerants like R–744 will continue to 

be used for both ice rinks with chillers 

and direct expansion ice rinks. R–717 

will typically be used in chillers 

together with brine, CO2, or another 

secondary fluid. As noted by a 

commenter, the use of R–717 in ice 

rinks may be restricted in a small 

number of jurisdictions, and in light of 

these potential limitations of R–717 due 

to flammability and toxicity risks, 

especially the direct expansion ice rinks 

where the refrigerant is sent directly to 

evaporators to form the ice. Therefore, 

EPA is establishing a GWP limit that 

retains more refrigerant options for this 

subsector. 

In addition to the lower-GWP 

refrigerants already available, EPA 

continues to evaluate substitutes under 

the SNAP program, and has authority to 

do so under subsection (i)(5) as well, on 

an ongoing basis. The Agency 

anticipates that this continuing 

evaluation of additional substitutes, 

including for use in ice rinks, may 

expand further the availability of more 

options for compliance by January 1, 

2025. For example, under the SNAP 

program, in SNAP Rule 26 EPA has 

proposed to list as acceptable subject to 

use conditions several additional 

refrigerants that would comply with 

today’s final rule, for use in ice rinks 

with a remote compressor: HFO– 

1234ze(E), HFO–1234yf, R–457A, R– 

516A, R–455A, and R–454C (with GWPs 

of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, and 146, 

respectively) (88 FR 33722; May 24, 

2023). These refrigerants are classified 

as A2L and may face challenges for 

direct expansion ice rinks in some 

jurisdictions. Therefore, for ice rinks 

EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of 700 

consistent with the GWP limit for 

chillers given the technical similarities 

of these subsectors and given the need 

for additional options for direct 

expansion ice rinks. 

g. Automatic Commercial Ice Machines 

Automatic Commercial Ice Machines 

(ACIMs), either self-contained or remote 

condensing, are used in commercial 

establishments such as hotels, 

restaurants, and convenience stores to 

produce ice for consumer use. For 

purposes of this rule, ice-making 

equipment used in residential settings 

are covered under household 

refrigerators and freezers. Self-contained 

units are a type of ACIM in which the 

ice-making mechanism and the storage 

compartment, if provided, are in an 

integral cabinet. They contain both 

evaporator and condenser, have no 

external refrigerant connections, and are 

entirely factory-charged with 

refrigerants and factory-sealed, generally 

containing smaller refrigerant charges. 

These products are analogous to other 

self-contained equipment, such as 

vending machines and stand-alone 

refrigerated display cases. 

Remote condensing ACIMs have the 

condenser separated from the portion of 

the machine making the ice and have 

refrigerant lines running between the 

two. Like other types of remote 

condensing RACHP systems, remote 

condensing ACIMs utilize a split-system 

design where the evaporator (which 

freezes water into ice) is located 

indoors, while the condensing unit 

(which rejects heat, usually to 

surrounding air although water cooling 

is also a possibility) is located 

elsewhere, such as outside the building. 

In remote-compressor systems, a type of 

remote condensing ACIM, the heat is 

still rejected away from the ice-making 

evaporator, either inside in a separate 

room or outdoors, but the compressor is 

located outdoors via interconnected 

refrigerant piping. These designs require 

field-assembled refrigerant piping to 

connect the indoor unit with the remote 

condensing unit, which significantly 

increases its necessary refrigerant charge 

in comparison to that of a self-contained 

unit. Modular ice machines are 

designed to sit on top of a separate unit, 

such as an ice bin, beverage machine, or 

ice dispenser and typically produce 250 

to 1,000 lb of ice per day. Higher glide 

refrigerant blends have not been 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73165 

129The Department of Energy’s regulations for 

commercial ice machines define harvest rate as ‘‘the 

amount of ice (at 32 degrees F) in pounds produced 

per 24 hours.’’ 10 CFR 431.132. For purposes of this 

rule, the harvest rate of an ACIM shall be 

determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.134. 

typically used as substitutes for remote 

condensing ACIMs. 

ACIMs can also be divided between 

batch type machines (e.g., providing 

cubed ice) and continuous type 

machines (e.g., providing flaked ice). 

Batch type (also called cube type) ice 

machines harvest ice with alternating 

freezing and harvesting periods. Batch 

type ACIMs can be used in a variety of 

applications but are generally used to 

generate ice for use in beverages. Batch 

type ACIMs are often employed in 

hotels, hospitals, and restaurants where 

beverages are served. Continuous type 

ice makers produce ice through a 

continuous freeze and harvest process 

and include flake and nugget ice 

machines. Flake ice is used primarily in 

food displays, such as seafood grocery 

store displays or salad bars, whereas 

nugget ice (also known as chewable ice) 

is primarily used in beverage 

applications such as smoothies and 

blended cocktails. 

R–404A and R–410A have been the 

most common HFC refrigerants 

currently used in ACIMs, which 

replaced the use of ozone depleting 

HCFCs such as R–22. R–404A is used in 

remote condensing ACIMs, while both 

R–404A and R–410A have been 

commonly used in self-contained 

ACIMs. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for automatic 

commercial ice machines? 

For new batch type self-contained 

ACIMs with a harvest rate 129 less than 

or equal to 1,000 lb of ice per 24 hours, 

and new continuous type self-contained 

ACIMs with a harvest rate less than or 

equal to 1,200 lb of ice per 24 hours, 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

HFC blends with GWPs of 150 or 

greater, beginning January 1, 2026. 

For new batch type self-contained 

ACIMs with a harvest rate greater than 

1,000 lb of ice per 24 hours, and new 

continuous type self-contained ACIMs 

with a harvest rate greater than 1,200 lb 

of ice per 24 hours, EPA is restricting 

the use of the following HFCs and HFC 

blends, beginning January 1, 2027: R– 

402A, R–402B, R–404A, R–407A, R– 

407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–408A, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–411A, R–411B, R– 

417A, R–417C, R–420A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–442A, R– 

507A, HFC–134a, R–125/290/134a/600a 

(55/1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), 

GHG–X5, G2018C, and Freeze 12. 

For new remote condensing ACIMs, 

EPA is restricting the use of the 

following HFCs and HFC blends, 

beginning January 1, 2027: R–402A, R– 

402B, R–404A, R–407B, R–408A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–438A, R– 

507A, R–125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/ 

1.5), RS–44 (2003 formulation), and 

GHG–X5. 

Currently available substitutes 

identified for self-contained ACIM 

where the harvest rate is less than or 

equal to 1,000 lb of ice per day (batch 

type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day 

(continuous type) include R–290 (GWP 

3.3) and R–717 (GWP 1), and where the 

harvest rate is greater than that amount 

R–513A (GWP 630) and R–450A (GWP 

601) are available substitutes. EPA has 

proposed to list many additional 

refrigerants as acceptable for use in 

ACIMs in proposed SNAP Rule 26 (88 

FR 33722, May 24, 2023). Substitute 

refrigerants R–455A (GWP 146) and R– 

454C (GWP 146) also meet the 

restrictions and could serve as 

additional potential candidates for use 

in place of the HFCs and HFC blends 

that EPA is restricting in self-contained 

units. Other proposed refrigerants such 

as R–454B (GWP 465) and HFC–32 

(GWP 675), which are being pursued for 

other R–410A applications, and R–448A 

(GWP 1,386), R–449A (GWP 1,396), R– 

449B (GWP 1,411), and R–454A (GWP 

237), which are being pursued for other 

R–404A applications, are potential 

candidates for self-contained batch and 

continuous type ACIMs with harvest 

rates greater than 1,000 lb of ice per day 

and 1,200 lb of ice per day, respectively. 

Available substitutes for remote 

condensing ACIMs include R–448A, R– 

449A, R–449B, and HFC–134a. 

EPA’s proposed restrictions included: 

the use of HFCs and HFC blends with 

GWPs of 150 or greater for selfcontained ACIMs with charge sizes less 

than or equal to 500 g, beginning 

January 1, 2025; the use of certain HFCs 

and HFC blends—R–404A, R–507, R– 

507A, R–428A, R–422C, R–434A, R– 

421B, R–408A, R–422A, R–407B, R– 

402A, R–422D, R–421A, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R–422B, R– 

424A, R–402B, GHG–X5, R–417A, R– 

438A, R–410B, R–407A, R–410A, R– 

442A, R–417C, R–407F, R–437A, R– 

407C, RS–24 (2004 formulation), and 

HFC–134a—in new self-contained 

ACIMs with refrigerant charge 

capacities exceeding 500 g, beginning 

January 1, 2025; and the use of certain 

HFCs and HFC blends—R–404A, R–507, 

R–507A, R–428A, R–422C, R–434A, R– 

421B, R–408A, R–422A, R–407B, R– 

402A, R–422D, R–421A, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R–422B, R– 

424A, R–402B, GHG–X5, R–417A, R– 

438A, and R–410B—in new remote 

condensing ACIMs, beginning January 

1, 2025. In finalizing these lists of HFCs 

and HFC blends, we are correcting an 

error in the date of formulation for RS– 

24 and we are adding several blends 

that contain HFCs that were 

inadvertently left off the lists and that 

have higher GWPs than the proposed 

prohibited HFC or HFC blend with the 

lowest GWP (HFC–134a for selfcontained units and R–410B for remote 

systems). 

EPA is finalizing three different sets 

of restrictions on the use of HFCs and 

HFC blends in ACIMs, depending on the 

type of equipment. Originally, the 

Agency proposed to set GWP limits for 

self-contained ACIMs based on charge 

capacity, rather than the harvest rate for 

ice production. However, in response to 

the comments received, the Agency has 

adjusted the categorization of selfcontained ACIMs to distinguish 

equipment by its ice harvest 

(production) rate, rather than charge 

capacity, to better evaluate the 

availability of substitutes for use in the 

various applications in this subsector. 

Distinguishing self-contained ACIMs by 

harvest rate is consistent with the 

Department of Energy’s energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

this subsector. Table 4 below 

summarizes the final restrictions on 

HFCs and their compliance dates for 

various ACIM applications. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73166 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—HFC RESTRICTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MACHINES

ACIM type Batch or 

continuous Harvest rate HFC restriction Compliance date 

Self-contained ....... Batch ................... Less than or equal 

to 1,000 pounds 

ice per 24 hours.

GWP less than 150 ......................................................... January 1, 2026. 

Self-contained ....... Continuous .......... Less than or equal 

to 1,200 pounds 

ice per 24 hours.

GWP less than 150 ......................................................... January 1, 2026. 

Self-contained ....... Batch ................... Greater than 

1,000 pounds 

ice per 24 hours.

Listed blends prohibited: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, 

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–408A, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–411A, R–411B, R–417A, R–417C, 

R–420A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, 

R–437A, R–438A, R–442A, R–507A, HFC–134a, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), GHG– 

X5, G2018C, Freeze 12.

January 1, 2027. 

Self-contained ....... Continuous .......... Greater than 

1,200 pounds 

ice per 24 hours.

Listed blends prohibited: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, 

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–408A, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–411A, R–411B, R–417A, R–417C, 

R–420A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, 

R–437A, R–438A, R–442A,R–507A, HFC–134a, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), GHG– 

X5, G2018C, Freeze 12.

January 1, 2027. 

Remote condenser All ......................... All ......................... Listed blends prohibited: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, 

R–407B, R–408A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, 

R–428A, R–434A, R–438A, R–507A, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS–44 (2003 formulation), 

GHG–X5.

January 1, 2027. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments from industry on its 

proposed approach to categorizing 

ACIM equipment when setting 

restrictions. One commenter expressed 

support for setting GWP limits based on 

a 500 g charge capacity, as proposed. 

Another commenter disagreed with the 

proposed approach, and instead 

recommended the Agency distinguish 

equipment by the cooling capacity of 

the compressor, recommending 3,000 

BTU/hr as a possible threshold between 

smaller and larger equipment. The 

commenter stated that this approach 

would better characterize the 

componentry requirements of the 

market to inform compressor 

manufacturers’ product development, 

based on the exact cooling capacity 

needs of the OEMs. This same 

commenter stated that for equipment 

design engineers, this approach would 

clarify the refrigerants available for use 

at the point of compressor selection, 

rather than when selecting a refrigerant 

charge for the equipment, given that 

charge is subjective and can be adjusted 

based on the design preferences of the 

engineer. Similarly, another commenter 

also disagreed with using charge 

capacity to distinguish equipment; 

instead, they requested EPA categorize 

self-contained ACIMs by pounds of ice 

produced per 24 hours, analogous to 

DOE’s energy conservation standards, 

recommending a 1,000 lb/day threshold 

when setting restrictions. This 

commenter described how the 

refrigerant charge could be manipulated 

by manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed restrictions that they viewed 

as more lenient—simply increasing the 

charge of equipment to surpass the 500 

g threshold, even in cases where a 

smaller charge would provide sufficient 

cooling capacity. 

One commenter disagreed with 

differentiating self-contained ACIMs by 

charge size, or any other factor related 

to the cooling capacity or harvest rate of 

the machine, and instead requested that 

all self-contained ACIMs be treated the 

same when setting restrictions. This 

commenter explained that for smaller 

self-contained equipment, only 

hydrocarbon refrigerants were viable 

options under the proposed restrictions, 

and that building codes may limit the 

refrigerant charge below what is 

necessary, even if updated safety 

standards have expanded the allowable 

charges for flammable refrigerants. By 

removing the proposed charge 

requirement in self-contained 

equipment, the commenter stated that 

smaller equipment would be able to 

continue using non-flammable 

refrigerants where flammable 

refrigerants may not be feasible. 

Response: After review of the 

comments received, EPA is finalizing 

GWP limits for self-contained ACIMs 

based on the harvest rate of ice 

production rather than the proposed 

basis of charge size of the equipment. 

One commenter agreed with the 

proposed approach to setting 

restrictions and EPA has considered 

how the availability of substitutes for 

use in ACIMs is affected by various 

technical specifications and concludes 

that setting restrictions based on ice 

production rates better distinguishes 

equipment capable of meeting lower 

GWP limits from equipment that may 

need additional refrigerants with higher 

GWPs. One commenter recommended 

using the cooling capacity of the 

compressor as a threshold for setting 

restrictions; however, EPA understands 

through conversations with industry 

stakeholders that a categorization based 

on harvest rate of ice production per day 

is more familiar for ACIM 

manufacturers, is more likely to be 

considered by customers purchasing 

ACIMs than cooling capacity, and 

mirrors DOE’s approach to setting 

energy conservation standards. 

Setting restrictions for self-contained 

ACIMs based on the cooling capacity of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73167 

130See EERE–2017–BT–STD–0022–0050 and 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0022–0047, respectively, 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

their compressors is technically similar 

to the categorization finalized in this 

rulemaking—cooling capacity is directly 

related to the equipment’s harvest rate 

of ice production. This equipment 

categorization approach will similarly 

clarify the cooling needs of OEMs for 

compressor manufacturers and help 

design engineers more easily identify 

which refrigerants are allowed in certain 

equipment, compared to the proposed 

approach of categorizing based on 

charge size. EPA also recognizes that 

equipment with near 500 g charges 

could face unclear restrictions on the 

use of certain HFCs and HFC blends, 

depending on how a design engineer 

chooses to design and charge the selfcontained equipment. The ability to 

manipulate the charge of the system 

could generate a regulatory loophole for 

OEMs who could unnecessarily add 

refrigerant charge as a way to continue 

to use refrigerants with GWPs above the 

finalized restrictions. For these reasons, 

EPA is categorizing self-contained ACIM 

equipment based on the harvest rate of 

ice production, rather than on the 

refrigerant charge of the equipment. 

In selecting the harvest rate of ice 

production threshold for distinguishing 

applicable restrictions, EPA considered 

the available substitutes for various 

types of ACIMs and how updates to 

relevant standards have affected the 

refrigerant options. All categories of 

ACIM are covered by UL Standard 

60335–2–89. The 2nd edition of this 

standard, published in October 2021, 

recently increased the allowable charge 

limits for flammable refrigerants in 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including both higher- and lower 

flammability refrigerants (ASHRAE 

flammability safety categories 2 and 3, 

and 2L). For self-contained equipment 

using R–290, UL 60335–2–89, 2nd 

edition increased the charge limit from 

150 g per refrigerant circuit to either 300 

g or 500 g per refrigerant circuit, 

depending on construction. For selfcontained ACIM, the 2nd edition set a 

300 g limit for R–290 for ‘‘packaged 

refrigerating units and appliances with 

doors and/or drawers enclosing one or 

more refrigerated compartments.’’ 

(22.110 DV.2). This limit applies to 

‘‘unprotected’’ designs where the 

refrigerant can leak into the ice storage 

bin. For protected units, in which the 

refrigerant cannot leak into the bin, 500 

g of R–290 (and a similar amount for 

other A3 refrigerants) is allowed in the 

2nd edition. Further, UL 60335–2–89 

restricts the allowable charge size of 

flammable refrigerant in these 

appliances for ‘‘self-contained 

appliances used in a public corridor or 

lobby’’ (22.110 DV.2). Certain flammable 

refrigerants (i.e., A3s and A2s) are not 

allowed in any quantities in splitsystems with field-constructed 

refrigerant piping (22.110 DV.3). For 

further discussion on the updates to UL 

60335–2–89, see section VI.E.2.c. 

One commenter suggested setting this 

threshold at a harvest rate of 1,000 lb of 

ice per day and EPA agrees that such a 

rate is appropriate for distinguishing 

batch type equipment capable of using 

lower-GWP refrigerants from those that 

need continued use of higher-GWP 

options. However, for continuous type 

equipment, EPA finds that a 1,200 lb of 

ice per day is appropriate. These limits 

are consistent with comments made to 

DOE by AHRI and an ACIM 

manufacturer.130 Currently, ENERGY 

STAR has certified ice makers capable 

of producing as much as 566 lb of ice 

per day using charge sizes of R–290 

below the current 150 g charge limit per 

SNAP Rule 21, a use condition based on 

the earlier industry safety standard for 

commercial ice machines, UL 563, 8th 

edition (81 FR 86778, December 1, 

2016). However, in response to the 

updates included in the 2nd edition of 

UL 60335–2–89, on May 24, 2023, EPA 

proposed to increase the allowable 

charge capacity of R–290 in ACIMs to 

500 g in SNAP Rule 26 (88 FR 33722, 

May 24, 2023). While equipment using 

500 g charges of R–290 could likely 

produce up to the finalized 1,000 lb of 

ice per day (batch type) and 1,200 lb of 

ice per day (continuous type), EPA finds 

that the chosen harvest rates provide 

reasonable limits under which we have 

assessed as being capable of 

transitioning to R–290, or other 

available substitutes with GWPs less 

than 150, in the finalized compliance 

timeline. Such limits do not preclude 

manufacturers from pursuing R–290 or 

other lower-GWP substitutes for 

equipment with harvest rates that 

exceed those limits. Additionally, EPA 

has proposed to list R–455A (GWP 146) 

and R–454C (GWP 146) for use in this 

subsector, which could also work as 

potential candidates for these types of 

ACIMs. 

Given that there will likely be a 

greater number of available refrigerant 

options for equipment harvesting up to 

1,000 lb of ice per day (batch type) or 

1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type) 

by the compliance date for this 

subsector in addition to R–290, which is 

already used widely in ACIMs, EPA 

considers these harvest rates 

appropriate thresholds for 

distinguishing self-contained 

equipment. The one-year extension of 

the compliance date provided in this 

final action will help facilitate the 

transition to lower-GWP refrigerants for 

OEMs of smaller self-contained ACIMs 

harvesting less than 1,000 lb of ice per 

day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per 

day (continuous type). 

EPA considers the available 

substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs and 

HFC blends to differ for smaller and 

larger ACIMs. Neat (i.e., zero glide) 

refrigerants, such as R–290, are widely 

used in smaller, self-contained ACIMs, 

where smaller charge sizes of refrigerant 

are capable of providing the required 

cooling capacity at lower harvest rates. 

In larger equipment, higher rates of ice 

production mandate larger charge sizes, 

compounding flammability concerns 

with A3 refrigerants. Equipment 

harvesting ice at higher rates may still 

need access to non-flammable options, 

in addition to other, lower-flammability 

options, which may be limited in their 

technological achievability because of 

various factors such as glide. Although 

building codes limit the charge of 

flammable refrigerants at points of 

public egress, and are underway to 

being updated to incorporate recent 

additions of safety standards, in such 

cases, smaller charges of A3 refrigerants 

(e.g., less than approximately 114 g of 

R–290) are still allowable, in addition to 

lower-flammability refrigerants, such as 

the SNAP proposed A2L refrigerants R– 

454C and R–455A. Extending the 

compliance deadline from January 1, 

2025, to January 1, 2026, will provide 

additional time for building codes to be 

updated; for research, development, and 

testing of new self-contained ACIM 

models; and for additional substitutes to 

enter the market for this subsector. 

Therefore, smaller equipment capable of 

using lower-GWP refrigerants will have 

a sufficient number of refrigerant 

options to select from, highlighting the 

usefulness of distinguishing selfcontained ACIMs by their rate of ice 

production when setting restrictions. 

For these reasons, EPA disagrees with 

the commenter that suggested removing 

the distinction, either by charge size or 

rate of ice production, of smaller and 

larger self-contained ACIMs. 

Comment: Two commenters agreed 

with EPA’s proposed restrictions for all 

types of self-contained ACIMs. Others 

disagreed, including one that requested 

a 700 GWP limit for all self-contained 

equipment, regardless of charge size. 

They stated that a 150 GWP limit would 

not be feasible, given the limited charge 

sizes of A3 and A2L refrigerants allowed 

by safety standards at public points of 

egress, and the insufficient supply 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73168 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

available to OEMs of components with 

refrigerants with a GWP below 150 

GWP. Another commenter stated that 

there is currently insufficient data for 

setting restrictions that will comport 

with building codes, and instead 

suggested applying the same list of 

prohibited substances proposed for 

remote condensing ACIMs to selfcontained ACIMs. 

Other commenters only supported the 

restrictions as proposed—a 150 GWP 

limit—for smaller (less than or equal to 

a 500 g charge, as proposed) selfcontained ACIMs. Of these commenters, 

some agreed with the GWP limit set at 

a 500 g charge size, while one agreed 

with the limit, but recommended setting 

the threshold at a harvest rate of 1,000 

lb of ice per day instead of a charge size, 

and another approved of a 150 GWP 

limit, but only in very small selfcontained equipment, requesting a 114 

g charge size threshold for setting 

restrictions, instead. This commenter 

stated that R–290 is the only currently 

feasible substitute for this type of 

equipment, and explained that in 

certain circumstances, safety standards, 

SNAP use conditions, and building 

codes limit its charge well below 500 g 

due to its flammability. The commenter 

asserted that other options identified by 

the Agency are either limited by toxicity 

concerns, refrigerant glide technical 

challenges, a limited supply of 

components, or missing SNAP listings, 

and therefore, the commenter argued 

that there are insufficient available 

substitutes below 150 GWP for selfcontained ACIM with charge sizes 

greater than 114 g. 

Many of these same commenters, 

although supportive of the 150 GWP 

limit for smaller self-contained ACIMs, 

disagreed with the proposed restrictions 

for larger (above 500 g, as proposed) 

equipment. One requested removing R– 

410A from the list of prohibited 

substances for larger self-contained 

equipment, but only if sufficient time 

was allowed. They explained that for 

certain larger ACIM, there are currently 

no suitable SNAP-approved substitutes 

for R–410A. However, they noted that 

prohibiting the use of R–410A would be 

appropriate if provided additional time 

to comply, and that once the supply of 

components to replace R–410A has 

improved, a 700 GWP limit could be 

appropriate for this type of equipment. 

Other commenters requested a 2,500 

GWP limit in place of a prohibited 

substances list. 

Several commenters supported the 

proposed list of prohibited substances 

for use in remote condensing ACIM. 

Other commenters disagreed. One 

commenter mentioned that removing R– 

404A from the prohibited substances list 

would ease some of the immediate 

development burden in remote models. 

Other commenters requested a GWP 

limit in place of a prohibited substances 

list for remote condensing ACIMs. As 

for larger self-contained ACIMs, two 

commenters requested a 2,500 GWP 

limit, while, in contrast to all other 

comments received, another commenter 

noted their support of a much lower 150 

GWP limit. 

Response: In response to the 

comments received and its evaluation of 

the availability of substitutes for use in 

this subsector, EPA is finalizing all GWP 

and refrigerant-specific restrictions for 

ACIM as proposed. Notably, the metric 

for distinguishing which restrictions 

apply to different sizes of self-contained 

equipment has been changed from the 

proposed rule, as described in this 

section above, but the GWP limit for 

smaller units is finalized as proposed. 

EPA recognizes the challenges for 

ACIMs used at points of egress for the 

public, but notes that research and 

design for self-contained units with 

harvest rates less than or equal to 1,000 

lb of ice per day (batch type) and 1,200 

lb of ice per day (continuous type) that 

are able to use R–290 in sufficiently 

small charges has been identified by 

commenters as already underway. Many 

smaller self-contained units already use 

R–290, and with a pending SNAP listing 

proposal to allow charges of R–290 up 

to 500 g, EPA is confident in the 

industry’s ability to meet a 150 GWP 

limit in this type of equipment. 

Commenters also noted ongoing 

research to use other SNAP proposed 

A2L refrigerants below 150 GWP, R– 

454C, and R–455A, where an A3 

refrigerant may not be feasible. 

Therefore, given the additional year to 

comply, EPA considers a 150 GWP limit 

for self-contained ACIM with harvest 

rates less than or equal to 1,000 lb of ice 

per day (batch type) and 1,200 lb of ice 

per day (continuous type) as 

appropriate, in agreement with many of 

the comments and other public 

information. 

For self-contained ACIM with harvest 

rates greater than 1,000 lb of ice per day 

(batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day 

(continuous type), EPA appreciates the 

request by one commenter for a 700 

GWP limit. At this time, the Agency 

considers additional options with GWPs 

greater than 700, particularly nonflammable refrigerants, as necessary, 

because of the lack of available 

substitutes due to safety concerns with 

large charge sizes of flammable 

refrigerants. However, as the industry 

continues its transition away from some 

of the highest-GWP refrigerants, EPA 

may choose to set a GWP limit for this 

type of equipment at a later date. As 

noted by a second commenter, a limit 

similar to 700 GWP may be appropriate 

in the future, depending on EPA’s 

evaluation of the availability of 

substitutes and their technological 

achievability in larger self-contained 

ACIMs. EPA disagrees with commenters 

who requested a 2,500 GWP limit in 

place of a list of prohibited substances. 

Such a limit would allow for continued 

use of R–410A (GWP 2,088) in selfcontained equipment with higher 

harvest rates, an HFC-blend refrigerant 

proposed as prohibited. Similarly, the 

Agency disagrees with the commenter 

who asked for the list of prohibited 

substances proposed for remote 

condensing ACIMs, which is less 

restrictive than the list for larger selfcontained equipment and does not 

restrict R–410A, to apply to all types of 

ACIMs. Given there are already several 

refrigerants listed by EPA’s SNAP 

program for ACIMs that are not 

prohibited, such as R–448A, R–449A, 

and R–449B, that SNAP recently listed 

the nonflammable, azeotropic (minimal 

glide) refrigerant R–515B, and that EPA 

has proposed to list several additional 

refrigerants as acceptable for use in 

ACIM that are zero or low glide and 

could serve as R–410A substitutes (e.g., 

HFC–32, R–454B), EPA expects there 

will be a greater number available for 

use by the extended date of compliance 

of January 1, 2027. Further, a 

commenter explicitly noted that 

restricting the use of R–410A would be 

appropriate if the Agency allotted 

additional time for component supply to 

improve and to develop equipment 

using new substitutes. The Agency 

therefore considers the industry capable 

of transitioning out of certain specified 

higher-GWP HFCs and HFC blends, 

including R–410A, by the compliance 

deadline. 

EPA agrees with many of the 

comments approving of the proposed 

list of prohibited substances for use in 

remote condensing ACIMs. Regarding 

the comments received requesting a 

2,500 GWP limit, at this time, EPA does 

not consider setting a GWP limit for this 

type of equipment to be appropriate at 

this time but may choose to do so 

through future rulemakings. By 

identifying HFCs and HFC blends as 

prohibited from use, the Agency is able 

to encourage a transition away from 

specific higher-GWP refrigerants while 

allowing flexibility for the industry as it 

continues developing products that use 

refrigerants well below 2,500 GWP. As 

stated in section VI.B of this preamble, 

this approach—restricting specific 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73169 

substances instead of setting a GWP 

limit for a given subsector—gives EPA 

time to identify an appropriate GWP 

limit for this subsector while still 

restricting those substances that have 

the highest adverse environmental 

impact. Given the additional technical 

challenges for equipment installed 

remotely and restrictions on use of 

flammable refrigerants in industry safety 

standards, the restricted list is less 

prohibitive than that for self-contained 

units. EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that described a 150 GWP 

limit as appropriate for this type of 

ACIM. Very few non-flammable 

substitutes are available below 150 

GWP, flammability concerns are even 

greater for remote condensing units than 

for those that are self-contained, and the 

information provided did not support a 

conclusion that those nonflammable 

options (e.g., R–744) are viable in all 

remote condensing ACIMs. For these 

reasons, EPA is finalizing the 

restrictions for remote condensing 

ACIM as proposed. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

EPA’s proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for ACIM, citing 

California’s HFC regulation 

implementation as proof that 2025 is 

achievable. All other comments 

received requested an extension from 

the proposed date, including general 

requests for EPA to work with OEMs to 

ensure the achievability of the timeline 

and additional time to develop new 

refrigerants, update building codes, and 

harmonize with various standards, and 

for specific compliance dates ranging 

from 2027 to 2029. Commenters who 

requested 2029 referenced the EU F-Gas 

Regulation’s conversion timeline as one 

reason for the appropriateness of a 

much later compliance date. 

Various issues were cited as reason 

for the requests to extend the date of 

compliance from that proposed. Many 

manufacturers stated that they will need 

to completely redesign many of their 

ACIM models, which will take 

considerable time. Commenters 

described this subsector as highly 

complex and diverse, with many 

varying demands. End-users range from 

hospitals to restaurants, hotels, 

supermarkets, offices, and schools, 

requiring many different types of ice, 

necessitating unique equipment design 

for each model. New equipment 

development efforts, according to a few 

commenters, will be held up by design 

challenges unique to ACIM and vending 

machines, such as strict limitations on 

flammable refrigerant charges at points 

of egress, which require manufacturers 

to design for very small charge sizes. 

Additionally, the availability of 

components, both in terms of supply 

chain and design of models using new 

substitutes, was mentioned by several 

commenters as a major challenge for 

this subsector to transition. Commenters 

highlighted that after new models are 

designed, they will still need to be 

tested and certified by NRTLs for safety, 

efficiency, and sanitation. 

Commenters discussed how several 

identified substitutes have not yet been 

SNAP-approved or updated to allow for 

larger charge sizes in equipment, 

following the update to UL 60335–2–89. 

These commenters stated that additional 

time would provide an opportunity for 

finalization of SNAP listings, including 

new A2L refrigerants and increased 

charge sizes for R–290, providing 

additional substitutes for manufacturers 

to choose from. A few commenters 

requested a later compliance date of 

January 1, 2029, for facilities not yet 

updated to safely use flammable 

refrigerants to make necessary 

conversions. One such commenter 

noted that an accelerated timeline to 

more flammable options would create 

safety risks for manufacturers and the 

public resulting from potential 

oversights and would not provide 

sufficient time to train technicians to 

properly handle A3 refrigerants. 

Commenters requested time for the new 

DOE efficiency standards for ACIMs to 

be published, likely in 2027, before EPA 

requires compliance with restrictions. 

This standard was described as greatly 

influential on the design requirements 

of products, and if EPA sets a 

compliance deadline ahead of its 

publication, commenters worried that 

they would need to redesign their new 

products. 

Response: EPA agrees with 

commenters that additional time for 

compliance is warranted for ACIMs to 

meet the restrictions finalized in this 

rulemaking. ACIMs fall within the scope 

of safety standard UL 60335–2–89. In 

October 2021, the 2nd edition of this 

standard was published, updating safety 

requirements so that flammable and 

lower flammability refrigerants could be 

deployed more widely in commercial 

refrigeration equipment. EPA recognizes 

the time it can take for an updated UL 

standard to be widely incorporated and 

for the updates to be applied across 

industry. Many other relevant changes 

affecting the availability of substitutes 

and facilitating transition to the use of 

those substitutes generally occur after 

the UL standard is updated, including 

evaluation of substitutes under the 

SNAP program, adoption of new 

editions of safety standards into 

building codes, equipment testing and 

certification, safety updates to 

manufacturing facilities, and training of 

technicians. All of these are 

considerations for EPA’s assessment of 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B). Further discussion 

on how updates to UL 60335–2–89 

affect the availability of substitutes for 

equipment within the safety standard’s 

scope can be found in section VI.F.1.a. 

Typically, following updates to safety 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, EPA evaluates substitutes 

through the SNAP program’s 

comparative risk framework, where the 

Agency considers safety by assessing 

exposure assessments, toxicity data, and 

flammability, as well as other regulatory 

criteria. EPA is currently evaluating 

many of the refrigerants impacted by the 

updates to UL 60335–2–89 and has 

proposed to list several refrigerants as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

under SNAP for use in ACIMs (88 FR 

33722, May 24, 2023). Although those 

evaluations under SNAP are ongoing, 

the Agency anticipates that given the 

number of substitutes currently 

proposed as acceptable for use, users in 

the ACIM subsector will likely have an 

expanded set of available substitutes 

from which to choose in the coming 

years. EPA has considered its ongoing 

ACIM evaluations under SNAP, the 

adjusted compliance timeframes 

reflecting these evaluations, and their 

potential impact on the availability of 

substitutes for use in this subsector, as 

well as the existing acceptable 

substitutes that are not prohibited, in 

finalizing the restrictions for ACIMs. 

Further discussion on the intersection of 

SNAP listing decisions and AIM Act 

subsection (i)(4) criteria can be found in 

section VI.E. 

As noted by many commenters, 

building codes can limit refrigerants 

available for use based on their 

flammability, the charge size of the 

equipment, and other relevant safety 

factors, and take time to adopt changes 

to safety standards. These code updates 

are generally made in each specific 

jurisdiction, and the timeframe for 

adoption of new editions of safety 

standards can vary greatly. In certain 

jurisdictions, users may be unable to 

utilize certain flammable substitutes 

identified by EPA for use in ACIMs, 

even if they are SNAP-approved, until 

building codes incorporate the updates 

in the 2nd edition of UL 60335–2–89. 

However, EPA may still consider a 

substitute to be available before every 

building code in every jurisdiction 

across the United States permits its use. 

See section VI.E.2.d for discussion on 

EPA’s consideration of building codes 

and the availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73170 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

131See, e.g., https://www.danfoss.com/en/aboutdanfoss/news/dcs/new-extension-of-danfoss-atexlab-accelerates-the-use-of-sustainable-refrigerants. 

132The Agency’s review of the EU F-Gas rule is 

that self-contained ACIMs have been subject to a 

2,500 GWP limit since January 1, 2020, and the 

proposed rule would subject them to a 150 GWP 

limit beginning January 1, 2025. 

Further, EPA agrees with commenters 

that updates to UL standards and new 

listings under SNAP must also be 

incorporated into equipment design, 

testing, and certifications. Even after 

manufacturers develop equipment using 

substitutes, NRTLs must certify that the 

new equipment meets UL safety 

standards. NRTL equipment 

certification requires substantial testing, 

site visits, and labor input before new 

equipment can be used. Although ACIM 

is a smaller subsector, all commercial 

refrigeration equipment expanding use 

of flammable refrigerants will need to be 

tested, and NRTLs could struggle to 

complete certification of new equipment 

by the proposed January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for this subsector. 

However, the industry seems to 

anticipate this upcoming need and is 

opening or expanding testing labs to 

handle this demand.131

EPA also anticipates that greater use 

of flammable refrigerant options like R– 

290 and A2Ls that EPA’s SNAP program 

has proposed as acceptable for use in 

ACIM may require more specialized 

training. Trainings on flammable 

refrigerants have been available for 

many years, and there are now trained 

technicians within the commercial 

refrigeration industry in general whose 

knowledge and skills will assist the 

transition to lower-GWP refrigerants in 

other related subsectors. 

EPA agrees with the commenters that 

manufacturing facilities not currently 

using flammable refrigerants will need 

to incorporate safety updates before 

using flammable refrigerants on site. 

The Agency acknowledges that these 

upgrades to manufacturing facilities 

could require financial and time 

investments; however, the use of A2L 

and A3 refrigerant has steadily 

increased over the last ten years, 

meaning many manufacturers may have 

already made such upgrades, or intend 

to do so in the coming years. In the 

cases where these updates have yet to be 

made, EPA understands that they could 

delay when industry is able to factorycharge new substitutes into their 

appliances, which is one factor we 

considered in establishing 2026 and 

2027 compliance dates for this 

subsector. 

For self-contained batch type ACIMs 

with harvest rates less than or equal to 

1,000 lb of ice per day, and for selfcontained continuous type ACIM with 

harvest rates less than or equal to 1,200 

lb of ice per day, EPA is finalizing a 

January 1, 2026, compliance date. EPA 

has proposed to update the SNAP use 

conditions for R–290 use in ACIMs and 

to list A2L refrigerants that meet the 

GWP limits for this type of ACIM. 

Finalizing an additional year to comply 

with the restrictions under subsection 

(i) provides more time for that ongoing 

evaluation under SNAP, for designers to 

develop equipment using up to 500 g of 

R–290 (a significant increase from the 

currently allowed 150 g), and for 

compressor manufacturers and OEMs to 

begin developing products with A2L 

refrigerants. This extra time is also 

provided to allow OEMs to continue 

research and development of equipment 

using smaller charge sizes of flammable 

refrigerants (less than 114 g for R–290) 

that would comply with building codes 

at points of egress in public spaces. A 

large portion of the self-contained 

equipment market with lower harvest 

rates has already transitioned to lowerGWP options, especially R–290, 

meaning that fewer models will need to 

be redesigned to meet the restrictions. 

Therefore, in our evaluation of the 

(i)(4)(B) criteria and for the reasons 

discussed, EPA finds that January 1, 

2026, is an appropriate compliance date 

for self-contained ACIMs with harvest 

rates equal to or below 1,000 lb ice per 

24 hours (batch type) or 1,200 lb ice per 

24 hours (continuous type). 

For self-contained ACIMs with 

harvest rates greater than 1,000 lb of ice 

per day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice 

per day (continuous type) and for 

remote condensing ACIMs, EPA is 

finalizing a January 1, 2027, compliance 

date. EPA understands that in 

equipment with larger charge sizes, 

flammability concerns are greater, 

creating additional design challenges 

related to building codes and safety 

standards. In remote condensing ACIMs, 

the refrigerant circulates in and out 

through piping that has been installed 

in the field that is more prone to leaks 

than self-contained equipment, also 

adding to the risk of using flammables. 

For this reason, considerably fewer 

products in these categories of ACIMs 

have transitioned from their respective 

lists of prohibitive substances, requiring 

substantial redesigns of equipment 

before the restrictions are able to be met. 

Given the diversity of ACIM end-users 

and the complexity of design in terms 

of varying ice shapes, EPA is providing 

two additional years from the date 

proposed for the industry to research, 

develop, test, and certify new 

equipment using refrigerants other than 

those prohibited. Similar to smaller, 

self-contained ACIMs, extending the 

compliance date will provide 

opportunity for additional substitutes to 

become available for manufacturers, 

such as those under evaluation in 

proposed SNAP Rule 26. A later date 

will likely also grant time for 

publication of DOE’s new efficiency 

standard for ACIMs, which will inform 

how OEMs choose to design new 

equipment. 

The Agency disagrees with selecting a 

compliance date based on other 

regulations, such as the EU F-Gas 

Regulation or the proposal to revise that 

regulation.132 The AIM Act compels 

EPA to set deadlines for restrictions 

based on the availability of substitutes 

in consideration of the factors described 

in subsection (i)(4), not based on 

decisions made by other regulatory 

bodies. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

compliance dates for ACIMs earlier than 

January 1, 2029, after evaluating the 

availability of substitutes and the 

feasibility of the U.S. industry to 

transition by an earlier date. 

EPA has therefore determined, in 

consideration of the subsection (i)(4)(B) 

criteria and the potential for certain 

SNAP approvals; updates to building 

codes; equipment design, testing, and 

certifications; technician trainings; and 

manufacturing facility upgrades, that 

providing additional time to comply is 

reasonable for ACIMs. Considering these 

factors, noted by many commenters, the 

Agency is finalizing extended 

compliance dates for this subsector to 

provide time for ongoing SNAP 

evaluation; jurisdictions to consider the 

latest edition of UL 60335–2–89 and 

incorporate the updated safety 

requirements into their building codes 

to enable the use of certain substitutes; 

further development, testing, and 

certification of equipment using new 

substitutes; a greater number of 

specialized trained technicians; and 

completion of remaining safety updates 

to facilities. 

h. Refrigerated Transport 

The refrigerated transport subsector 

primarily moves perishable goods (e.g., 

food, flowers) and pharmaceuticals at 

temperatures between ¥22 °F (¥30 °C) 

and 61 °F (16 °C) by various modes of 

transportation, including aircraft, roads 

and railways, vessels, and intermodal 

containers. For this action, EPA is 

establishing restrictions in three distinct 

subsectors: road, marine, and 

intermodal containers. 

Refrigerated transport—road consists 

of refrigeration for perishable goods in 

refrigerated vans, trucks, or trailers and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73171 

133Thermo King to Reduce Global Warming 

Potential of Transport Refrigeration by Nearly Fifty 

Percent, Thermo King, January 2022. Available at: 

https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/newsroom/ 

2022/01-jan/thermo-king-to-reduce-global-warmingpotential-of-transport-refr.html. 134Carrier Transicold Strengthens Sustainability 

Initiatives with Lower GWP Refrigerant for North 

America Truck and Trailer Systems, Carrier 

Transicold, December 2020. Available at: https://

www.carrier.com/truck-trailer/en/north-america/ 

news/news-article/carrier_transicold_strengthens_

sustainability_initiatives_with_lower_gwp_

refrigerant_for_north_america_truck_and_trailer_

systems.html. 

is the most common mode of 

refrigerated transport in the United 

States. This mode includes refrigerated 

trucks and trailers with a separate 

autonomous refrigeration unit with the 

condenser typically located at the front 

of a refrigerated trailer. This subsector 

also covers domestic trailer refrigeration 

units that contain an integrated motor 

(i.e., does not require a separate 

electrical power system or separate 

generator set to operate) that are 

transported as part of a truck, on truck 

trailers, and on railway flat cars. Other 

types of containers, such as seagoing 

ones that are connected to a vessel’s 

electrical system or require a separate 

generator that is not an integral part of 

the refrigeration unit to operate, are not 

included. This subsector also does not 

include: (i) Refrigerated vans or other 

vehicles where a single system also 

supplies passenger comfort cooling 

(MVAC), (ii) refrigerated containers that 

are less than 8 feet 4 inches in width, 

(iii) refrigeration units used on 

containers that require a separate 

generator to power the refrigeration 

unit, or (iv) ship holds (refrigerated 

transport—marine). 

Refrigerated transport—marine 

consists of refrigeration for cooling and 

storage of perishable goods on 

refrigerated vessels and various modes 

of transportation via water, including 

merchant, naval, fishing, and cruiseshipping. This subsector includes 

refrigerated ship holds and seagoing 

containers that are connected to a 

vessel’s electrical system or require a 

separate generator to operate that is not 

an integral part of the refrigeration unit. 

This subsector excludes refrigerated 

containers that contain their own power 

source and refrigerators or freezers that 

are plug-in appliances designed for 

retail food refrigeration (e.g., standalone units used in a galley or store). 

Lastly, refrigerated transport— 

intermodal containers are refrigerated 

containers with an integrated power 

source that allow uninterrupted storage 

during transport on different mobile 

platforms, including railways, road 

trucks, and vessels. A common example 

of intermodal containers are standardsized refrigerated containers that follow 

the International Organization for 

Standardization standard 668, ‘‘Series 1 

freight containers—Classification, 

dimensions and ratings.’’ 

Other types of refrigerated transport 

exist (e.g., refrigerated box cars for use 

in rail, and intermodal refrigerated 

containers operating at temperatures 

lower than ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) for carrying 

food, medicine, or vaccines at very low 

temperatures), but EPA is not 

establishing restrictions on HFC 

refrigerants in this rule for those other 

types. 

Refrigerated transport equipment 

manufacturers have used HFC 

refrigerants, mainly R–404A and HFC– 

134a, after the phase out of ozonedepleting CFC and HCFC refrigerants 

such as R–12 and R–22. 

This section provides EPA’s final 

restrictions for each of the three 

subsectors within the refrigerated 

transport subsector, followed by 

significant comments regarding the 

entire refrigerated transport subsector 

and EPA’s responses to those comments. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for refrigerated 

transport—road? 

EPA is prohibiting the use of HFCs in 

the following blends in new refrigerated 

transport-road equipment beginning 

January 1, 2025: R–402A, R–402B, R– 

404A, R–407B, R–408A, R–410B, R– 

417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–438A, R–507A, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation) and GHG–X5. 

Similar to EPA’s approach in 

addressing the use of HFCs in specific 

blends in remote condensing ACIM, 

EPA is not establishing a GWP limit for 

refrigerated transport—road and instead 

is restricting the use of HFCs in specific 

blends. A GWP limit of 2,200, as 

requested in one of the petitions that 

EPA granted, is high compared to the 

GWP limit that the Agency is 

establishing in other commercial 

refrigeration applications, and the 

Agency intends to propose a GWP limit 

at a later time. As stated in section VI.B 

of this preamble, this approach— 

restricting specific substances instead of 

setting a GWP limit for a given 

subsector—gives EPA time to identify a 

GWP limit while still restricting those 

substances that have the highest 

environmental impact (e.g., R–404A, 

with a GWP of 3,922, is a commonly 

used refrigerant in this subsector that 

EPA is restricting). For its 

considerations of availability of 

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

EPA identified substitutes that are 

available in place of the substances that 

EPA is restricting. These include R–744 

(GWP 1), R–450A (GWP 601), R–513A 

(GWP 630), and R–452A (GWP 2,140). 

Cryogenic transport refrigeration 

systems and direct nitrogen expansion 

are other existing technologically 

achievable options. Cryogenic systems 

cool cargo by injection of stored liquid 

R–744 or nitrogen (R–728) into the cargo 

space or an evaporator. These systems 

are used in small and large trucks, 

primarily in Northern Europe. In recent 

years manufacturers have also 

developed equipment using R–452A. R– 

452A has similar properties to R–404A, 

including cooling capacity, reliability, 

refrigerant charge, non-flammability, 

and low compressor discharge 

temperatures, supporting its use as a 

lower-GWP and technologically 

achievable substitute. The two major 

U.S.-based manufacturers of 

refrigeration equipment for refrigerated 

transport—road currently offer 

equipment using R–452A.133 134 EPA 

considers usage in the market as an 

indication of the commercial demands 

and technological achievability of a 

substitute. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for refrigerated 

transport—marine? 

EPA is restricting the use of the 

following HFCs and blends containing 

HFCs in new refrigerated transport— 

marine systems beginning January 1, 

2025: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, R– 

407B, R–408A, R–410B, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–438A, R–507A, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS–44 (2003 

formulation) and GHG–X5. EPA is not 

establishing a GWP limit at this time 

and the list of prohibited HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs are the same as 

in refrigerated transport—road. EPA’s 

rationale for restricting specific 

substances in this subsector can be 

found in section VI.B, with additional 

information in section VI.F.3.e (under 

the restrictions on the use of HFCs in 

ACIM). 

Available substitutes that may be used 

in refrigerated transport—marine in 

place of the substances that EPA is 

restricting include R–717, R–744, R– 

450A, and R–513A. Marine transport 

refrigeration systems cover a wide range 

of merchant, naval, fishing, and cruiseshipping applications and often require 

specialized and custom refrigeration 

equipment. Historically, this sector used 

R–22, R–404A, R–507A, R–407C, and R– 

134a. Today, manufacturers market 

lower-GWP substitutes for marine 

applications such as R–717 and R–744, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73172 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

135Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat 

Pumps Technical Options Committee 2018 

Assessment Report, Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel, UNEP, February 2019. Available 

at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019- 

04/RTOC-assessment-report-2018_0.pdf. 136 Ibid. 137Carrier Transicold ‘‘NaturaLINE’’ products. 

Additional information available at: https://

www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/ 

worldwide/products/Container-Units/naturaline. 138Maersk Container Industry, Star Cool— 

Refrigerants. Available at: https://

www.mcicontainers.com/products/star-cool/ 

refrigerants. 139Carrier Transicold Offers Lower GWP 

Refrigerant Option for PrimeLINE® Container Units, 

Carrier Transicold, February 2018. Available at: 

https://www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/ 

worldwide/news/news-article/carrier_transicold_

offers_lower_gwp_refrigerant_option_for_primeline_

container_units.html. 140Thermo King, Container Fresh and Frozen. 

Available at: https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/ 

marine/refrigeration-units/container-fresh-andfrozen.html. 

either alone or in cascade systems, 

particularly for fishing vessels, but these 

substitutes are not necessarily available 

in all applications within this subsector. 

According to the Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps 

Technical Options Committee (RTOC), 

HFC/HFO blends with lower GWPs may 

also be suitable for some applications 

and system designs; in addition, the 

International Maritime Organization 

limits the GWP of refrigerant in new 

equipment at 2,000.135

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for refrigerated 

transport—intermodal containers? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 700 or greater for new 

refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers with refrigerant temperatures 

entering the evaporator, or exiting fluid 

temperatures from a chiller, at or above 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F), beginning January 1, 

2025. For new refrigerated transport— 

intermodal containers with refrigerant 

temperatures entering the evaporator, or 

exiting fluid temperatures from a 

chiller, below ¥50 °C (¥58 °F), there 

are no restrictions in this final rule. 

For its considerations of availability 

of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B), 

EPA identified substitutes that are 

available in place of the substances that 

EPA is restricting. These include R–744 

and R–450A. R–513A, R–513B, and R– 

456A are also potential candidates. 

According to the RTOC, thousands of 

intermodal containers operating with R– 

744 were purchased or leased in 2016 

and 2017,136 and EPA identified one 

manufacturer that offers an intermodal 

container using R–744.137 Several 

manufacturers also offer intermodal 

containers using R–513A for new and 

retrofit applications.138 139 140

Comment: Several commenters 

supported a GWP limit of 700 for HFCs 

and blends containing HFCs used in 

new refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers. One of these commenters 

urged EPA to maintain the listed 

requirement, stating that transport 

refrigeration systems are a significant 

source of HFC emissions. Another 

commenter recommended the following 

adjustments to the 700 GWP limit for 

intermodal containers to account for 

operating needs at different temperature 

ranges: 

a. for operating temperature above 

¥58 °F (¥50 °C), GWP limit of 700 

b. for operating temperature in the range 

of ¥58 °F (¥50 °C) to ¥103 °F 

(¥75 °C), GWP limit of 2,000 

c. for operating temperature below 

¥103 °F (¥75 °C), GWP limit is 

exempted 

The commenter encouraged EPA also 

to adopt a GWP limit of 2,000 for new 

refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers where the temperature of the 

chilled fluid leaving the chiller is lower 

than ¥50 °C, which is consistent with 

EPA’s treatment of not applying a GWP 

limit of 700 for chillers for IPR with 

exiting fluid temperatures lower than 

¥50 °C. This commenter also stated that 

refrigerants used in low temperature 

chillers (i.e., below ¥50 °C) have high 

GWPs (e.g., HFC–23 with a GWP of 

14,800, R–508B with a GWP of 13,396), 

and this is also true for low temperature 

intermodal containers. The same 

commenter stated that they have 

developed a refrigerant for this 

temperature range with a GWP of 1,831. 

Response: EPA is establishing 

restrictions on HFCs and HFC blends 

with a GWP of 700 or higher for use in 

new refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers, as proposed. Manufacturers 

are already selling intermodal 

containers using R–744 (GWP 1), R– 

450A (GWP 601), and R–513A (GWP 

630), indicating the availability of these 

substitutes for use in this subsector, 

particularly with regard to technological 

achievability and commercial demand. 

Concerning the comments about 

refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers with exiting fluid at 

temperatures below ¥58 °F (¥50 °C), in 

this final rule, EPA is not establishing 

GWP restrictions for refrigerated 

transport—intermodal containers with 

fluid temperatures below ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F). (For chiller type equipment, 

this is the fluid leaving the system, and 

for direct expansion equipment, this is 

the temperature of the refrigerant as it 

enters the evaporator.) EPA recognizes 

that most of the refrigerants used for 

equipment with fluid temperatures 

below ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) have relatively 

high GWPs. Upon evaluating the 

availability of substitutes for refrigerated 

transport—intermodal containers 

operating at very low temperatures, EPA 

is not restricting the use of HFCs and 

HFC blends with exiting fluid 

temperatures lower than ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) in this final rule. EPA notes 

that there is a similar lack of availability 

of refrigerants with temperatures either 

entering the evaporator or exiting a 

chiller or low temperature stage in other 

subsectors, such as IPR and chillers for 

IPR. The Agency expects that after 

further research and development, there 

may be additional refrigerants available 

for these low temperatures, after 

additional reviews of refrigerants for 

safety, health, and environmental 

impacts under the SNAP program and 

further development of industry 

standards that would allow for use of 

flammable refrigerants. Note that EPA 

may choose to set restrictions in the 

future as the availability of lower-GWP 

substitutes continues to grow. 

Comment: One commenter generally 

supported the proposed refrigerant bans 

for ‘‘transport refrigeration—road’’ for 

refrigerated transport: truck, trailer, 

aircraft, and rail. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA harmonize the GWP 

limit of all transport refrigeration 

including truck and trailer, rail, and 

construction (although the commenter 

did not refer to intermodal or marine), 

with refrigerant bans listed for road 

systems and a January 1, 2025, 

transition date. Another commenter 

generally supported the restrictions for 

refrigerated transport for marine and 

road applications. This commenter also 

stated that they preferred that EPA 

restrict use of refrigerants with 2,200 

GWP limit or higher, rather than 

specific listings of HFCs for these 

subsectors, stating this would 

standardize the approach across sectors, 

align with CARB regulations, and still 

enable EPA to set a lower GWP limit at 

a future date. Another commenter stated 

that a transition toward A2L refrigerants 

and other lower-GWP alternatives in 

these subsectors is underway in various 

States and in other countries and that 

the proposed rule continues this 

progress by imposing specific HFC bans 

with respect to transport refrigeration 

used in road systems and marine. This 

commenter encouraged EPA to do more, 

specifically stating that EPA should 

develop future technological transitions 

rulemakings that set GWP limits— 

significantly lower than 2,200—for these 

transport—refrigeration subsectors as 

soon as EPA determines that lower-GWP 

alternatives meeting the criteria set forth 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73173 

141 In the proposed rule EPA used the term 

‘‘residential refrigeration systems.’’ For clarity, EPA 

is using ‘‘household refrigerators and freezers’’ to 

better indicate that these are products and not 

systems under the terminology of this rule. The 

term ‘‘domestic refrigeration’’ may also be used to 

indicate refrigeration within a domicile and is not 

intended to relate to the country of manufacture or 

use. 

in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act have 

become available. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed list of banned refrigerants for 

refrigerated transport could be 

reasonable, provided R–452A is listed as 

approved well before the transition. 

They commented that ASHRAE class A1 

refrigerants must be available for 

transport refrigeration equipment. This 

commenter suggested that marine 

applications could also be regulated for 

the same list of HFCs that are being 

regulated under other refrigerated 

transport subsectors (mentioning truck, 

trailer, aircraft, and rail) if there were an 

allowance for the use of R–452A for 

frozen cargo. They stated that HFC–134a 

is only used for marine and selfcontained equipment and could be 

added to the list of restricted 

refrigerants. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is 

establishing a restriction on specific 

HFCs and HFC blends as proposed for 

transport refrigeration—marine and 

transport refrigeration—road. The 

specific HFCs and HFC blends restricted 

for these subsectors are R–404A, R–507, 

R–507A, R–428A, R–422C, R–434A, R– 

421B, R–408A, R–422A, R–407B, R– 

402A, R–422D, R–421A, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R–422B, R– 

424A, R–402B, GHG–X5, R–417A, R– 

438A, R–410B, IKON A, IKON B, R– 

134a/HBr (92/8), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), THR–02, THR–03, and 

THR–04. This list consists of all 

refrigerants with a GWP greater than 

2,200 previously listed as acceptable 

under SNAP. Thus, at this time, the list 

of specific substances corresponds to 

the GWP limit 2,200 in CARB’s 

regulations and avoids complications 

because of differences. 

Concerning the comment requesting 

that EPA harmonize the GWP limit of all 

transport refrigeration, including truck 

and trailer, rail, and construction, with 

refrigerant bans listed for road systems 

and a January 1, 2025, transition date, 

EPA understands the comment to mean 

that EPA should set restrictions on the 

same list of refrigerants, all of which 

have GWPs over 2,200, for all 

refrigerated transport used on road or 

rail. For other road or rail uses that EPA 

excluded from the proposed description 

of ‘‘transport refrigeration—road,’’ such 

as refrigerated box cars for rail use, 

refrigerated containers that are less than 

8 feet 4 inches in width, or refrigeration 

units used on containers that require a 

separate generator to power the 

refrigeration unit, because these uses 

fall outside the description of 

‘‘refrigerated transport—road’’ in the 

proposed rule, EPA does not consider 

them to fall under the refrigerant 

restrictions in this final rule. However, 

EPA may establish GWP restrictions or 

specific refrigerant restrictions for these 

uses in the future. All of the restricted 

refrigerants are A1 refrigerants, as are 

the alternative refrigerants that SNAP 

has listed as acceptable for refrigerated 

transport to date. Further, by not 

restricting R–452A, the list of restricted 

HFCs allows for use of that refrigerant 

until lower-GWP refrigerants that can be 

used safely in mobile applications are 

available. EPA agrees that in the future, 

the Agency could set a GWP limit, once 

EPA identifies that lower-GWP 

alternatives meeting the criteria set forth 

in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act have 

become available. EPA is not setting a 

GWP limit at this time for transport 

refrigeration—marine and transport 

refrigeration—road because EPA’s 

assessment is that there continues to be 

significant development of new 

refrigerants with lower GWPs than 2,200 

for use in these subsectors. Restricting 

those substances that have the highest 

environmental impact provides 

environmental protection while giving 

industry time to develop new lowerGWP refrigerants. 

Comment: One commenter strongly 

advised EPA to reconsider the January 

1, 2025, compliance date for retail 

refrigeration units, cold storage 

warehouse systems, and transport 

refrigeration due to a lack of available 

replacement technology sufficient for a 

wide-scale retail industry transition and 

extraordinary cost burdens associated 

with the proposed limits. This 

commenter expressed concern that a 

single break in the chain between 

farmers, manufacturers, and 

transportation companies would ripple 

through the entire supply chain and 

ultimately harm consumers. A different 

commenter urged EPA to maintain the 

timeline for refrigerated transport. This 

commenter stated that a transition 

toward A2L refrigerants and other 

lower-GWP alternatives in these 

subsectors is underway in various States 

and in other countries. 

Response: EPA is establishing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2025, for 

refrigerated transport (road, marine, and 

intermodal containers) in the final rule, 

as proposed. As mentioned above, 

lower-GWP alternatives that would 

allow regulated parties in these three 

subsectors to meet the final restrictions 

are already available and are being used 

for refrigerated transport (e.g., R–744, R– 

450A, R–513A, R–452A). It is EPA’s 

understanding that the U.S. 

manufacturers of refrigerated transport 

equipment are no longer using the 

higher-GWP blends that are restricted in 

this rule to manufacture the covered 

types of equipment. EPA expects that 

there will be sufficient amounts of 

alternative refrigerants to meet the 

commercial demand for refrigerated 

transport equipment, since this is a 

relatively small market for refrigerant 

compared to stationary commercial 

refrigeration. 

i. Household Refrigerators and Freezers 

Household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerator/freezers are 

refrigeration appliances intended 

primarily for residential use, although 

they may be used outside the home. 

These products may also be referred to 

as ‘‘residential refrigeration.’’ 141 The 

designs and refrigeration capacities of 

equipment vary widely. Household 

freezers only offer storage space at 

freezing temperatures, while household 

refrigerators only offer storage space at 

non-freezing temperatures. Products 

with both a refrigerator and freezer in a 

single unit are most common. For 

purposes of this rule, other small, 

refrigerated household appliances such 

as chilled kitchen drawers, wine 

coolers, household ice makers, and 

minifridges also fall within this 

subsector. Household refrigerators and 

freezers have all refrigeration 

components integrated, and for the 

smallest types, the refrigeration circuit 

is entirely brazed or welded. These 

products are charged with refrigerant at 

the factory and typically require only an 

electricity supply to begin operation. 

CFC–12 was a commonly used 

refrigerant in household refrigerators 

and freezers prior to the Montreal 

Protocol and subsequent CAA 

restrictions on CFCs. The household 

refrigeration industry transitioned to 

HFC–134a and hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

According to the RTOC 2022 assessment 

report, R–600a (isobutane) is used in 75 

percent of all new household 

refrigerators and freezers globally with 

HFC–134a used in the remaining 25 

percent. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for household 

refrigerators and freezers? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 150 or greater for new 

household refrigerators and freezers 

manufactured or imported beginning 

January 1, 2025, as proposed. Sale, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73174 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

142TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) and 

2018 Quadrennial Assessment Report are available 

at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap; 

the 2018 Quadrennial Assessment Report includes 

sections for each of the TOCs: Flexible and Rigid 

Foams TOC, Halons TOC, Methyl Bromide TOC, 

Medical and Chemicals TOC, and Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC. 

143For additional information, the EU legislation 

to control F-gases web page is available at: https:// 

ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/fluorinatedgreenhouse-gases/eu-legislation-control-f-gases_en. 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, and export of new 

household refrigerators and freezers 

using HFCs and HFC blends with a 

GWP of 150 or greater is prohibited 

beginning January 1, 2028. 

EPA is establishing the 150 GWP limit 

and the January 1, 2025, compliance 

date after considering the AIM Act 

subsection (i)(4) factors, and in 

particular, after determining that there 

are a number of available substitutes 

with 150 GWP or lower for use in new 

household refrigerators and freezers. 

These include R–290 (GWP 3.3), R–600a 

(GWP 1), R–441A (GWP 3), and HFC– 

152a (GWP 124). These lower GWP 

options have been available for a few 

years now following the publication of 

UL 60335–2–24 in 2017, which allowed 

for larger charge size of R–290 and other 

R–600a from 57 g to 150 g. See the 

Availability of Substitutes TSD for 

further information on available HFC 

and HFC-blend substitutes for 

household refrigerators and freezers. 

In particular, EPA has found that R– 

600a is already a widely available and 

widely used substitute in this subsector. 

According to the TEAP and its RTOC, 

R–600a is the main energy-efficient and 

cost-competitive substitute that is used 

globally in household refrigeration as it 

is ‘‘. . . the ideal refrigerant for 

domestic refrigeration products, giving 

roughly 5 percent higher efficiency than 

HFC–134a while at the same time 

reducing the noise level of the unit.’’ 142

This report also indicated that globally, 

household refrigerators are already 

predominantly using R–600a. For the 

U.S. market, RTOC reports substantial 

progress in converting from HFC–134a 

to R–600a with the market introduction 

of small refrigerators and freezers that 

typically do not use electricity to defrost 

and noted that a major U.S. 

manufacturer introduced auto-defrost 

refrigerators using R–600a refrigerant to 

the U.S. market as early as 2010. Given 

the widespread global and growing 

domestic use of R–600a as referenced in 

the 2022 TEAP report, EPA finds that R– 

600a is available per subsection (i)(4)(B), 

particularly with respect to 

technological achievability, commercial 

demand, safety, and cost. 

Across the United States and globally, 

the transition from HFC–134a is already 

well underway, indicating that there are 

sufficient available substitutes to use in 

place of that refrigerant. Several States 

have banned the use of HFC–134a 

refrigerant in household refrigerators 

and freezers, including California, 

Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 

Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and 

Washington. These restrictions became 

effective between 2021 and 2023. 

Globally, the EU has prohibited 

refrigerants that contain HFCs with a 

GWP greater than 150 in household 

refrigerators and freezers since January 

1, 2015.143 These existing regulatory 

requirements indicate that lower-GWP 

substitutes are already available, as 

discussed in section VI.E. 

Comment: Only one commenter 

expressed concerns with EPA’s 

proposed 150 GWP limit for this 

subsector. The commenter stated it was 

unnecessary and potentially unrealistic 

and suggested a 300 GWP limit for 

household refrigeration. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 150 

GWP limit for household refrigerators 

and freezers as proposed. The Agency 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that 150 is unnecessary or 

unrealistic. The commenter did not 

provide information disputing the 

substitutes EPA identified at proposal as 

available for use in this subsector, per 

subsection (i)(4)(B). The Agency does 

not agree that a 300 GWP limit is 

reasonable upon consideration of the 

(i)(4) factors. Many refrigerant options 

with GWPs lower than 300 in fact lower 

than 150 are already being used in this 

subsector in the United States, 

including R–290 and R–600a. As is 

often the case, certain subsectors 

coalesce around the use of a particular 

option, and according to the TEAP and 

its RTOC, R–600a is the dominant 

refrigerant in this subsector. 

j. Chillers 

A chiller is a type of equipment using 

refrigerant to typically cool water or a 

brine solution that is then pumped to 

fan coil units or other air handlers to 

cool the air that is supplied to occupied 

spaces. The heat absorbed by the water 

or brine can then be used for heating 

purposes and/or can be transferred 

directly to the air (‘‘air-cooled’’), to a 

cooling tower or body of water (‘‘watercooled’’), or through evaporative coolers 

(‘‘evaporative-cooled’’). A chiller or 

group of chillers are similarly used for 

district cooling where a chiller plant 

cools water or another fluid that is then 

pumped to multiple locations being 

served, such as several office or 

educational buildings within the same 

complex. Although typically used for 

cooling, chillers may also be used to 

provide heating, for instance by 

extracting heat from ambient air and 

transferring it via a working fluid 

distributed to heaters throughout a 

building. Chillers may also be used to 

maintain operating temperatures in 

various types of buildings; for example, 

in pharmaceutical, agricultural, and 

food operations. Chillers have also been 

used to create ice, such as in an iceskating arena, and have been employed 

to maintain equipment reliability, for 

instance in data centers. 

Chillers are also used to cool process 

streams in industrial applications; in 

such instances, these are regulated as 

‘‘chillers for industrial process 

refrigeration’’ as discussed here and not 

as ‘‘industrial process refrigeration’’ as 

discussed in section VI.F.1.a. Chillers 

are also used for comfort cooling of 

operators or climate control and 

protecting process equipment in 

industrial buildings, for example, in 

industrial processes when ambient 

temperatures could approach 200 °F 

(93 °C) and corrosive conditions could 

exist. 

Given the breadth of how chillers are 

employed, our analysis of the 

subsection (i)(4) factors leads us to find 

different GWP limits and/or different 

compliance dates to be appropriate for 

different applications of chillers. EPA 

provided some distinction of such 

chillers in the proposed rule and is 

finalizing those and other distinctions 

based on information from commenters. 

This rule addresses the multiple types 

of chillers as they are used in particular 

subsectors, including chillers used to 

provide cooling of electronics such as 

data servers in data centers, ITEFs, and 

computer room cooling equipment (see 

section VI.F.1.b), chillers used in cold 

storage warehouses, e.g., to maintain 

temperature for fresh or frozen food and 

pharmaceuticals (see section VI.F.1.e), 

chillers used to create and maintain ice, 

for instance in ice-skating rinks or 

toboggan or luge tracks (see section 

VI.F.1.f), chillers used to provide 

comfort cooling or heating (discussed 

below), and chillers used for industrial 

process cooling (discussed below). Our 

review of the (i)(4) factors also provides 

the basis for distinguishing chillers by 

the temperature of the fluid exiting the 

chiller, while maintaining some 

consistency in GWP limits and/or 

compliance dates across different chiller 

applications. EPA notes that the 

distinctions made in this rule are more 

specific than in other EPA regulations, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73175 

144 In describing these regulations promulgated 

under authorities of title VI of the CAA, EPA is 

neither reopening nor revisiting them. 

such as those under sections 608 and 

612 of the CAA.144

There are several different types of 

mechanical commercial comfort cooling 

AC systems known as chillers, which 

use refrigerants in a vapor compression 

cycle or by alternative technologies. 

Vapor compression chillers can be 

categorized by the type of compressor, 

including centrifugal and positive 

displacement chillers. Centrifugal 

chillers are typically used for 

commercial comfort AC, although other 

uses exist. Centrifugal chillers tend to be 

used in larger occupied buildings such 

as office buildings, hotels, arenas, 

convention halls, and airport terminals. 

Positive displacement chillers utilize 

positive displacement compressors such 

as reciprocating, screw, scroll, or rotary 

types. Positive displacement chillers are 

applied in similar situations as 

centrifugal chillers, again primarily for 

commercial comfort AC, except that 

positive displacement chillers tend to be 

used for smaller capacity needs such as 

in mid- and low-rise buildings. 

A chiller may be either a product that 

is fully completed and charged at a 

factory or a component that is installed 

into a field-charged system. Typically, 

chillers with larger charge capacities are 

charged in the field. The GWP limits 

and compliance dates discussed in this 

section for chillers apply irrespective of 

whether the chiller is a product or a 

system. Chillers that are products, as 

with all other products, have a threeyear sell-through. Chillers that are 

components of systems, as with all other 

components, are not subject to the 

restrictions on manufacturing, import, 

sale, distribution, and export, but new 

systems using chillers may not be 

installed after the compliance date. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for chillers—comfort 

cooling? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 700 or greater for chillers— 

comfort cooling beginning January 1, 

2025. This GWP limit applies to new 

equipment for all compressor types of 

chillers—comfort cooling, i.e., 

centrifugal and positive displacement 

(including reciprocating, screw, scroll, 

and rotary) chillers. 

For its consideration of the 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified 

several substitutes that are available in 

place of the substances that EPA is 

restricting, including some that were 

recently listed as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, under SNAP Rule 25 (88 

FR 26382, April 28, 2023). These 

include HCFO–1224yd(Z) (GWP less 

than 1), HCFO–1233zd(E) (GWP 4), 

HFO–1234yf (GWP 1), HFO–1234ze(E) 

(GWP 1), HFC–32 (GWP 675), R–450A 

(GWP 601), R–452B (GWP 698), R–454A 

(GWP 237), R–454B (GWP 465), R–454C 

(GWP 146), R–513A (GWP 630), R–514A 

(GWP 3), and R–515B (GWP 287). 

Chillers for comfort cooling that use 

lower-GWP substitutes are currently 

available in both U.S. and international 

markets. Specifically, in the United 

States, scroll, other positive 

displacement, and centrifugal chillers 

using HCFO–1233zd(E), HFO– 

1234ze(E), HFC–32, R–454B, R–513A, 

R–514A, and R–515B are widely 

available and in use. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for chillers—industrial 

process refrigeration? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 700 or greater for chillers— 

industrial process refrigeration as 

proposed and is providing additional 

time for compliance based on the 

temperature of the fluid exiting the 

chiller (i.e., the fluid sent to one or more 

evaporators or other cooling equipment 

in the system), because the availability 

of substitutes for use in equipment in 

this subsector is constrained based on 

these conditions. As proposed, EPA is 

not setting restrictions at this time for 

chillers where the temperature of the 

fluid exiting the chiller (i.e., the supply 

temperature to the facility) is less than 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F). For chillers where the 

temperature of the fluid exiting the 

chiller is equal to or above ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) but less than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

HFC blends that have a GWP of 700 or 

greater beginning January 1, 2028 (rather 

than the proposed compliance date of 

January 1, 2025). For all other chillers— 

industrial process refrigeration, EPA is 

restricting the use of HFCs and HFC 

blends that have a GWP of 700 or greater 

beginning January 1, 2026 (rather than 

the proposed compliance date of 

January 1, 2025). 

For its consideration of the 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified 

substitutes that are available in place of 

the substances that EPA is restricting. 

These include R–290 (GWP 3.3), R– 

450A (GWP 601), R–513A (GWP 630), 

R–600 (GWP 4), R–717 (GWP 1), and R– 

744 (GWP 1). In the United States, 

chillers for IPR using R–290, R–513A, 

R–717, and R–744 are available on the 

market. 

The GWP limit of 700 for chillers— 

industrial process refrigeration enables 

the use of more refrigerant options to 

manage safety (in particular, 

flammability and toxicity), efficiency, 

capacity, temperature glide, and other 

performance factors. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for chillers used in 

other subsectors? 

As noted above, ice rinks may use a 

chiller, circulating the chilled fluid 

under the floor on which the ice is 

frozen and maintained at the 

appropriate temperature. Other 

technologies are available, such as a 

refrigeration system that circulates the 

refrigerant directly through pipes to 

freeze the ice, then returning the 

evaporated refrigerant to the 

compressor. Irrespective of the choice of 

technology, EPA is finalizing a GWP 

limit of 700 and a compliance date of 

January 1, 2025, for ice rinks. These 

restrictions are the same as chillers for 

comfort cooling. See section VI.F.1.f for 

a discussion of ice rinks. 

Chillers can also be used to cool data 

centers, ITEFs, and computer rooms. 

Using a chiller for such applications 

could use the chilled fluid at multiple 

locations, providing cooling for sections 

of the facility or spot-cooling for zones 

where heat gain is significantly higher 

than other zones. Other types of 

equipment are available for such uses, 

including both products that are precharged and split systems that are filled 

with refrigerant on-site. For all such 

equipment, whether a chiller or not, 

EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of 700, 

consistent with several other chiller 

types. For those specific applications, 

we are finalizing a compliance date of 

2027, later than comfort cooling chillers 

and IPR chillers with exiting 

temperatures greater than ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F), but one year earlier than IPR 

chillers with exiting temperatures from 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F), 

See section VI.F.1.b for a discussion of 

data centers, ITEFs, and computer room 

cooling equipment. 

Another subsector that may use a 

chiller is cold storage warehouses. A 

chiller could be applied to circulate 

chiller fluid throughout a warehouse, 

perhaps to keep one section at freezing 

temperatures (e.g., for frozen food or ice 

cream) and another at above-freezing 

temperatures (e.g., for dairy or meats). 

Like data centers, ITEF, and computer 

room cooling equipment, other 

equipment could be applied. For 

instance, an array of rooftop units could 

be used, limiting the charge of each 

individual unit and perhaps providing 

more flexibility to employ low-GWP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73176 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

145The commenter did not indicate whether the 

comment was with respect to comfort cooling or 

industrial process refrigeration chillers. Based on 

the context of the comment, which discussed 

chillers with other comfort cooling technologies 

EPA views this as a comment on chillers—comfort 

cooling. 

substitutes while complying with local 

building codes. All such equipment 

applied in cold storage warehouses, 

including chillers, have either a 300 or 

150 GWP limit and a January 1, 2026, 

compliance date. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for EPA’s proposal 

without any suggested changes to the 

GWP limits or suggestions to set GWP 

limits by different product capabilities 

and classifications. 

A few commenters suggested stricter 

limits at 300 or 150 and noted that there 

are many viable alternatives for IPR 

chillers below the proposed limit. One 

commenter suggested that the GWP 

limits for IPR systems and chillers for 

IPR be based on operating temperature 

ranges, like those in the current CARB 

and EU F-Gas Regulations. Another 

commenter opposed the proposed GWP 

limits for chillers,145 stating the current 

proposal will perpetuate HFCs for a 

longer period than is necessary and 

increases the likelihood that new 

construction will ‘lock in’ HFC use in a 

manner that is inconsistent with the 

Kigali Amendment to the Montreal 

Protocol phasedown and that is 

inconsistent with Federal, State, and 

local climate goals. The commenter 

proposed a new chiller GWP limit of 10 

in 2027. One commenter requested 

clarification of 700 GWP limit as 

opposed to 750 and noted that currently 

no SNAP-approved alternative exists 

between 700 and 750. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date for chillers for comfort 

cooling consistent with the January 1, 

2025, dates proposed. For chillers used 

in IPR, EPA is finalizing a compliance 

date of January 1, 2026, or later for 

reasons explained below. For chillers 

where the fluid exiting the chiller is 

greater than or equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) 

and below ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), EPA is 

finalizing January 1, 2028, as the 

compliance date. Consistent with the 

proposed rule, EPA is not establishing 

restrictions at this time for chillers— 

industrial process refrigeration where 

the temperature of the fluid exiting the 

chiller is less than ¥50 °C (¥58 °F). 

After review of the comments received, 

EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP limit for all 

types of comfort cooling chillers and 

industrial process chillers covered in 

this rule. As explained above, we are 

also finalizing a 700 GWP limit in two 

other subsectors where chillers may be 

employed, namely ice-skating rinks and 

data centers, ITEFs, and computer room 

cooling equipment. Based on our review 

of the subsection (i)(4) factors, EPA 

finds that the availability of substitutes 

varies for chillers used in IPR based on 

the temperature of the fluid leaving the 

chiller. Therefore, EPA finds it 

appropriate to establish a later 

compliance date for lower-temperature 

chillers, with additional time provided 

for the reasons explained below. 

The Agency disagrees with 

commenters asserting that EPA should 

adopt a GWP limit of 300 or 150 for IPR 

chillers. Nor does EPA agree that GWP 

limits as low as 10 are appropriate for 

comfort cooling chillers. Some of the 

lower GWP refrigerants such as HCFO– 

1233zd(E), HFO–1234ze(E), HCFO– 

1224yd(Z), R–717, and R–744 (with 

respective GWPs of 4, 1, 1, 1, and 1, 

respectively) are not technologically 

achievable for use in all chiller 

applications—either for comfort cooling 

or IPR—and the use of other substitutes 

remains necessary to ensure a smooth 

transition to lower-GWP alternatives in 

this subsector. Further, in our 

evaluation of availability under (i)(4)(B), 

EPA sees higher-pressure substitutes 

such as HFC–32 (GWP 675) and R–454B 

(GWP 465) in comfort cooling chillers, 

and possibly in the future IPR chillers, 

as both technologically achievable and 

in commercial demand, with 

manufacturing already adopting or 

planning to adopt such solutions. 

As one commenter noted, while there 

are other refrigerants under research, 

development, and review, EPA’s SNAP 

program has not listed acceptable 

refrigerants for the relevant subsectors 

with GWPs between 700 and 750. The 

Agency’s assessment is that a 700 GWP 

limit is appropriate for chillers after 

considering the (i)(4) factors. EPA is 

prohibiting the use of regulated 

substances that have a GWP of 700 or 

greater, in part, because there are 

multiple lower-GWP substitutes 

available for use in chillers with a GWP 

less than 700. For example, HFC–32, R– 

452B, and R–454B have GWPs of 675, 

698, and 465, respectively, and are 

acceptable for use under the SNAP 

program for comfort cooling chillers. 

With respect to the compliance date 

for chillers—IPR, we note that in 

addition to the refrigerants already 

available as discussed above, EPA 

continues to evaluate substitutes under 

the SNAP program, and has authority to 

do so under subsection (i)(5) of the AIM 

Act as well, on an ongoing basis. In 

SNAP Rule 26 EPA has proposed to list 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

several additional refrigerants for use in 

chillers for IPR: HFO–1234yf, HFO– 

1234ze(E), HFC–32, R–454B, R–454C, 

R–455A, R–457A, and R–516A (with 

GWPs of 1, 1, 675, 465, 146, 146, 137, 

and 140 respectively) (88 FR 33722, 

May 24, 2023). Further discussion on 

the intersection of SNAP listing 

decisions and AIM Act subsection (i)(4) 

can be found in section VI.E. 

The Agency anticipates that this 

continuing evaluation of additional 

substitutes, including for use in chillers 

for IPR, may help facilitate the 

availability of even more options for 

compliance by January 1, 2026, through 

January 1, 2028, depending on the IPR 

chiller’s characteristics. 

The Agency recognizes the time it can 

take for an updated UL standard to be 

widely incorporated and for the updates 

to be applied across industry. Many 

other relevant changes impacting the 

availability of substitutes and 

facilitating transition to the use of those 

substitutes generally occur after the UL 

standard is updated, including 

evaluation of substitutes under the 

SNAP program, adoption of new 

editions of industry safety standards 

into building codes, equipment testing 

and certification, safety updates to 

manufacturing facilities, and training of 

technicians. All of these are 

considerations for EPA’s assessment of 

availability of substitutes under 

subsection (i)(4)(B), and EPA has 

accounted for the additional time 

needed for these updates to occur by 

extending compliance dates for IPR 

chillers to 2026 and 2028, depending on 

the temperature of the fluid leaving the 

chiller. The Agency is allowing for a 

later compliance date of January 1, 

2028, for equipment with exiting fluid 

temperatures lower than or equal to 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) and higher than or 

equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) because fewer 

refrigerants are available with a 

sufficiently low boiling point to be 

technologically achievable, and thus, 

more time may be needed to identify, 

test, and implement appropriate 

substitutes than for equipment with 

higher temperature ranges. 

With respect to the compliance date 

for chillers—comfort cooling, after 

review of the comments widely 

expressing support for the proposed 

compliance date, EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2025. In 

addition to other substitutes discussed 

above, EPA finalized as acceptable more 

refrigerant options for use in comfort 

cooling chillers through SNAP Rule 25: 

HFO–1234yf, R–452B, R–454A, R–454B, 

R–454C and HFC–32 (with GWPs of 1, 

698, 237, 465, 146, and 675, 

respectively) (88 FR 26382, April 28, 

2023). The Agency agrees with the many 

commenters that this timeline is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73177 

sufficient considering that substitutes 

that meet the Agency’s restrictions are 

already widely available and in use in 

this subsector. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested clarification for chillers and 

IPR systems with very low temperatures 

that may or may not be exempt from 

GWP limits under EPA’s proposed rule 

including those for laboratory 

equipment and IPR chillers. One 

commenter requested clarification on 

refrigerated laboratory equipment that 

operates at ¥62 °C (¥80 °F) or lower 

temperatures and whether industrial 

process refrigeration chillers that 

operate at less than ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) are 

exempt. Another commenter suggested 

that EPA exempt specialty applications 

for systems designed for exiting fluid 

temperatures of ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) or 

create a formal variance application 

process, similar to California and 

Washington State regulations. One 

commenter proposed an exemption for 

all IPR applications with a refrigerant 

evaporating temperature below ¥45 °C 

(¥49 °F). A couple of commenters 

requested clarification that the 

exclusion in the proposed rule for 

equipment where the temperature of the 

fluid exiting the chiller is less than 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and how that applies 

in cases where the temperature may also 

rise above ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) while in use. 

The commenters also requested an 

exemption in the chillers—IPR 

subsector to encompass all applications 

in semiconductor manufacturing 

because chillers used in semiconductor 

manufacturing are required to reach 

very low temperatures, but also operate 

across a wide range of temperatures that 

can span from below ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) to 

as high as 5 °C (41 °F). 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is 

not setting restrictions for HFCs or HFC 

blend refrigerants used in IPR 

equipment or chillers for IPR with 

exiting fluid temperatures of ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) or lower although the Agency 

may in the future propose to restrict 

HFCs used in such equipment. 

Concerning one commenter’s request for 

either an exception or a longer period to 

comply for refrigerated laboratory 

equipment, to the extent that equipment 

used in the laboratory falls within the 

chillers—IPR subsector and has exiting 

fluid temperatures below ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F), it also would have no 

restrictions on HFCs or HFC blend 

refrigerants under this rule. Similarly, 

refrigerated laboratory equipment 

within the chillers—IPR subsector with 

exiting fluid at temperatures ¥50 °C 

(¥58 °F) and above but below ¥30 °C 

(¥22 °F) would have a compliance date 

of January 1, 2028, and if exiting fluid 

temperatures are equal to or greater than 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F), the compliance date 

would be January 1, 2026, for new 

equipment to transition to alternative 

refrigerants. EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a process to allow 

individual users to request a variance. 

Further a variance process would be 

burdensome and would decrease 

certainty that necessary transitions away 

from HFCs would occur. In response to 

the request for clarification about 

equipment where the temperature of the 

fluid exiting the chiller is less than 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F) in some cases but also 

may rise above that temperature while 

in use, EPA responds that if the fluid 

exiting the chiller reaches ¥50 °C or 

below during the normal operations of 

the chiller then the equipment is not 

covered under this rule. 

k. Residential and Light Commercial Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps 

The residential and light commercial 

air conditioning and heat pump 

subsector includes equipment for 

cooling air in individual rooms, singlefamily homes, and small commercial 

buildings. Heat pumps are equipment 

types that heat, or have the option to 

cool and heat, air for such locations. 

This subsector differs from commercial 

comfort air conditioning, which uses 

chillers that cool water that is then used 

to cool air throughout a large 

commercial building, such as an office 

building or hotel. The residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pump subsector includes both selfcontained and split systems. Selfcontained products include some 

rooftop AC units (e.g., those where the 

conditioned air is ducted to supply 

multiple spaces) and many types of ACs 

designed for use in a single room, 

including packaged terminal air 

conditioners (PTACs), packaged 

terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), some 

rooftop AC units, window AC units, 

portable room AC units, and wall 

mounted self-contained ACs. Split 

systems include ducted and non-ducted 

mini-splits (which might also be 

designed for use in a single room), 

multi-splits and variable refrigerant flow 

(VRF) systems, and ducted unitary 

splits. Split systems typically are 

charged with refrigerant at the location 

of assembly and installation (‘‘fieldassembled’’). Water-source and groundsource heat pumps often are packaged 

systems similar to the self-contained 

equipment described in this section but 

could be assembled with the condenser 

separated from the other components, 

similar to split systems. Examples of 

equipment for residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps include 

the following: 

• Central air conditioners, also 

known as unitary AC or unitary split 

systems. These systems include an 

outdoor unit with a condenser and a 

compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor 

unit with an evaporator, and ducts to 

carry cooled air throughout a building. 

Central heat pumps are similar but offer 

the choice to either heat or cool the 

indoor space. 

• Multi-split air conditioners and 

heat pumps. These systems include one 

or more outdoor unit(s) with a 

condenser and a compressor and 

multiple indoor units, each of which is 

connected to the outdoor unit by 

refrigerant lines. Non-ducted multisplits provide cooled or heated air 

directly from the indoor unit rather than 

providing the air through ducts. 

• Mini-split air conditioners and heat 

pumps. These systems include an 

outdoor unit with a condenser and a 

compressor and a single indoor unit that 

is connected to the outdoor unit by 

refrigerant lines. Non-ducted mini-splits 

provide cooled or heated air directly 

from the indoor unit rather than being 

carried through ducts. 

• Rooftop AC units. These are 

products that combine the compressor, 

condenser, evaporator, and a fan for 

ventilation in a single package and may 

contain additional components for 

filtration and dehumidification. Most 

units also include dampers to control air 

intake. Rooftop AC units cool or heat 

outside air that is then delivered to the 

space directly through the ceiling or 

through a duct network. Rooftop AC 

units are common in small commercial 

buildings such as a single store in a mall 

with no indoor passageways between 

stores. They can also be set up in an 

array to provide cooling or heating 

throughout a larger commercial 

establishment such as a department 

store or supermarket. 

• Window air conditioners. These are 

self-contained products that fit in a 

window with the condenser extending 

outside the window. 

• PTACs and PTHPs. These are selfcontained products that consist of a 

separate, un-encased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies mounted 

through a wall. PTACs and PTHPs are 

intended for use in a single room and do 

not use ducts to carry cooled air or have 

external refrigerant lines. Typical 

applications include motel or dormitory 

air conditioners. 

• Portable room air conditioners. 

These are self-contained products 

designed to be moved easily from room 

to room, usually having wheels. They 

may contain an exhaust hose that can be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73178 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

146California Code of Regulations, Prohibitions 

on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary 

Refrigeration, Stationary Air-conditioning, and 

Other End-uses. Available at: https://

ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/ 

2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf. 

147The petitions can be found in the docket to 

this rule and further discussion can be found in the 

proposed rule and in the Federal Register notice 

(86 FR 57141, October 14, 2021) granting the 

petitions. 

148Turpin, J, R–454B Emerges as a Replacement 

for R–410A, ACHR News, August 2020. Available 

at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143548-r454b-emerges-as-a-replacement-for-r-410a. 

149Turpin, J, Manufacturers Eye R–32 to Replace 

R–410A, ACHR News, August 2020. Available at: 

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143422- 

manufacturers-eye-r-32-to-replace-r-410a. 

placed through a window or door to 

eject heat outside. 

• Water-source heat pumps and 

ground-source heat pumps. These 

systems are similar to unitary split 

systems except that heat is ejected 

(when in cooling mode) from the 

condenser through a second circuit 

rather than directly with outside air. 

The second circuit transfers the heat to 

the ground, groundwater, or another 

body of water such as a lake using 

water, or a brine if temperatures would 

risk freezing. Some systems can perform 

heating in a similar matter with the 

refrigerant circuit running in reverse; 

regardless, the term ‘‘heat pump’’ is 

most often used. 

• Variable refrigerant flow/variable 

refrigerant volume systems. These are 

engineered DX multi-split systems 

incorporating the following: a split 

system air conditioner or heat pump 

incorporating a single refrigerant circuit 

that is a common piping network to two 

or more indoor evaporators, each 

capable of independent control, or 

compressor units. VRF systems contain 

a single module outdoor unit or 

combined module outdoor units with at 

least one variable capacity compressor 

that has three or more steps of capacity, 

with air or water as the heat source. In 

response to comment below, we clarify 

that air-source VRF systems have 

capacities of 65,000 BTU/h (19 kW) or 

more, while water-source VRF systems 

can be of any capacity. 

• Dehumidifiers that are integrated 

with the space air-conditioning system. 

This includes dehumidification via a 

separate bypass in the duct through 

which air is dehumidified, a 

dehumidifying heat pipe across the 

indoor coil, or other types of energy 

recovery devices that move sensible 

and/or latent heat between air streams 

(e.g., between incoming air and air 

vented to the outside). In addition, this 

subsector includes non-residential 

dehumidifiers, which are used for 

commercial and other purposes and are 

typically of a higher capacity than 

residential dehumidifiers. 

This subsector in its entirely is subject 

to the restrictions on the use of HFCs 

under this rule. 

Common HFCs and blends containing 

HFCs used in self-contained AC and 

heat pump equipment are R–410A and 

HFC–134a. Common HFCs and blends 

containing HFCs used in mini-splits, 

multi-splits, unitary splits, and VRF 

systems are R–410A and to a lesser 

extent, R–407C, with GWPs of 2,088 and 

1,774, respectively. Residential split 

systems are commonly shipped with a 

refrigerant charge that is then 

‘‘balanced’’ by the technician once the 

equipment is installed in its place of 

use. Larger commercial sized units often 

are not pre-charged with refrigerant but 

may contain a nitrogen ‘‘holding 

charge’’ for shipping. 

EPA granted petitions submitted by 

EIA, AHRI, CARB, and AHAM which 

requested restrictions on the use of 

HFCs in the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pump subsector. EIA’s petition refers to 

‘‘residential and non-residential’’; AHRI 

refers to ‘‘residential and light 

commercial’’; and CARB, in its recently 

finalized regulation, refers to the 

specific end-uses of ‘‘room/wall/ 

window air-conditioning equipment, 

PTACs, PTHPs, portable airconditioning equipment,’’ and ‘‘other 

air-conditioning (new) equipment, 

residential and nonresidential.’’ 146

AHAM specifically requested 

restrictions on the use of HFCs for room 

ACs with and without electric heat and 

a capacity of 25,000 BTU/hr or less and 

for portable ACs.147 For the purposes of 

this action, EPA considers all of these 

petitioned uses within the subsector 

‘‘residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps.’’ 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs, that have a 

GWP of 700 or greater for all equipment 

types in the residential and light 

commercial air-conditioning and heat 

pump subsector, as proposed. EPA is 

prohibiting the manufacture and import 

of self-contained products beginning 

January 1, 2025, as proposed, with 

restrictions on the sale, distribution, 

offer for sale or distribution, and export 

of products beginning January 1, 2028. 

For systems in this subsector that are 

field-assembled, EPA is prohibiting the 

installation of new systems as of January 

1, 2025, except for VRF systems, which 

have a compliance date of January 1, 

2026. 

In our proposal to set the GWP limit 

for this subsector at 700, EPA identified 

multiple lower-GWP substitutes 

currently available for use in residential 

and light commercial air-conditioning 

and heat pump applications. For 

example, R–452B, HFC–32, and R–454B 

have GWPs of 698, 675, and 465, 

respectively, and are available under 

EPA’s (i)(4)(B) analysis, including being 

listed under SNAP as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions. After 

consideration of the comments, which 

were largely supportive of the level of 

restriction, EPA is finalizing the GWP 

limit at 700 for this subsector. 

The transition in this subsector to 

lower-GWP substitutes is underway. As 

discussed in section VI.E.2.c, updates to 

the safety standard covering these 

refrigerants were published on 

November 1, 2019, and many of the 

subsequent regulatory steps and 

industry adaptations incorporating 

those updates have already occurred. 

SNAP lists five lower-GWP refrigerants 

for use in residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps in Rule 

23 (86 FR 24444, May 6, 2021). The 

International Building Code and the 

Residential Building Code were also 

revised in 2021 to incorporate updates 

to the safety standards, by allowing for 

the use of lower-GWP refrigerants 

exhibiting lower flammability (i.e., 2L 

flammability classification). EPA 

anticipates that States will adopt the 

2021 model building codes or revise 

their regulations allowing for use of 

several SNAP-listed lower-GWP 

refrigerants that exhibit lower 

flammability by 2025. Several OEMs 

have also indicated that they intend to 

switch to using A2L refrigerants (e.g., R– 

454B, HFC–32) once relevant codes 

have been updated to allow their 

use.148 149

EPA proposed and is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2026, for 

VRF systems. These systems are larger 

and more complicated than most of the 

other types of equipment in this 

subsector. This additional time is 

needed for designing, testing, and 

implementing the use of substitutes in 

these systems. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments on the proposed GWP limit 

for the residential and light commercial 

air conditioning and heat pump 

subsector. 

Many commenters expressed support 

for EPA’s proposed GWP limit of 700 for 

HFCs and blends containing HFCs used 

in this subsector. Several commenters 

requested that EPA provide more detail 

on the basis for proposing a 700 GWP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73179 

limit, rather than the 750 GWP limit that 

petitioners requested. One commenter 

in favor of a 750 GWP limit stated that 

proposing a lower GWP limit than 

contained in the petitions does not 

promote stability and fairness and it was 

not appropriate or necessary for EPA to 

do so. Some commenters described 

concerns with the 700 GWP limit 

because of the desire to harmonize 

Federal, State, and global standards, 

while other commenters noted that 

although the GWP limit is not entirely 

similar to those established by CARB, 

they anticipate the differences will not 

create undue burden for the industry. 

Other commenters agreed with EPA’s 

reasoning in the proposed rule that 

there is a lack of refrigerants with a 

GWP between 700 and 750. Another 

commenter, whose petition also 

included a limit of 750 for this subsector 

agreed that 700 was more appropriate 

because the only additional refrigerant 

between 700 and 750 GWP would be R– 

466A, which they characterized as a 

step backwards due to its ozone 

depletion potential. 

Many commenters also expressed 

support for the January 1, 2025, 

compliance date for this subsector. 

Many commenters were also supportive 

of the January 1, 2026, compliance date 

for VRF systems; however, a few 

commenters disagreed with the 

additional year proposed for VRF 

systems due to the larger charge sizes 

and potentially higher refrigerant leak 

rates from VRF systems, and the 

potential for more releases to the 

atmosphere of higher-GWP refrigerants. 

Another commenter suggested a GWP 

limit of 150 for VRF systems rather than 

the proposed 700 due to the potentially 

higher leakage rates and volumes from 

VRF systems. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA consider 

establishing lower GWP limits with 

delayed compliance dates for VRF 

systems (i.e., 10 or 150 GWP in 2027) to 

support product innovation and achieve 

greater GHG emissions reduction. 

Several commenters asked EPA to 

clarify whether VRF-type products 

under 65,000 BTU/hr would be subject 

to the compliance dates for airconditioning and heat pump products 

(January 1, 2025) or VRF products 

(January 1, 2026). One commenter stated 

that their smaller capacity, single-phase 

VRF products could be interpreted as 

falling into both residential AC and VRF 

category descriptions, and they 

suggested EPA align with the category 

definitions in AHRI 1230 and AHRI 

210/240 standards to clarify this issue. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2025, for 

the residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps subsector 

as proposed. The Agency agrees with 

the large number of commenters that 

this timeline is sufficient considering 

several of these alternatives have 

already been SNAP-approved. EPA is 

also finalizing a January 1, 2026, 

compliance date for residential and light 

commercial air conditioning- VRF 

systems as proposed and agrees with the 

many commenters that additional time 

beyond 2026 is not required for these 

systems. 

In response to the comment regarding 

smaller capacity products, EPA has 

reviewed the AHRI standards referenced 

and has clarified above that for the 

purposes of this rule, for an air-source 

air conditioner to be considered a VRF 

system, it must have a capacity greater 

than or equal to 65,000 BTU/h (19 kW), 

among the other characteristics 

described, whereas there is no 

minimum capacity for water-source VRF 

systems. We find that such a 

clarification conforms with the 

referenced AHRI Standard 1230. 

EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP limit for 

this subsector as proposed. We 

acknowledge that many commenters 

requested a limit of 750 for this 

subsector and other commenters 

requested a lower GWP limit. Consistent 

with our consideration of the (i)(4) 

factors in the proposed rule, the Agency 

identified multiple currently available 

substitutes with a GWP below 700 and 

did not receive comments disputing 

EPA’s assessment of availability under 

subsection (i)(4)(B) or that EPA 

overlooked important considerations. 

The AIM Act does not require that 

EPA adopt as its final restriction the 

requests made in petitions granted 

under subsection (i). Instead, granting a 

petition under subsection (i)(3)(C) 

means that the Administrator must then 

undertake a rulemaking with respect to 

the restriction that is the subject of the 

petition, and must do so by the statutory 

timeframe established in the AIM Act 

(two years after the date on which the 

Administrator grants the petition). The 

Act states that in carrying out this 

rulemaking establishing any restriction, 

the Agency is to factor in, to the extent 

practicable, the considerations laid out 

in subsection (i)(4). Thus, granting a 

petition under subsection (i)(3)(C) does 

not commit the Agency to any 

substantive outcome, nor would such an 

interpretation be reasonable. There 

would be little purpose in Congress 

directing the Agency to undergo a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking if the 

Agency were bound to promulgate the 

restriction as requested in the petition. 

We therefore do not agree with 

commenters who alleged that proposing 

and finalizing a restriction that is more 

stringent than what was requested in a 

petition undermines ‘‘stability and 

fairness,’’ nor do we agree that to do so, 

the Agency must demonstrate that it is 

‘‘appropriate and necessary.’’ In 

addition, when approving petitions, 

EPA stated explicitly that a petition 

grant does not mean that the Agency 

will propose or finalize requirements 

identical to the petitions. 

As discussed in section VI.E of this 

preamble, EPA takes notice of the 

regulations and restrictions related to 

HFC use and technology transitions in 

its assessment of whether substitutes are 

available to use in a sector or subsector. 

Restrictions in other jurisdictions can be 

an indicator of the status of a sector or 

subsector’s transition to lower-GWP 

substitutes, and can provide affirmation 

of the Agency’s assessments that 

substitutes are available. However, 

nothing in the AIM Act suggests that 

EPA must or even should establish its 

restrictions with the goal of consistency 

with State or international regulations. 

Our proposed 700 GWP limit for this 

subsector took into consideration that 

there are a number of widely available 

substitutes for use in this subsector with 

GWPs lower than 700, and we also note 

the programmatic advantage of 

establishing restrictions at set cut-points 

(i.e., 150, 300, 700) to facilitate 

compliance and enforcement of the 

Technology Transitions program (see 

section VI.E). 

Finally, in the Agency’s assessment, 

there is little practical difference 

between a 750 GWP or 700 GWP limit 

for this subsector. Available substitutes 

that the Agency identified for use in this 

subsector had GWPs lower than 700, 

and there are no substitutes for this 

subsector listed under the SNAP 

program with a GWP between 700 and 

750. A number of industry commenters 

also confirmed the lack of refrigerants 

with GWPs between 700 and 750. For 

example, R–452B, HFC–32, and R–454B 

have GWPs of 698, 675, and 465, 

respectively, and are acceptable for use 

in this subsector under the SNAP 

program, and some equipment within 

this subsector is now offered with these 

refrigerants. As a commenter noted, 

there is one refrigerant with a GWP 

between 700 and 750 that may be under 

consideration by some industry 

stakeholders; however, as noted by a 

separate commenter, the ozonedepleting potential of this refrigerant 

(R–466A) is higher than for other 

identified alternatives. In a separate 

action, EPA requested advance 

comments on potential approaches to 

SNAP listing decisions for certain very 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73180 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

150 Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803–01. 

151 Ibid. 

152Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John 

Wagner of the Association of Equipment 

Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the docket. 

153AEM, 2021. Appendix A: Machine Forms as 

Classified by AEM Membership. Available in the 

docket. 

154 ‘‘Model year’’ is defined at 40 CFR 85.2302 

and ‘‘means the manufacturer’s annual production 

period (as determined under 40 CFR 85.2304) 

which includes January 1 of such calendar year, 

provided, that if the manufacturer has no annual 

production period, the term ‘‘model year’’ shall 

mean the calendar year.’’ 

short-lived substances (87 FR 45508, 

July 28, 2022). 

The Agency therefore disagrees with 

commenters asserting that EPA should 

adopt a GWP limit of 750 for this 

subsector or as low as 10 or 150 for VRF 

systems. 

EPA is also finalizing a 700 GWP limit 

for VRF systems as proposed. With 

consideration to the subsection (i)(4) 

factors, EPA does not agree with a GWP 

limit of 10 or 150. Currently there are 

no SNAP listed refrigerants with GWP 

less than 10 for VRF systems, apart from 

ammonia absorption. EPA views the 

availability of this option to be many 

years off, and therefore is setting 

restrictions at a higher GWP limit and 

a compliance date that allows for 

transitions to initiate sooner. Likewise, 

EPA views the two other refrigerants 

with GWPs below 150—R–454C and R– 

457A—as not being available under the 

(i)(4) factors, including technological 

achievability, in the timeframes 

considered in this rule. 

l. Residential Dehumidifiers 

Residential dehumidifiers are selfcontained products primarily used to 

remove water vapor from ambient air or 

directly from indoor air for comfort or 

material preservation purposes in the 

context of the home. This product 

circulates air from a room, passes it 

through a cooling coil, and collects 

condensed water for disposal. While AC 

equipment often combines cooling and 

dehumidification, residential 

dehumidifiers only serve the latter 

purpose. This subsector therefore does 

not include dehumidifiers for 

residential or light commercial use that 

are integrated with the space airconditioning equipment, for instance 

via a separate bypass in the duct 

through which air is dehumidified, a 

dehumidifying heat pipe across the 

indoor coil, or other types of energy 

recovery devices that move sensible 

and/or latent heat between air streams 

(e.g., between incoming air and air 

vented to the outside). In addition, this 

subsector does not include nonresidential dehumidifiers, which are 

used for commercial and other purposes 

and are typically of a higher capacity 

than residential dehumidifiers. Such 

equipment falls within the residential 

and light commercial AC or heat pump 

subsector. Similar to other residential 

and light commercial AC equipment, 

the majority of residential dehumidifiers 

historically used HCFC–22 and moved 

to R–410A. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for residential 

dehumidifiers? 

EPA received only two comments on 

this subsector, both in support of EPA’s 

proposed GWP limit of 700 for 

dehumidifiers. Therefore, EPA is 

restricting the manufacture and import 

of HFCs and blends containing HFCs 

that have a GWP of 700 or greater for 

residential dehumidifiers as proposed. 

EPA identified multiple available 

substitutes for use in this subsector at 

proposal that have GWPs of 700 or 

lower. In assessing availability, we note 

that many substitutes with GWPs of 700 

or lower are listed as acceptable under 

the SNAP program. For example, R– 

513A with a GWP of 630 is listed as 

acceptable (82 FR 33809, July 21, 2017). 

EPA has also recently listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, R– 

452B, HFC–32, and R–454B, with 

respective GWPs of approximately 698, 

675, and 465 (88 FR 26382, April 28, 

2023). EPA is also finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2025, as 

proposed. 

m. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners 

(MVACs) cool the passenger 

compartment of light-duty (LD) 

vehicles, heavy-duty (HD) vehicles (e.g., 

large pickup trucks, delivery trucks, and 

semi-trucks), nonroad (also called offroad) vehicles, buses, and passenger rail 

vehicles. MVACs used to cool passenger 

compartments in LD, HD, and nonroad 

vehicles are typically charged during 

vehicle manufacture and the main 

components are connected by flexible 

refrigerant lines. In addition, the MVAC 

subsector includes heat pumps, which 

may cool or redirect heat into vehicle 

cabins and control temperatures. Heat 

pumps are expected to become more 

common, especially as more electric 

vehicles are introduced into the market. 

The vehicle types subject to this action 

are passenger cars and light-duty 

trucks,150 referred to jointly in this 

action as LD vehicles, limited types of 

HD vehicles (i.e., medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (MDPVs),151 HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans), 

and certain nonroad vehicles. These 

nonroad vehicles include: 

• Agricultural tractors greater than 40 

horsepower (HP) (including two-wheel 

drive, mechanical front-wheel drive, 

four-wheel drive, and track tractors) that 

are used for various agricultural 

applications such as farm work, 

planting, landscaping, and 

loading; 152 153

• Self-propelled agricultural 

machinery (including combines, grain 

and corn harvesters, sprayers, 

windrowers, and floaters) that are 

primarily used for harvesting, fertilizer, 

and herbicide operations; 

• Compact equipment (including 

mini excavators, turf mowers, skid-steer 

loaders, and tractors less than 40 HP) 

that are primarily used for agricultural 

operations and residential, commercial, 

and agricultural landscaping; 

• Construction, forestry, and mining 

equipment (including excavators, 

bulldozers, wheel loaders, feller 

bunchers, log skidders, road graders, 

articulated trucks, sub-surface 

machines, horizontal directional drill, 

trenchers, and tracked crawlers) that are 

primarily used to excavate surface and 

subsurface materials during 

construction, landscaping, and road 

maintenance and building; and 

• Commercial utility vehicles that are 

primarily used for ranching, farming, 

hunting/fishing, construction, 

landscaping, property maintenance, 

railroad maintenance, forestry, and 

mining. 

For further information on 

classifications of vehicle types, see the 

proposed rule (87 FR 76789–91, 

December 15, 2022). 

EPA proposed to restrict the use of 

HFCs and blends containing HFCs that 

have a GWP of 150 or greater starting in 

MY 2025 for MVACs in newly 

manufactured LD vehicles as well in 

MDPVs and limited types of HD 

vehicles in Class 2b–3 (i.e., newly 

manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans), 

including vehicles manufactured 

exclusively for export.154 EPA also 

proposed to restrict the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 150 or greater starting in MY 

2026 for certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., 

agricultural tractors greater than 40 HP; 

self-propelled agricultural machinery; 

compact equipment; construction, 

forestry, and mining equipment; and 

commercial utility vehicles), including 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73181 

155The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and 

Technology since 1975 (EPA–420–R–22–029, 

December 2022). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

automotive-trends. 

156 Volume 1: Progress Report, Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel, UNEP, September 

2021. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/ 

files/documents/TEAP-2021-Progress-report.pdf. 

157European Commission, 2006. Directive 2006/ 

40/EC of the European Parliament and of the 

Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from 

air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and 

amending. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ 

legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0040. 

vehicles manufactured exclusively for 

export. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for MVAC? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 150 or greater for MVACs in 

newly manufactured LD vehicles, 

limited types of MD and HD vehicles in 

Class 2b–3, and certain nonroad 

vehicles, as proposed. The use 

restriction for LD vehicles starts in MY 

2025, as of one year after publication of 

this final rule, and includes vehicles 

manufactured for export as proposed. 

EPA is delaying the compliance date for 

MDPVs and for the HD vehicles subject 

to this rule to MY 2028, not MY 2025 

as proposed. The final rule also delays 

the compliance date for the listed 

nonroad vehicles to January 1, 2028, 

rather than MY 2026 as proposed. As 

discussed in section VI.C.2.c, EPA is 

allowing for a three-year sell-through of 

manufactured products. Thus, the dates 

by which newly manufactured vehicles 

containing regulated substances with a 

GWP of 150 or greater (e.g., HFC–134a) 

may no longer be sold, distributed, or 

exported are the following: upon 

introduction of MY 2028 for LD 

vehicles; upon introduction of MY 2031 

for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans 

which have AC equipment that will not 

be modified by upfitters; and January 1, 

2031, for the listed nonroad vehicles. 

For LD vehicles, EPA is restricting the 

use of HFCs and blends containing 

HFCs starting MY 2025, as of one year 

after publication of the final rule. The 

Agency analyzed the subsection (i)(4) 

factors and, in particular, the 

availability of substitutes under (i)(4)(B) 

and identified three substitutes, R–744, 

HFO–1234yf, and HFC–152a, with 

GWPs below the limit of 150. EPA is 

aware of only limited use of R–744 

globally, and no commercial use of 

HFC–152a in any LD or HD vehicle to 

date. 

In terms of commercial demands and 

technological achievability, HFO– 

1234yf has gained significant market 

share in LD vehicles in the United 

States since its introduction in MY 

2013. According to the 2022 EPA 

Automotive Trends Report, 

approximately 95 percent of MY 2021 

LD vehicles sold used HFO–1234yf and 

most manufacturers have implemented 

HFO–1234yf across their entire vehicle 

brands.155 HFO–1234yf is also 

predominantly being used in new LD 

vehicles in Europe and Japan.156 The 

GWP limit of 150 for LD vehicles 

harmonizes with the EU’s Mobile AC 

Directive 2006/40/EC,157 which is 

aimed at reducing emissions of HFC– 

134a from LD MVACs, and also sets a 

GWP limit of 150 for refrigerants used 

in MVAC installed in any LD vehicle 

sold in the European market after 2017, 

regardless of its model year. Today’s 

final rule restricts the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs that have a 

GWP of 150 or greater for LD vehicles, 

including vehicles manufactured 

exclusively for export, starting in MY 

2025 and becoming effective no earlier 

than one year after publication of the 

final rule. 

For MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans which have AC 

equipment that will not be modified by 

upfitters, EPA is restricting the use of 

HFCs and blends containing HFCs 

starting MY 2028, because at least three 

technologically achievable substitutes, 

R–744, HFO–1234yf, and HFC–152a, 

meet the GWP limit of 150. HFO–1234yf 

was listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in 2016 under SNAP for 

new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans and is in use or 

under various stages of development for 

these vehicle types. After review of the 

comments and further consideration of 

the subsection (i)(4) factors, EPA is 

extending the compliance date to MY 

2028 for these vehicle types. 

After review of the comments and 

further consideration of the (i)(4) 

factors, EPA is also extending the 

compliance date for MVACs for the 

proposed list of nonroad vehicles (i.e., 

agricultural tractors greater than 40 HP; 

self-propelled agricultural machinery; 

compact equipment; construction, 

forestry, and mining equipment; and 

commercial utility vehicles) to January 

1, 2028. Nonroad vehicles are vocational 

vehicles and are not produced by model 

year. 

In general, commenters supported the 

proposed 150 GWP limit for new 

MVACs and did not suggest alternatives, 

and one commenter stated that this 

GWP limit is critically important to 

continue the transition to low-GWP 

refrigerants in these subsectors. EPA is 

retaining the 150 GWP limit in this final 

rule. EPA also received comments 

objecting to the compliance dates for the 

restrictions in the MVAC subsectors and 

exports of vehicles that contain HFC– 

134a. We summarize those comments 

and address them in this section. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments on the compliance date for 

the GWP of refrigerants used in MVACs. 

Environmental nongovernmental 

organizations and State attorneys 

general supported the proposed 

compliance dates. A State 

environmental agency urged EPA to take 

advantage of every opportunity to phase 

out HFCs as soon as possible. 

Representatives of manufacturers of LD 

vehicles objected to the proposed MY 

2025 compliance date, stating that this 

could give as little as three months after 

finalization of this rule to redesign 

vehicles and retrofit assembly plants. 

These commenters instead suggested 

MY 2027, to allow at least two full years 

after finalization of this rule. One of 

these commenters asserted that 

additional lead-time of two years would 

provide a similar environmental benefit, 

but at a more reasonable cost and 

timeframe. Another commenter 

representing automotive manufacturers 

stated that using a calendar year basis 

restricting refrigerant in an industry that 

‘‘efficiently operates using the model 

years’’ would add expense and 

complexity to track refrigerant and 

system components while managing the 

running change of these parts. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a MYbased compliance deadline for LD 

vehicles because we agree that 

structuring the restriction in this way 

provides clarity for the regulated 

industry and aligns with their typical 

practices. In this final rule, the Agency 

is establishing a compliance date for 

new LD vehicles of MY 2025, but no 

earlier than October 24, 2024. This 

ensures that manufacturers of LD 

vehicles will have at least one full year 

after finalization of this rule to change 

their MVAC designs and facilities, while 

meeting the AIM Act requirement that 

no rule under subsection (i) may take 

effect before the date that is one year 

after the date of final promulgation. We 

do not agree with commenters who 

advocated for a compliance date of MY 

2027, based on their view that regulated 

entities might be expected to comply 

with the new subsector restrictions 

within three months of this action being 

finalized. Vehicle manufacturers choose 

the start of a MY and any manufacturer 

that has not completed their transition 

could decide to make their MY 2025 

start date coincide with the effective 

date of this rule, thereby avoiding any 

potential expense and/or complexity of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73182 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

158 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report. EPA, 

2023. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

automotive-trends/download-automotive-trendsreport#Summary. 

a transition in the middle of a MY. 

Moreover, after reviewing the comments 

and considering the (i)(4) factors, we do 

not agree that a delay of two years to 

MY 2027 is reasonable or appropriate 

for MVAC in LD vehicles. The agency 

has identified three available substitutes 

for use in MVAC in LD vehicles and 

recognized that this transition is already 

well underway, and commenters largely 

agreed with the Agency’s assessment. 

This confirms industry reports of the 

transition status for this subsector: the 

2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report 

stated that approximately 95 percent of 

MY 2021 LD vehicles sold used HFO– 

1234yf (a substitute compliant with the 

150 GWP limit) and most manufacturers 

have implemented HFO–1234yf across 

their entire vehicle brands.158 This is a 

subsector that has already largely 

transitioned to use of lower-GWP 

substitutes meeting the new restriction; 

therefore, providing a compliance date 

of MY 2025, or at most one year after the 

date of final publication, is appropriate. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA not restrict exports 

of vehicles with MVACs using HFC– 

134a in the final rule. Some commenters 

said that the proposed timeline does not 

provide adequate lead-time to 

implement the required infrastructure 

updates and additional training needed 

at dealerships in all export countries. 

Commenters stated that because there 

are markets that do not yet support the 

lower GWP refrigerants, it is premature 

to be overly restrictive with an export 

prohibition that could hinder U.S. 

domestic manufacturing goals. One 

commenter stated that some countries 

have not yet decided to phase down 

HFCs, such as those in the Gulf 

Cooperation Council, and thus, there is 

no guarantee that these countries will 

have vehicle markets prepared to 

support different refrigerants within 

EPA’s proposed timeframe. Another 

commenter stated that because of the 

uncertainty associated with the 

availability of HFO–1234yf in 

international markets, equipment 

manufacturers may need to export 

machines pre-charged with HFC–134a 

as well as bulk shipments of HFC–134a 

to properly service equipment abroad. 

This commenter asked EPA to ensure 

that the heavy-duty, nonroad equipment 

industry maintain an uninterrupted 

supply of HFC–134a for export purposes 

to ensure continuity. 

Response: HFO–1234yf is widely used 

in MVACs on a global basis including 

those countries with large export 

markets. The transition of this sector 

began in the EU and the United States 

prior to the agreement of the Kigali 

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 

2016. Commenters seem to imply a 

direct linkage between ratifying the 

Amendment and transition of an HFC 

use. While currently 150 countries have 

ratified the Kigali Amendment, EPA 

does not agree with that assessment. 

While the Agency agrees that this rule 

will support the U.S. domestic HFC 

phasedown under the AIM Act, this rule 

is under separate authority provided by 

Congress. In other countries, actions to 

restrict use of HFCs were underway 

ahead of the Kigali Amendment and 

without a domestic phasedown, notably 

the EU Mobile Air Conditioning 

Directive. With regard to the use of 

HFO–1234yf, there has been an 

increased use of HFO–1234yf on a 

global basis over the last decade as the 

replacement for higher-GWP MVAC 

refrigerants. Therefore, infrastructure for 

servicing vehicles is increasingly 

available globally as well. 

EPA also notes that the final rule 

provides three years, rather than the 

proposed one year, before compliance 

dates for sale, distribution, offer for sale 

or distribution, and export are effective. 

As a result, LD vehicles manufactured 

in the United States using HFC–134a 

prior to the compliance date may still be 

exported prior to the introduction of MY 

2028. Similarly, the nonroad vehicles 

covered in this rule would have a 

compliance date of January 1, 2028, for 

manufacturing new equipment, and 

would be able to export that equipment 

until January 1, 2031. See section 

VI.C.2.d for further discussion on 

exports. 

Comment: Representatives of 

manufacturers of MDPVs, HD pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans requested 

a MY 2028 or MY 2029 compliance date 

to allow time to design and validate AC 

equipment using new refrigerants. 

These commenters stated that their 

members had not yet converted any of 

their HD vehicles to HFO–1234yf, and 

that HD vehicles must be designed for 

higher capacity engine cooling systems, 

requiring changes from the design for 

LD vehicles. One of these commenters 

stated that it was more complex and 

increases the cost and time to transition 

to HFO–1234yf if only some HD pickups 

in class 2b and 3 and complete HD vans 

have an earlier conversion date, while 

other classes of HD vehicles in the same 

assembly plant continue to be 

manufactured with HFC–134a. This 

commenter suggested that delaying the 

timing for conversion until after EPA 

reviews HFO–1234yf for use with all 

remaining HD vehicles would allow 

manufacturers to convert all production 

in an assembly plant. This commenter 

also stated that some HD pickups are 

sold without beds so that upfitters add 

on to the AC equipment and some 

complete HD vans are sold with ‘‘AC 

Prep’’ packages allowing upfitters to 

complete or modify the AC equipment. 

This commenter suggested that the 

restriction apply only to HD pickups 

and complete HD vans which have AC 

equipment that will not be modified by 

upfitters, since the risk assessments on 

HFO–1234yf have not covered such 

vehicles. A representative of 

manufacturers of HD vehicles stated that 

HFO–1234yf is the logical nextgeneration refrigerant for MD and HD 

commercial vehicles and that EPA must 

first approve its use in all MD and HD 

on-road vehicles before the transition 

can happen. 

Response: EPA recognizes the 

constraints posed by the proposed MY 

2026 compliance date for MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and HD complete vans 

which have AC equipment that will not 

be modified by upfitters, and we are 

finalizing a delay of this compliance 

date to MY 2028 to address many of the 

concerns raised by commenters. Unlike 

LD vehicles, which already widely use 

lower-GWP refrigerants, MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and HD complete vans 

do not. Manufacturers will need to 

change MVAC designs, prepare facilities 

for safe use of flammable or highpressure refrigerants such as HFO– 

1234yf or R–744 (e.g., explosionproofing refrigerant handling 

equipment), and train personnel in 

proper technical and safety procedures. 

Commenters for these uses did not 

advocate for a less stringent GWP limit 

for these uses within this subsector, 

suggesting that efforts to transition are 

already underway. Rather, commenters 

focused on needing additional time to 

effectuate the transition. EPA is 

therefore extending the compliance date 

to MY 2028 for these uses, providing 

two to three years after the final rule 

publication to accommodate factors 

impacting availability of substitutes. 

The MY 2028 compliance date will 

also accommodate those facilities that 

manufacture different products or parts 

within one facility, and where EPA’s 

restriction only covers some of the 

products or parts. The Agency agrees 

with the likely cost-effectiveness of 

converting an entire facility rather than 

staggering the transition. In addition, a 

MY 2028 compliance date is still before 

the 2029 stepdown in HFC consumption 

and can relieve the potential for 

shortages by reducing demand for HFCs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73183 

159As described in section VI.C.1 and in this 

section, EPA is exempting certain applications as 

long as they have a current qualification for 

application-specific allowances under subsection 

(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite 

preformed polyurethane foam for trailer use. 

160As described in section VI.C.1 and in this 

section, EPA is exempting certain applications as 

long as they have a current qualification for 

application-specific allowances under subsection 

(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite 

preformed polyurethane foam for marine use. 

Finally, EPA is not establishing 

restrictions on HD vehicles that are 

modified by ‘‘upfitters’’ with AC 

equipment after manufacture, such as 

ambulances, shuttle buses, and 

motorhomes. We agree with 

commenters that substitutes that would 

allow them to meet the new restriction 

have not yet been identified for use in 

these vehicles. 

Comment: Representatives of 

manufacturers of nonroad vehicles and 

HD trucks commented that much of the 

nonroad equipment industry does not 

use MY designations on their products. 

These commenters also asserted that it 

would take at least five years to design 

and validate new AC systems, convert 

production facilities, and develop and 

provide maintenance and service 

information for new AC systems. One 

such commenter noted that most of that 

work (for class 4 through 8 HD trucks) 

can only begin once EPA has provided 

certainty about applicable use 

conditions in a final SNAP rulemaking 

for HFO–1234yf. 

Response: EPA agrees that a calendar 

year compliance date is more 

appropriate for nonroad vehicles since 

using MY dates is not a common 

practice in that industry. EPA also 

agrees that additional time is needed to 

redesign and convert AC equipment and 

production facilities, but that time 

should be limited. The Association of 

Equipment Manufacturers developed a 

risk assessment for each of the six 

categories of nonroad vehicles with a 

structure similar to previous SAE 

Cooperative Research Programme risk 

assessments for the use of HFO–1234yf 

in LD vehicles. The risk assessments 

found that HFO–1234yf can be used 

safely. EPA issued regulations to allow 

for the safe use of HFO–1234yf in six 

categories of nonroad vehicles in a final 

rule issued in May 2022 (87 FR 26276, 

May 4, 2022). Commenters did not 

object to the level of the GWP 

restriction, but requested additional 

time for compliance, indicating that 

industry expects that substitutes widely 

used in this subsector can be adapted 

for use in nonroad vehicles. EPA 

understands that the necessary work to 

transition to a refrigerant with a GWP 

below 150 is already well underway. 

Based on a review of the comments and 

information received during the 

comment period, particularly comments 

concerning the transition of 

manufacturing facilities, it is EPA’s 

assessment that extending the 

compliance date by approximately two 

and one-half years is consistent with a 

review of the subsection (i)(4) factors. 

This also would allow roughly five 

years from the date of the proposed rule 

in December 2022, until the compliance 

date of January 1, 2028, consistent with 

the commenter’s request. EPA is 

therefore finalizing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2028, for the six types of 

nonroad vehicles. 

Comment: Many commenters, 

including representatives of automobile 

manufacturers, automobile dealers, and 

chemical producers requested that 

HFC–134a be allowed to maintain and 

service vehicles and equipment already 

manufactured with HFC–134a prior to 

the compliance date. 

Response: Vehicles with MVACs that 

are manufactured to use HFC–134a 

before the compliance date (i.e., MY 

2025 for LD vehicles; MY 2028 for 

MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans which have AC 

systems that will not be modified by 

upfitters; and January 1, 2028, for the 

six types of nonroad vehicles covered in 

this rulemaking) may continue to use 

HFC–134a after the applicable 

compliance date, including use for 

service, maintenance, and repair. 

2. Foams 

Foams are plastics (such as phenolic, 

polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, 

polyurethane, or polystyrene) that are 

manufactured using blowing agents to 

create bubbles or cells in the material’s 

structure. The range of uses for plastic 

foams includes building materials, 

appliance insulation, cushioning, 

furniture, packaging materials, 

containers, flotation devices, filler, 

sound proofing, and shoe soles. Some 

foams are rigid with closed cells that 

still contain the foam blowing agent, 

which can contribute to the foam’s 

ability to insulate. Other foams are 

open-celled, with the foam blowing 

agent escaping at the time the foam is 

blown, as for flexible foams. 

A variety of foam blowing agents have 

been used for these applications. In the 

early 1990s CFCs and HCFCs were 

typically used. In implementing CAA 

title VI requirements to protect the 

stratospheric ozone layer, EPA issued 

regulations that banned the sale or 

distribution of foam products blown 

with CFCs and HCFCs except for HCFCs 

used for foam insulation products. 

Blowing agents that are a liquid at 

room temperature (such as CFC–11, 

CFC–113, cyclopentane, HCFC–141b, 

HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and methyl 

formate) are more commonly used in 

polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, and 

phenolic foams. Blowing agents that are 

gases at room temperature (such as 

CFC–12, CO2, HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

HFC–134a, and HFC–152a) are more 

commonly used in polyolefin and 

polystyrene foams. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for foams? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs with a GWP of 

150 or greater beginning January 1, 

2025, for all foam subsectors included 

in the proposed rule. These subsectors, 

with examples, are: 

1. Flexible polyurethane, which 

includes open-cell foam in furniture, 

bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles; 

2. Integral skin polyurethane, which 

includes open-cell foam used in car 

steering wheels, dashboards, upholstery, 

and shoe soles; 

3. Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock, which includes insulation for 

roofing and walls; 

4. Polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, 

polypropylene), which includes foam 

sheets and tubes; 

5. Polystyrene—extruded boardstock 

and billet, which includes closed cell 

insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and 

pipes; 

6. Polystyrene—extruded sheet, 

which includes closed cell foam for 

packaging and buoyancy or flotation; 

7. Rigid polyurethane—appliance 

foam, which includes insulation foam in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

hot water heaters; 

8. Rigid polyurethane—slabstock and 

other, which includes insulation for 

panels and pipes, taxidermy foam, and 

other miscellaneous uses; 

9. Rigid polyurethane—commercial 

refrigeration, which includes insulation 

for vending machines, coolers, 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

pipes, shipping containers for 

perishable goods, and refrigerated 

transport vehicles; 159

10. Rigid polyurethane—sandwich 

panels, which includes insulation 

panels for walls and metal doors; 

11. Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, 

which includes laminated board 

insulation for roofing and walls; 

12. Rigid polyurethane—marine 

flotation foam, which includes 

buoyancy or flotation foams; 160 and 

13. Rigid polyurethane spray foam 

that is applied in situ, which includes 

insulation for building envelopes, 

roofing, walls, doors, and other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73184 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

construction uses, as well as foam for 

building breakers for pipelines. 

Polyurethane spray foam is broken 

down further into high-pressure twocomponent, low-pressure twocomponent, and one-component foam 

sealants. These three applications vary 

in the types of systems used to apply 

them (one-component or twocomponent, high-pressure or lowpressure), who uses such systems 

(contractors using personal protective 

equipment, or consumers), and how 

much is applied (large-scale 

applications within walls or on roofs of 

a residence or filling in cracks, leaks, 

and gaps in a residence). For further 

information on spray foam applications, 

see SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778 at 

86846–86847, December 1, 2016). 

These restrictions apply to the 

manufacture and import of new foam 

products, including fully formulated 

polyols and foam insulation, the 

blowing of foam to manufacture new 

products containing foams, such as 

appliances, furniture, or vehicles, and 

the import of such foam products and 

products containing foams beginning 

January 1, 2025. Foam products and 

products containing foam with blowing 

agents that are HFCs or HFC blends with 

a GWP of 150 or greater (e.g., HFC–134a) 

may no longer be sold, distributed, 

offered for sale or distribution, or 

exported beginning January 1, 2028. 

The use restrictions (including 

labeling and reporting) finalized in this 

rule do not apply to any product that 

qualifies for application-specific HFC 

allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of 

the AIM Act. Specifically, this final 

action does not restrict the HFCs used 

in the manufacture of structural 

composite preformed polyurethane 

foam for marine use and trailer use or 

foams used in mission-critical military 

end uses as they have a current 

qualification for application-specific 

allowances. 

This rule also excludes spray and 

pour foams used in space vehicles, as 

defined in 40 CFR 84.3 from the use 

restrictions. Such equipment faces 

unparalleled and highly demanding 

operating conditions and requires long 

lead-times for its operation to be 

certified. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s CAA regulations where 

space vehicles were either exempted or 

given additional time to transition to 

substitute foam blowing agents. EPA 

proposed to exclude spray foams used 

in this application but has learned that 

pour foams requiring the use of HFCs 

are also used in space vehicles. EPA is 

exempting the use of both foam types in 

space vehicles from the restrictions in 

this final rule. 

HFCs have been widely used as 

blowing agents in rigid polyurethane 

insulation foam (e.g., appliance, 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and spray foams) and 

polystyrene—extruded boardstock and 

billet in the United States since the 

phaseout of ODS blowing agents such as 

HCFC–141b and HCFC–142b, 

particularly where insulation value and 

flammability have been important 

considerations. Available substitutes 

have increased in the last decade and 

the uses for substitute blowing agents 

have also expanded. 

There is interest in using newer foam 

blowing agents with lower GWP, often 

to improve energy efficiency of the foam 

products. SNAP has listed HCFO– 

1233zd(E) (GWP 4), HFO–1234ze(E) 

(GWP 1), HFO–1336mzz(E) (GWP 26), 

and HFO–1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2) as 

acceptable for some uses. These newer 

substitutes, which are either 

nonflammable or lower flammability, 

may prove appropriate for subsectors 

where higher-flammability blowing 

agents raise safety concerns. In addition, 

some nonfluorinated lower-GWP 

blowing agents are now being used more 

broadly, such as carbon dioxide (GWP 

1), light saturated hydrocarbons with 

three to six carbons (GWPs from 1 to 4), 

and methyl formate (GWP 13). The 

process and timing for retooling 

facilities to use new blowing agents or 

that incorporate the foam product into 

another product will vary depending on 

the substitute selected. Manufacturing 

facilities such as household refrigerator 

manufacturers have already been 

transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes 

for foam-blowing. Production volumes 

for some of these newer substitutes are 

expanding rapidly to keep pace with 

growing commercial demands. 

For some types of foam that have 

historically used gaseous blowing 

agents, HFC–152a or blends containing 

HFC–152a may be an available 

alternative. The GWP of HFC–152a is 

124, compared to 794 for HFC–365mfc, 

1,030 for HFC–245fa, 1,430 for HFC– 

134a, and 4,470 for HFC–143a. Some 

manufacturers of polystyrene—extruded 

boardstock and billet transitioning from 

HFC–134a have recently starting using 

blends of HFC–152a and non-HFCs such 

as CO2, HFO–1234ze(E), and/or HFO– 

1336mzz(Z). 

Hydrocarbons are lower-GWP and 

cost-effective substitutes that have been 

available for years for large parts of the 

foam sector, particularly in 

polystyrene—extruded sheet, rigid 

polyurethane—slabstock, rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock, phenolic 

insulation board and bunstock, and 

polyolefin. Hydrocarbons are used in 

most of the other foam subsectors, but 

less extensively. In EPA’s consideration 

of the safety of available substitutes, 

flammability of foam blowing agents, 

including hydrocarbons, can be a 

concern, particularly for rigid 

polyurethane—two-component spray 

foam applications. Water is used 

broadly as a blowing agent in flexible 

polyurethane foam. Other nonfluorinated compounds such as methyl 

formate and methylal are also used as 

blowing agents, alone or in combination 

with other compounds, particularly in 

polyurethane foams. 

There is little or no use of HFCs in the 

flexible polyurethane; integral skin 

polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene— 

extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane 

and polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock subsectors. Water and 

hydrocarbons are commonly used 

available substitutes used as blowing 

agents for flexible polyurethane, 

polyolefin, polystyrene—extruded 

sheet, and rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. 

CO2, and more recently, HFOs, are 

available substitutes used as blowing 

agents for integral skin polyurethane. 

Based upon comments and information 

received during the public comment 

period, EPA now understands that there 

is limited use of HFCs—in particular, 

HFC–152a—as foam-blowing agents in 

polystyrene—extruded sheet used as 

sheathing to insulate buildings. 

Comment: Several commenters from 

the foam blowing industry raised 

concerns about the proposed GWP limit 

of zero for flexible polyurethane; 

integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; 

polystyrene—extruded sheet; and rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock. These comments 

requested that EPA clarify whether the 

GWP applies only to HFCs in a blend of 

blowing agents, or if it applies to the 

entire blowing agent. Some of the 

commenters suggested that if the GWP 

applies to the entire blowing agent that 

the GWP should be higher than zero for 

these five foam subsectors. One 

commenter suggested a GWP limit of 

less than 20 instead of zero, because 

non-HFC blowing agents such as 

hydrocarbons or HFOs have non-zero 

GWPs. Other commenters suggested 

GWPs of 50 or for blowing agent blends, 

either for all foam subsectors or at least 

for the subsectors for the commenters’ 

products, to maintain a ‘‘level playing 

field’’ with other types of insulation. 

Two manufacturers of polystyrene— 

extruded sheet used as sheathing to 

provide insulation in buildings 

requested a GWP limit of 150 for all 

foam subsectors, or at least for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73185 

polystyrene—extruded sheet to allow 

for continued use of HFC–152a because 

of its contributions to insulation value, 

its technical achievability compared to 

other alternatives, and its reductions in 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

One trade group commented that HFCs 

should be prohibited for all foamblowing subsectors. 

Response: EPA is establishing a GWP 

limit of 150 in all foam subsectors. 

Based on additional information 

received from commenters, EPA’s 

earlier understanding contained in the 

proposed rule that little or no HFCs are 

being used as foam blowing agents in 

polystyrene—extruded sheet was 

incorrect. This foam subsector also 

includes insulation for buildings, 

similar to polystyrene—boardstock and 

billet, rigid polyurethane: spray foam, 

and rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. 

EPA agrees it is reasonable to use the 

same GWP limit for all foam subsectors 

used as insulation. Foam insulation 

blown with HFC–152a is more energy 

efficient, and thus, improves 

affordability for residential and small 

business consumers compared to foams 

blown with smaller molecules such as 

water, hydrocarbons, or CO2. HFC–152a 

is in sufficient supply, is 

technologically achievable as a blowing 

agent on its own or blended with other 

blowing agents, and is currently being 

used in particular in polystyrene foams. 

HFC–152a, with its GWP of 124, is 

lower GWP than other HFCs that had 

been used in foam blowing. Further, to 

provide greater consistency and a ‘‘level 

playing field’’ between and within 

foams subsectors, to avoid confusion 

over use of a GWP limit of zero, and to 

set a GWP limit at one of the regular 

intervals being used across all the 

sectors and subsectors (see section 

VI.E.5 of the preamble), EPA is 

establishing a GWP limit of 150 for 

blowing agents in all foams subsectors 

that were included in the proposed rule. 

Comment: Concerning the compliance 

date for the different foam subsectors, 

most commenters either supported 

January 1, 2025, as proposed or did not 

comment on it. Two companies that 

manufacture foam used in military and 

aerospace applications requested that 

EPA allow until 2030 for such 

applications because of the unique and 

highly demanding operating conditions 

that require extensive technical 

resources and time to evaluate. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 

proposed compliance date of January 1, 

2025, for most subsectors that use HFCs 

and HFC blends as foam blowing agents. 

EPA is finalizing January 1, 2026, for 

military and aerospace foam blowing 

applications in recognition of the 

additional time that may be required to 

evaluate substitutes. EPA agrees with 

commenters that the operating 

conditions for military and aerospace 

applications are highly demanding. EPA 

also recognizes that the process of 

qualifying new materials to 

specification in military and aerospace 

applications is time consuming. Some 

uses raised by commenters are not 

subject to EPA’s final restrictions. 

Mission-critical military uses identified 

by the Department of Defense, 

consistent with the requirements for 

receipt of application-specific 

allowances under subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv), are exempt. EPA is also 

exempting spray and pour foam used in 

space vehicles. Given these exemptions, 

but recognizing that applications may 

require more time for qualifying new 

materials to specification, EPA is 

finalizing a later compliance date of 

January 1, 2026, for foam-blowing uses 

in space and military applications that 

are not already exempted. 

3. Aerosols 

Aerosols use liquefied or compressed 

gas to propel active ingredients in 

liquid, paste, or powder form in precise 

spray patterns with controlled droplet 

sizes and amounts. In some cases, the 

propellant is also itself the active 

ingredient. The propellant, typically a 

gas at atmospheric pressure but a 

pressurized liquid in the product 

canister, is emitted during use. Some 

aerosols also contain a solvent in 

addition to the propellant. In some 

cleaning applications, the propellant 

disperses the solvent; in other 

applications, the solvent product and 

propellant solution are evenly mixed to 

improve shelf-life and product 

performance, such as by preventing 

dripping and ensuring uniform film 

thickness for spray paints. Consumer 

aerosols include products for personal 

and household use, such as hairspray, 

household cleaning products, and 

keyboard dusters. Technical aerosols are 

specialized products used solely in 

commercial and industrial applications, 

such as cleaning products for removal of 

grease from electrical equipment and 

sprays containing corrosion preventive 

compounds. 

Available aerosol propellants with 

GWPs lower than the final restriction 

include HFC–152a (GWP 124), HFO– 

1234ze(E) (GWP 1), dimethyl ether 

(GWP 1), saturated light hydrocarbons 

(GWP 1 to 4), and CO2 (GWP 1). 

Available aerosol solvents with GWPs 

lower than the final restriction include 

HCFO–1233yd(Z) (GWP 1), HFO– 

1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2), 

methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers 

(MPHE) (GWP 2.5), HCFO–1233zd(E) 

(GWP 4), and petroleum hydrocarbons. 

EPA is exempting certain uses with a 

current qualification for applicationspecific allowances under subsection 

(e)(4)(B) of the AIM Act, including 

certain aerosol applications. Subsection 

(e)(4)(B)(iv) lists six applications, three 

of which typically use aerosols: (1) 

Propellant in metered-dose inhalers, (2) 

defense sprays, and (3) mission-critical 

military end uses. The requirements of 

this rule do not apply to these uses of 

HFCs in these applications, since they 

have a current qualification for 

application-specific allowances under 

40 CFR 84.13. 

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is 

EPA establishing for aerosols? 

EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and 

blends containing HFCs in aerosols that 

have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning 

January 1, 2025, as proposed. In 

response to comments seeking 

additional time to transition, EPA is 

extending the compliance date to 

January 1, 2028, for the following 

technical aerosol uses: cleaning 

products for removal of grease, flux, and 

other soils from electrical equipment or 

electronics; refrigerant flushes; products 

for sensitivity testing of smoke 

detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays 

for electrical equipment or electronics; 

sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays 

containing corrosion preventive 

compounds used in the maintenance of 

aircraft, electrical equipment or 

electronics, or military equipment; 

pesticides for use near electrical wires 

or in aircraft, in total release insecticide 

foggers, or in certified organic use 

pesticides for which EPA has 

specifically disallowed all other lowerGWP propellants; mold release agents 

and mold cleaners; lubricants and 

cleaners for spinnerets for synthetic 

fabrics; duster sprays specifically for 

removal of dust from photographic 

negatives, semiconductor chips, 

specimens under electron microscopes, 

and energized electrical equipment; 

adhesives and sealants in large 

canisters; document preservation 

sprays; wound care sprays; topical 

coolant sprays for pain relief; and 

products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. 

EPA is also extending the compliance 

date for use of the aerosol solvents 

HFC–43–10mee and HFC–245fa to 

January 1, 2028. 

Commenters indicated some 

applications may still need the use of 

HFC–134a as a propellant and the use 

of the solvents HFC–43–10mee and 

HFC–245fa because of technical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73186 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

161See email from HCPA to EPA, dated August 

8, 2022. 

162See Evaluation of Continued Need for HFC– 

134a in Specific Aerosol Propellant Applications 

memo in the docket. 163Available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas. 

limitations, such as a requirement for 

non-flammability. EPA is aware of 

possible substitutes with lower 

GWPs; 161 162 but based on comments, 

EPA agrees additional time is needed to 

reformulate, test, and transition listed 

technical uses. 

For the purpose of this rule, the GWP 

of an aerosol that contains HFCs as both 

a propellant and a solvent is calculated 

based solely on the weighted average of 

the HFCs and does not include other 

components of the aerosol product. This 

methodology is different from the SNAP 

program, where the propellant and 

solvent are considered as separate 

entities rather than as a mixture in 

aerosol products. The decision to use 

this GWP calculation of the aerosol 

product under subsection (i) of the AIM 

Act does not impact other regulations, 

in particular SNAP listing decisions. 

Comment: In general, commenters 

stated that a GWP limit of 150 is 

appropriate for most aerosols but was 

too low for applications where 

flammability is a concern. HFC–134a 

(GWP 1,430) is currently used as a 

propellant in certain applications due to 

its non-flammable characteristic. Two 

commenters believed a GWP of 700, 

similar to what has been proposed for 

some refrigeration subsectors, was 

technologically achievable for niche 

applications while still maintaining 

non-flammability. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a GWP 

limit of 150 for aerosols as proposed. 

EPA recognizes the commenters’ 

concerns regarding flammability of 

some substitutes, and the impact of 

flammability on safety and thus 

availability of that substitute under AIM 

Act subsection (i)(4)(B). EPA disagrees 

with commenters that we should raise 

the GWP limit to 700. EPA is aware of 

possible substitutes with lower GWPs 

that are non-flammable. To allow for 

manufacturers to transition and address 

flammability risks and other technical 

challenges, rather than increase the 

GWP limit across the board, the final 

rule provides additional compliance 

time for specific uses of HFC–134a 

identified by the commenters and 

excepted under SNAP Rule 20, and for 

solvents identified by commenters 

where safety is of concern. 

Comment: EPA received a number of 

comments on the proposed compliance 

date of January 1, 2025, for certain uses 

of HFC–134a excepted in Rule 20 and 

for the aerosol solvents HFC–43–10mee 

and HFC–245fa. Many commenters 

requested additional time to address 

flammability concerns, to complete 

reformulation and testing, and if 

necessary, obtain governmental 

approval from other agencies such as 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). Many 

commenters requested a compliance 

date of January 1, 2030, noting that 

HFO–1234ze(E) could be an alternative 

propellant but expressed concern about 

its availability due to the uncertainty of 

potential future regulations concerning 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS). One manufacturer requested a 

compliance date of January 1, 2029, for 

one specific use and stated that an 

alternative product is currently in 

development with their goal for final 

sale of the current HFC–134a product 

January 1, 2028. Other commenters 

cited 3–7 years and 5 years needed for 

transition for medical products. Many 

other commenters requested exceptions 

for certain uses of HFCs in aerosols, 

noting that would allow for more time 

to formulate an HFC alternative, but did 

not specify how much more time would 

be needed. 

Response: EPA agrees that it may be 

difficult for manufacturers to transition 

all aerosol products using HFCs to 

alternatives by January 1, 2025. This is 

particularly true in applications where 

flammability is a concern or where a 

specific vapor pressure is needed to 

achieve the desired result. In this final 

rule, we are extending the compliance 

date to January 1, 2028, for products 

using aerosol solvents HFC–43–10mee 

and HFC–245fa and also for listed 

technical aerosols that currently use 

HFC–134a as a propellant, taking into 

consideration availability under 

subsection (i)(4)(B). We are adding an 

additional three years beyond what was 

proposed, allowing at least four years 

after finalization of this rule, for 

reformulation and specific U.S. Federal 

government reviews or other third-party 

approval if needed, including EPA 

pesticide registration, testing to U.S. 

military or space agency specifications, 

and FDA approval. 

EPA acknowledges the concerns 

commenters expressed regarding the 

potential for future regulation of PFAS 

and how that may impact the 

availability of some substitutes. There is 

currently no single commonly agreed 

definition of PFAS, and whether HFCs 

or HFOs are classified as PFAS depends 

on the definition being used. EPA’s 

PFAS roadmap sets timelines for 

specific actions and outlines EPA’s 

commitments to new policies to 

safeguard public health, protect the 

environment, and hold polluters 

accountable.163 EPA elected in this final 

rule to issue restrictions, including for 

this subsector, using a GWP limit 

approach. Under that approach, 

regulated entities are not required to use 

any particular substitute, and the 

approach inherently permits the use of 

any substitutes consistent with the 

restrictions. We have identified a 

number of available substitutes in this 

rule and we also anticipate that as the 

phasedown of HFCs progresses there 

will be continued innovation of HFC 

substitutes, and it is reasonable to 

expect that producers of these 

substitutes will be cognizant of 

developing PFAS regulations. 

Comment: In the proposed rule, EPA 

requested comment on whether and 

why we should include a list of 

exceptions for propellants in this 

rulemaking that matches some or all of 

those included in SNAP Rule 20. All the 

commenters requested that EPA 

continue to provide some or all of the 

HFC–134a propellant exceptions listed 

in SNAP Rule 20. Some also requested 

EPA provide exceptions for the aerosol 

solvents HFC–43–10mee and HFC– 

245fa. 

Response: The structure of the SNAP 

program and this regulation under 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act are 

markedly different in many ways. 

Therefore, EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a regulation that mirrors 

the approaches used in SNAP Rule 20. 

EPA’s assessment is that by extending 

the date of compliance to January 1, 

2028, for both propellants and solvents, 

the formulators will have sufficient time 

to develop new formulations for the 

exceptions that were requested by the 

commenters. 

Comment: One commenter raised 

concerns about the cost of development 

for a lower-GWP alternative and the 

recurring cost of goods. In particular, 

the commenter noted that the current 

cost of lower-GWP substitutes is much 

higher than the current costs of HFC– 

134a and HFC–245fa. The commenter 

indicated that the economic investment 

required by this rule to develop and test 

substitutes will result in longer 

timeframes to recoup costs and achieve 

a return on investment. 

Response: EPA understands that 

investments are necessary for 

reformulating products and that these 

costs can vary based on the specific 

circumstances. As the HFC phasedown 

continues, increased scarcity of HFCs 

will affect their price. In this action, 

EPA has included this commenter’s use 

as one which may continue to use HFC– 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73187 

134a through January 1, 2028. We 

anticipate that the longer compliance 

timeframe will allow for development 

and testing associated with transitioning 

to substitutes for the commenter’s use, 

and that in the same timeframe, the 

relative cost difference of HFC–134a to 

substitutes may diminish, relative to 

current costs. 

VII. What are the labeling 

requirements? 

EPA seeks to deter, identify, and 

penalize the manufacture, import, sale, 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, export, or installation of 

products and equipment from using 

certain HFCs that are prohibited. 

Consistent with EPA’s explanation in 

the Allocation Framework Rule, based 

on experience with the ODS phaseout 

and HFC phasedown thus far in the 

United States, and global experiences 

transitioning from ODS and HFCs, EPA 

anticipates there will be attempts to 

introduce prohibited equipment into the 

United States. 

Labeling is important for ensuring 

compliance, discouraging 

noncompliance, and facilitating 

enforcement. Labeling allows 

purchasers to determine what they are 

buying and whether the product is 

compliant. Labels provide information 

to distributors and retailers who are 

subject to restrictions on the sale or 

distribution of noncompliant products 

and certain components. It also provides 

information to technicians and system 

owners and operators that allows them 

to determine whether the specified 

component is prohibited for use in the 

installation of a new system or is 

limited to servicing and repair. Labels 

also allow the Agency to take action to 

remove noncompliant products from the 

market and assess compliance of 

installed systems. 

For the labeling requirements, EPA is 

requiring information on labels for 

products, specified components, and 

systems that use regulated substances, 

regardless of GWP, in the sectors and 

subsectors covered by this rule. 

Knowing what HFC, or blend containing 

an HFC, is used is a necessary step to 

ensuring that the use of HFCs complies 

with the restrictions established through 

this rulemaking. For products, specified 

components, and systems that use an 

HFC, or a blend containing an HFC, EPA 

is requiring that the label include the 

HFC(s) or blend and the date of 

manufacture, or at a minimum, the fourdigit year. For products in the MVAC 

subsectors, either the model year or the 

date of manufacture, at minimum the 

four-digit year may be used. 

For specified components that are 

intended for use with an HFC, or blend 

containing an HFC, EPA is requiring 

that the unfilled equipment be labeled 

to indicate the HFC(s) or blend(s) 

containing an HFC intended for use in 

the specified component. At the time of 

first charge the system must be labeled 

to indicate the HFC or blend containing 

an HFC used in the system and the date 

of first charge, or at a minimum, the 

four-digit year. The new label would 

only need to include the HFC(s) or 

blend(s) used if it is different from what 

is listed on the first label or if the first 

label indicates that the equipment is 

intended for use with multiple HFCs or 

blends containing HFCs. New labels 

must be affixed near but not covering 

the original label. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring that 

labels for systems in the following 

subsectors indicate the refrigerant 

charge capacity: (1) Industrial process 

refrigeration (without chillers), (2) cold 

storage warehouses, (3) retail food 

refrigeration—supermarket systems, (4) 

retail food refrigeration—remote 

condensing units, and (5) retail food 

refrigeration—refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

(remote). The GWP limit varies based on 

the charge size in these subsectors, thus 

that information is needed for the 

purposes of ensuring compliance. The 

charge size must be added to a label on 

the system no later than the date of first 

charge. The label may either be the 

specific charge size of the system or the 

charge size as it relates to the threshold 

of the related subsector. For example, 

the charge size for a supermarket could 

be labeled as ‘‘Charge 150 lb’’ or 

‘‘Charge < 200 lb.’’ EPA is not specifying 

the wording so as to allow the use of 

existing labels that already convey the 

necessary information. 

EPA is requiring that labels for selfcontained automatic commercial ice 

machines indicate the harvest rate, 

either as the specific harvest rate of the 

equipment, or the harvest rate as it 

relates to the threshold for the relevant 

subsector, such as an indication that 

harvest rate is either greater than 1,000 

pounds of ice per day or less than or 

equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per day for 

batch-type ACIMs or an indication that 

the harvest rate is either greater than 

1,200 pounds of ice per day or less than 

or equal to 1,200 pounds of ice per day 

for continuous-type ACIMs. Labels for 

industrial process refrigeration chillers 

and industrial process refrigeration 

systems without chillers must include 

an indication of the designed exiting 

fluid temperature. For all these 

subsectors EPA is not specifying the 

specific wording so as to allow the use 

of existing labels that already convey 

the necessary information. 

For specified components that contain 

or are dry shipped and intended for use 

with HFC(s) or blends containing 

HFC(s) that exceed the applicable GWP 

limit or HFC restriction, the label must 

state ‘‘For servicing existing equipment 

only’’ in addition to the other required 

labeling elements. 

For the aerosols and foams sectors, 

where standard blends of HFCs are 

uncommon, the label must identify all 

the HFCs used in the product. If they are 

used as part of an identified blend, the 

blend may be labeled. If multiple HFCs 

are used, or an HFC with a GWP greater 

than the limit is used, such as HFC– 

134a, either the weights of the HFC(s) 

relative to the other blowing agents, 

propellants, solvents, or to the other 

HFCs must be on the label, or the label 

must include ‘‘GWP <150.’’ For 

example, the label of a board of 

extruded polystyrene boardstock could 

be labeled ‘‘GWP<150’’ or ‘‘contains 

blend of up to 90 percent HFC–152a and 

the remainder HFO–1234ze(E).’’ 

EPA is requiring that the permanent 

label be formatted as follows: (1) In 

English; (2) durable and printed or 

otherwise labeled on, or affixed to, the 

external surface of the product; (3) 

readily visible and legible; (4) able to 

withstand open weather exposure 

without a substantial reduction in 

visibility or legibility; and (5) displayed 

on a background of contrasting color. 

Additionally, for equipment being sold 

electronically through eCommerce 

platforms, EPA is requiring that labels 

or a description of the required 

information be clearly included in 

information available prior to purchase, 

either in the text description or photo of 

the equipment. Websites for products 

and specified components using a 

regulated substance would need to have 

the required information clearly visible 

in either the photos or the description 

of the item. If a product or specified 

component is contained within a box or 

other overpack that reaches the 

consumer, the exterior packaging must 

also contain a label consistent with the 

formatting requirements described 

previously. For imported products or 

specified components, labels must be 

visible and readily available for 

inspection. 

The labeling requirement takes effect 

for each subsector at the same time as 

the manufacture and import prohibition 

for products or the installation 

prohibition for systems. In the case of 

components that could be used in 

multiple subsectors, the earliest 

compliance date among the possible 

subsectors is the applicable date. This 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73188 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

timing reflects the primary purpose of 

the labels, which is for assessing 

compliance of products and systems in 

sectors and subsectors with active HFC 

restrictions. For example, consumer 

aerosols would need to be manufactured 

or imported with labels starting January 

1, 2025, while technical aerosols would 

be subject to the labeling requirements 

starting January 1, 2028. Consumer 

aerosols manufactured or imported prior 

to January 1, 2025, would be able to be 

sold until January 1, 2028, without a 

label that meets the requirements of this 

rule. 

EPA is requiring that as of the 

applicable manufacture/import 

compliance date, no person may 

manufacture or import a product that 

contains or is intended for use with 

HFCs that lacks a label consistent with 

the requirements of this section. 

Likewise, for systems, EPA is requiring 

that as of the applicable installation 

compliance date, no person may install 

a system in the sectors and subsectors 

of this rule that contains or is intended 

for use with HFCs that lacks a label 

consistent with the requirements of this 

section. For specified components of 

systems, EPA is requiring that as of the 

applicable installation compliance date, 

no person may manufacture or import a 

component for a system in the sectors 

and subsectors of this rule that contains 

or is intended for use with HFCs that 

lacks a label consistent with the 

requirements of this section. 

Products, specified components, and 

systems that are manufactured, 

imported, or installed after the 

compliance date in the sectors and 

subsectors covered by this rule that use 

HFCs or are intended for use with HFCs 

and lack the appropriate label are 

presumed to be using a regulated 

substance exceeding the GWP limit for 

that sector or subsector. 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported certain aspects of the labeling 

proposal. Several supportive 

commenters agreed with the Agency 

that labeling products will be valuable 

for assessing compliance and allowing 

for enforcement. Another commenter 

supported a requirement for each 

regulated substance that could be used 

to be listed on the label for dry-shipped 

components that are intended for use 

with HFCs. Another commenter 

supported on-product labeling for all 

products covered by this rule and it 

being a violation to not label products 

regulated by this rule. Another 

commenter was opposed to any labeling 

requirements in this rule as they 

considered them to be ‘unnecessary and 

duplicative.’ 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

support for the labeling provisions 

provided in the comments and the 

perspectives raised by the commenters. 

EPA disagrees with the comments that 

the labeling requirements of this rule are 

‘unnecessary and duplicative.’ The 

labels required in the final rule 

generally align with other existing 

labeling requirements. EPA has made 

clear that existing labels that contain the 

required information can satisfy the 

labeling requirements. Therefore, many 

products and equipment already meet 

the labeling requirements, particularly 

in the RACHP sector. However, existing 

labels for foams and aerosols vary and 

thus uniform labeling for purposes of 

the HFC transition are necessary. 

Furthermore, labels allow retailers and 

distributors to assess whether their 

products and equipment are subject to 

the sales restriction. Without labels to 

identify the regulated substance used 

and other compliance related 

information, the Agency, consumers, 

and entities throughout the sale and 

distribution chain will not be readily 

able to assess compliance. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

stated that EPA should not require GWP 

on labels since GWPs can be easily 

researched if the HFC or HFC blend is 

provided. The commenters noted that 

the GWP values for HFCs are 

periodically modified by the IPCC, and 

the value required to be used (AR4, 

AR5, etc.) can vary based on regulations. 

The commenters stated that this could 

result in inconsistent labeling across 

jurisdictions and confusion. One 

commenter requested that the Agency 

not require GWP on the label as the 

information is not readily accessible or 

useful to customers and does not 

provide value to technicians in the 

RACHP sector. An additional 

commenter noted that in the foam 

sector, labeling products with the GWP 

value could reveal proprietary 

information, as the precise mixture of 

blowing agents varies by company and 

is not public knowledge. Additionally, 

this commenter shared that labeling 

products with the precise GWP value 

would be difficult since the mixtures 

can vary slightly between batches which 

could result in small differences in GWP 

values between products. This 

commenter recommended that EPA not 

require the specific GWP on the label 

and could instead require a statement 

that the product complies with the GWP 

limits. Several commenters requested 

that if the global warming potential is 

retained on the label, that EPA accept 

labeling it as ‘GWP’ given space 

constraints on labels and the 

commenters’ assessment that the term 

GWP is widely known. The commenter 

noted that ‘GWP’ could also be defined 

in a product manual to ensure the 

information is in the relevant language 

where sold. 

Other commenters supported the 

proposal to label all products with the 

GWP. These commenters highlighted 

the particular importance of including 

the GWP on the label as ‘global warming 

potential,’ as they noted that GWP 

information on a label would be helpful 

for consumers who may not be familiar 

with the acronym ‘GWP.’ One 

commenter stated that given the 

considerable quantity of different HFCs 

and blends that will be on the market, 

it is essential to include the GWP limit 

for the product on the label to 

strengthen enforcement and compliance 

as the GWP limit is easier to enforce 

compared to referencing an extensive 

blend list. 

Another commenter requested that 

EPA use the term ‘Exchange Value’ as 

opposed to ‘GWP’ or ‘global warming 

potential.’ This commenter noted that in 

their opinion, using ‘Exchange Value’ 

would be more precise as the GWP 

limits under the AIM Act are not the 

most up-to-date and also there are other 

recognized GWPs that could lead to 

confusion. 

Response: EPA is not finalizing a 

requirement for labels to specify the 

GWP. EPA finds the concerns raised 

about the inconsistent GWP values 

resulting from updates from the IPCC 

and different requirements by 

jurisdiction to be particularly 

compelling. The varying GWPs could 

cause confusion and result in 

unintentional noncompliance. The 

Agency maintains that listing the GWP 

could provide some benefit, such as 

informing consumers about the 

environmental impact of the products 

they are purchasing, as well as allowing 

for easier assessment of compliance. 

However, the information needed to 

assess compliance is still required on 

the label. Additionally, for the next 

several years, EPA plans to maintain a 

public website that lists HFCs, 

commonly used blends containing 

HFCs, and their respective GWPs that 

will provide a quick look-up tool for 

assessing compliance or comparing the 

environmental impact of products. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

requested that EPA eliminate the 

labeling requirement if the required 

information is required by other 

authorities and current labels contain 

the same information. They noted that 

this would provide the necessary 

information while reducing burden for 

manufacturers. One commenter noted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73189 

that many products in the RACHP sector 

already label what HFC is used. Other 

commenters specifically requested that 

the Agency allow information already 

included in the Vehicle Manufacturing 

Label, SAE J–639 label, or on a safety 

data sheet to satisfy the labeling 

requirement for this rule. Another 

commenter expressed support for the 

creation of a standardized label or 

symbol under this rule to show 

compliance with the restrictions, create 

uniformity among the regulated 

community, and facilitate consumer 

recognition. 

Response: EPA is clarifying that 

existing labels that meet the 

requirements of this rule and include 

the required information are sufficient. 

EPA agrees it is not necessary to have 

additional labels that provide the same 

information. EPA recognizes that most, 

if not all, of the information required by 

this rule is already provided on 

equipment through existing labels, such 

as UL labels or nameplates. It is not the 

intention of the Agency for the labeling 

requirement to result in duplicative 

information on labels. EPA instead is 

seeking to ensure that the information 

necessary to determine compliance with 

this rule is visible and readily available 

for the products, specified components, 

and systems covered by this rule. EPA 

is not finalizing as part of this rule the 

creation of a standardized logo, signal 

word, text, or label format to be in 

compliance with the labeling 

requirements finalized through this 

action. In addition, the Agency takes 

note of the idea raised by the 

commenter and may revisit this concept 

in a future rule. 

Comment: EPA also received a 

significant number of comments related 

to the proposed requirement to include 

the date of manufacture on the label. 

One commenter noted that having the 

date of manufacture (at minimum the 

manufacture year) on the product would 

be helpful for assessing compliance 

with this rule, as well as other 

regulations. Others commented that 

EPA should allow for an already 

existing date code on the labels to 

satisfy the date of manufacture 

requirement, while other commenters 

requested that EPA allow for the serial 

number or a traceable batch code to 

fulfill the requirement. Other 

commenters requested that EPA allow 

the date listed on the nameplate to 

satisfy the requirement, at least for 

stand-alone refrigeration equipment. 

Response: EPA understands that some 

companies have methods in place to 

indicate the date of manufacture of their 

product. For the purposes of this 

rulemaking, the Agency seeks to 

minimize duplication of the information 

required on the labels wherever 

possible. However, given the complex 

distribution chains for some of the 

equipment for which labels are 

required, it is also important for other 

entities throughout the distribution 

chain to be able to assess compliance of 

equipment they intend to purchase, sell, 

or otherwise distribute. If the product 

does not clearly indicate the date of 

manufacture, it may not be possible for 

entities beyond the OEM to assess its 

compliance. For this reason, EPA is 

retaining the requirement that each 

product have the date of manufacture (at 

minimum the four-digit year) on a label 

on the item, included in the associated 

packaging material, or available via a 

QR code. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments related to requiring the 

charge size on the label. One commenter 

stated that the label should not have to 

indicate whether the charge size is 

above or below a threshold as they 

believe that to be unnecessary. Another 

commenter noted that the indication of 

the charge size threshold specific to this 

rule (such as the 200 lb cutoff for 

supermarkets) may be useful for 

enforcement of this rule, but a universal 

indication of charge size would be 

useful for general enforcement for this 

regulation as well as others that may 

exist for instance at the State level. This 

commenter noted that knowing the 

exact charge size could be useful for 

estimating the total extent of a violation. 

The commenter shared that certain U.S. 

States already regulate some of these 

products based on a different size 

threshold, therefore requiring an 

indication of intended charge size 

would make these labels useful for 

States as well. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the option 

for regulated entities to label their 

equipment with the charge size either as 

the specific charge size of the system or 

the charge size related to the threshold 

of the related subsector. For example, 

the charge size for a supermarket could 

be labeled as ‘Charge 150 lb’ or ‘Charge 

< 200 lb’ For certain aspects of this rule, 

the GWP limit varies based on that 

charge size threshold in that subsector, 

thus information about the charge size 

is needed for the purposes of ensuring 

compliance. Retaining both options will 

provide flexibility in meeting this 

requirement while retaining the 

information necessary for the Agency 

and others throughout the distribution 

chain to assess compliance. 

Comment: Several commenters 

responded to EPA’s request for 

comment on alternative methods for 

satisfying the labeling requirements. 

Some asked that EPA retain QR codes as 

an option as this would allow the 

greatest flexibility for manufacturers 

and could be useful as it would allow 

for changes to the label to comply with 

future regulations. Others requested that 

EPA not mandate the use of QR codes 

as they are costly to maintain and not 

widely used in the foam sector. Other 

commenters stated that a QR code alone 

would not be sufficient for providing 

information to the consumer and that 

accompanying text explaining the 

purpose of the QR code would be 

required. Finally, one commenter 

supported there being multiple ways to 

satisfy the labeling requirement, such as 

QR codes, package labeling, and 

eCommerce descriptions. That 

commenter also requested that EPA 

mandate that QR code labels be 

accompanied by printed product 

information that can be produced at any 

time if requested. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the ability 

for manufacturers to meet the labeling 

requirement by including the required 

information in packaging materials (e.g., 

tag, pamphlet, or box containing the 

product or specified component) or 

through an on-product QR code instead 

of a traditional label. This associated 

packaging must be present with the 

product or specified component at the 

point of sale and import to fulfill the 

labeling requirement. To satisfy the 

labeling requirement, the QR code must 

direct to the required information and 

meet all the requirements of the onproduct label. The label with the QR 

code must include adjacent text to 

indicate the purpose of the QR code, 

such as ‘contains HFC information’ or 

‘scan for HFC info.’ A QR code may be 

useful for products where there is 

limited space for on-product labels or 

the accompanying packaging and allows 

for additional flexibility in meeting the 

labeling requirements while still 

retaining the necessary information for 

assessing compliance. A nonfunctional 

or unreadable QR code does not fulfill 

the labeling requirement and would be 

treated as a missing label. For products 

and specified components being sold 

through eCommerce, the QR code would 

not be sufficient on its own and the 

description on the eCommerce site 

would also have to contain the required 

information. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments related to the idea for an 

administrative process to address 

products that have been found to be 

mislabeled or lacking a proper label. 

One commenter supported the website 

highlighting noncompliance that was 

considered at proposal. They noted that 

such a system would increase 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73190 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

164 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ, ‘‘Importers and 

Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases 

Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell 

Foams.’’ 

165EPA is not making any changes to 40 CFR part 

98 in this rulemaking. 

compliance through transparency and 

inform the public of entities that may be 

introducing illegal products into the 

marketplace. This commenter 

recommends these entities be restricted 

from using regulated substances as 

defined in the proposed rule for a set 

period of time, with increasing lengths 

for repeated offenses, under the 

assumption that repeated 

noncompliance is an attempt to avoid 

regulations and should result in 

permanent use restrictions for the 

entity. Another commenter suggested an 

option which would be a list of 

compliant products. This list would 

aide purchasers and users in selfcompliance efforts and positively 

promote enforcement actions. 

Response: EPA values approaches that 

inform the public. Therefore, the 

Agency is finalizing use of an 

administrative process to address 

equipment that has been found to be 

mislabeled or lacking a proper label and 

that such a process will include an 

electronic means of sharing information 

regarding noncompliance with the 

public. As EPA noted in the proposed 

rule, this administrative process does 

not supplant or replace any enforcement 

action that may be available for 

violations of EPA’s regulations or the 

AIM Act. Instead, such consequences 

are in addition to any applicable 

enforcement action. EPA’s intent in 

establishing labeling provisions is to 

support the enforcement of prohibitions 

on the use of certain HFCs and blends 

containing HFCs that exceed the GWP 

limits or are otherwise prohibited. Not 

providing a label or mislabeling 

equipment hampers EPA’s ability to 

enforce those prohibitions. As an 

administrative process for quickly 

correcting mislabeled or unlabeled 

equipment, EPA is finalizing the option 

of creating an electronic list that would 

provide a list of entities that 

manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or 

offer for sale or distribution, or export 

products or specified components that 

have been found to be mislabeled or 

lacking a proper label. 

Transparency is a significant means of 

ensuring compliance, as discussed in 

detail in the Allocation Framework Rule 

(see 86 FR 55191, October 5, 2021). EPA 

intends to employ similar processes for 

notification and response finalized in 40 

CFR part 84, subpart A. This includes 

notifying the entity of the Agency’s 

finding that a product or specified 

component is mislabeled or lacking a 

label, and of our intent to list them as 

not meeting the subsection (i) labeling 

provisions. The Agency will provide 30 

days from the initial notification for the 

entity to respond, after which the entity 

would be publicly listed on EPA’s 

website. To be eligible for removal from 

the website, the entity must submit a 

demonstration that the labeling issue 

has been resolved along with a 

description of measures that the entity 

has put in place to reduce the likelihood 

of future labeling problems. Publicizing 

noncompliance could be an effective 

method to deter violations and provide 

valuable information to consumers. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

there should be a standardized process 

to correct missing or inaccurate labels 

on products, and if so, what that process 

should be. 

Comment: EPA received several 

related comments, one commenter did 

not support a standardized process for 

fixing labels, as they believed that this 

could discourage necessary adjustments 

to labels from taking place. Another 

commenter requested that EPA set up a 

standard process for requesting new 

labels and certifying that they are 

accurate. 

Response: The Agency is not 

finalizing a standardized process for 

correcting missing, inaccurate, or 

otherwise noncompliant labels in this 

rule. EPA may revisit this decision in 

the future but at this time does not 

believe that a standardized process for 

correcting labels is necessary to assess 

compliance and allow for enforcement 

actions under this rule. 

The labeling provisions are intended 

to support compliance with the 

prohibitions on the use of high-GWP 

HFCs in certain sectors and subsectors. 

Requiring a manufacturer or importer to 

affirmatively and publicly specify the 

HFC being used through a label 

reinforces their compliance with the 

limits established through this 

rulemaking. Accurate labeling 

information also supports compliance 

with the limits by allowing distributers, 

as well as competitors and the general 

public, to assess whether a product uses 

a compliant HFC. The labeling and 

packaging requirements may also ease 

inspection by EPA and CBP and 

facilitate efforts to prevent the import or 

manufacture of noncompliant products. 

Clearly and visibly identifying the HFC, 

or blend containing an HFC, used 

provides one mechanism for inspectors 

to quickly identify noncompliant 

products and/or identify products for 

further inspection. 

As a secondary consideration, the 

information on the labels and packaging 

materials can provide consumers with 

information about whether a product 

uses an HFC or blend containing an 

HFC. This information may alter 

consumer purchasing choices and could 

increase market pressure for the 

transition away from products that use 

HFCs. 

VIII. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

EPA is establishing recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for any entity 

that domestically manufactures or 

imports products or specified 

components that use or are intended to 

use regulated substances or blends 

containing a regulated substance in the 

sectors and subsectors covered in this 

rulemaking. As with labeling, this 

requirement applies regardless of the 

GWP of the HFC or HFC blend used or 

intended to be used. 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the installation of 

field-charged systems in this 

rulemaking. The Agency may seek to 

establish reporting and/or 

recordkeeping for installed systems in a 

future rulemaking under the AIM Act. 

The proposed rule included both 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for importers and 

domestic manufacturers of products, 

which as defined in the proposal was 

inclusive of field-charged systems. The 

proposed rule also included an 

exemption for field technicians or 

installers of systems from such 

requirements. 

A subset of the entities subject to 

these reporting requirements currently 

report under subpart QQ of the 

GHGRP.164 The GHGRP covers the 

mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas 

emissions and supplies from certain 

facilities and suppliers. To meet the 

needs of this final rule without 

unnecessarily increasing the 

administrative burden to those entities 

that would be subject to both subpart 

QQ of 40 CFR part 98 and this 

rulemaking, to the extent possible, EPA 

is aligning with the data elements and 

reporting schedule collected by the 

GHGRP subpart QQ. However, both 

subparts apply, and the reporter is 

expected to meet the requirements 

codified under both subparts.165

While many of the reporting elements 

overlap with those of the GHGRP, the 

scope of the reporting universes is 

different in a few important ways. First, 

this rule applies to both domestic 

manufacturers and importers, whereas 

the GHGRP applies to importers and 

exporters. Second, this rule requires 

reporting from all manufacturers and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73191 

166Calculated as specified in 40 CFR 98.2. 

167E–GGRT is EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Tool for certain sources and suppliers of 

GHGs in the United States to report GHG emissions 

(https://ghgreporting.epa.gov/ghg/login.do). 

importers of products and specified 

components regardless of the volume of 

HFCs within those products. In contrast, 

the GHGRP excludes entities that import 

and export less than 25,000 MTCO2e per 

year 166 (and are not otherwise required 

to report under 40 CFR part 98). Third, 

this rule requires reporting from 

manufacturers and importers of aerosol 

and aerosol solvent products containing 

HFCs which do not report under the 

GHGRP. Requiring all entities to report 

is important for understanding how 

HFCs are being used or are intended for 

use in products and specified 

components and provides important 

information for verifying compliance 

and allowing for better oversight. 

EPA is requiring covered entities to 

register and report electronically.167

EPA intends to limit to the extent 

practicable duplicative burden between 

the AIM Act and the GHGRP and plans 

to use a mechanism to synchronize 

these systems similar to the Agency’s 

efforts under the HFC Allocation 

program. Entities already subject to 

reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

QQ may need to comply with the 

reporting requirements of this rule but 

should not need to duplicate their 

efforts. Where there is overlap in 

requested data, EPA intends to 

internally direct data to the appropriate 

Agency data systems to reduce 

duplicative burden as much as possible 

for reporters that fall under this rule and 

under GHGRP subpart QQ. 

Comment: The Agency received 

several comments with concerns about 

the proposed approach to require 

manufacturers and importers to report 

for field-charged systems. Some 

commenters indicated that these 

requirements would result in 

duplicative reporting, with EPA 

receiving reports for both components of 

systems and the completed system. 

Additionally, some commenters 

indicated that data would be inaccurate, 

as the manufacturers and importers 

would often have no way of knowing 

the total volume of refrigerant charged 

in the field. Instead, one commenter 

indicated that the reporting would be 

more accurate if it occurred after the 

system is installed and charged as 

opposed to having manufacturers or 

importers estimate an expected charge 

of a system, which could be changed by 

numerous factors during installation. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters that it is impractical for 

manufacturers and importers to report 

on intended uses that they may not 

know about. Reports for systems are 

most useful and effective for ensuring 

compliance, allowing for enforcement, 

and understanding HFC use when they 

are fully accurate and reflect how HFCs 

are being used. As a result, in this rule, 

the Agency is focusing the reporting on 

the information that can be known by 

the domestic manufacturer and importer 

of products and specified components 

and is not finalizing a requirement for 

reporting for systems prior to or upon 

their installation. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for electronic 

reporting and for the Technology 

Transitions program utilizing the 

existing e-GGRT platform, which is used 

by reporters subject to the GHGRP 

requirements codified under part 98, as 

regulated entities have familiarity, 

access, and confidence in the system. 

Response: EPA determined it could 

meet its goals under subsection (i) of the 

AIM Act while using an existing 

platform that was already familiar to 

many of the reporters. The Agency 

maintains that if in the future, it cannot 

meet the needs of subsection (i) with 

existing reporting mechanisms, EPA 

may require use of a different data 

system. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA not create any new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements outside of what is already 

covered in subpart QQ of the GHGRP, 

and by other EPA requirements, such as 

the requirements overseen by the Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality. 

Response: EPA is mindful of the 

various reporting requirements across 

the Agency and has taken an approach 

to minimize duplicative reporting where 

possible, but notes that the scope and 

purpose of this rulemaking is separate 

from those regulations promulgated 

under different statutory authorities for 

different programmatic goals. The 

reporting and recordkeeping provisions 

specific to this rule are necessary to 

implement and enforce subsection (i) of 

the AIM Act, which directs EPA to 

restrict the use of HFCs in the sector or 

subsector in which they are used. The 

broader scope of reporting in this rule 

allows EPA to assess the threshold 

question of identifying which sectors or 

subsectors use HFCs, which HFCs, and 

in what quantities, in order to inform its 

decision-making under subsection (i) to 

act on petitions and promulgate rules to 

facilitate the transition of sectors and 

subsectors away from those HFCs. 

A. What reporting is EPA requiring? 

Covered entities in the refrigeration, 

air-conditioning, and heat pump sector 

must provide annual reports to EPA that 

include: (1) The subsector of the 

product or specified component based 

on the categorization in this rulemaking; 

(2) for each type of equipment with a 

unique combination of charge size and 

regulated substance or blend containing 

a regulated substance, the identity of the 

HFC or HFC blend used, charge size 

(including holding charge or no charge, 

if applicable), and number of each 

product type domestically 

manufactured, imported, or exported; 

and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, 

the total mass in metric tons of each 

HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used 

in the product type, and the mass of the 

regulated substance, or blend containing 

a regulated substance, per unit of 

equipment type. Additionally, for 

products within the refrigeration, airconditioning, and heat pump sector that 

include closed-cell foams that contain 

HFCs, the reporter must also provide; 

(1) the identity of the HFC or HFC blend 

contained in the foam, (2) the mass of 

the HFC or HFC blend contained in the 

foam in each product, and (3) the 

number of products manufactured, 

imported, or exported with each unique 

combination of mass and identity of 

HFC or HFC blend within the closedcell foams. 

Covered entities in the aerosols sector 

must provide annual reports to EPA that 

include: (1) The subsector of the 

product based on the categorization in 

this rulemaking; (2) for each type of 

product with a unique regulated 

substance or combination of regulated 

substances, the identity of the HFC(s) 

used, and if multiple HFCs are used, 

their percentages, and number of each 

product type domestically 

manufactured, imported, or exported; 

and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, 

the total mass in metric tons of each 

HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used 

in the product type, and the mass of the 

regulated substance, or blend containing 

a regulated substance, per unit of 

product type. 

Covered entities in the foam sector 

must provide annual reports to EPA that 

include: (1) The subsector of the 

product based on the categorization in 

this rulemaking; (2) for each type of 

product with a unique regulated 

substance, or blend containing a 

regulated substance, the identity of the 

HFC or HFC blend used, and the total 

volume of each manufactured foam 

product type; and the number of foam 

products (e.g., polyols) type 

domestically manufactured, imported, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73192 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

168Under 40 CFR 84.3, EPA has defined bulk as 

it relates to HFCs as ‘‘a regulated substance of any 

amount that is in a container for the transportation 

or storage of that substance such as cylinders, 

drums, ISO tanks, and small cans. A regulated 

substance that must first be transferred from a 

container to another container, vessel, or piece of 

equipment in order to realize its intended use is a 

bulk substance. A regulated substance contained in 

a manufactured product such as an appliance, an 

aerosol can, or a foam is not a bulk substance. 

or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) 

in this list, the total mass in metric tons 

of each HFC, or blend containing an 

HFC, used in the product type, and the 

mass of the regulated substance, or 

blend containing a regulated substance, 

per unit of product type. 

For the requirement to report the total 

mass in metric tons of each HFC, or 

blend containing an HFC, used in the 

relevant products and specified 

components in the RACHP and aerosols 

sectors, but excluding those in the foam 

blowing sector, reporters shall use the 

following equation: 

I = 7t St × Nt × 0.001 

where: 

I = Total mass of the regulated substance or 

blend containing a regulated substance 

(metric tons) in all products the reporter 

imports and/or domestically 

manufacturers annually. 

t = Equipment/product type using a regulated 

substance or blend containing a 

regulated substance. 

St = Mass of the regulated substance or blend 

containing a regulated substance per unit 

of equipment type t (charge per piece of 

equipment, kg). 

Nt = Number of units of equipment type t 

imported or domestically manufactured 

annually (pieces of equipment). 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons. 

For the RACHP sector, and for those 

foams that are an integrated part of a 

product (e.g., the foam in a household 

refrigerator or freezer), St shall be the 

mass of the regulated substance, or 

blend containing a regulated substance, 

in the foam used as part of the product, 

and all other factors in the equation 

above shall remain the same. 

For containers or foam blowing 

products (e.g., polyols) which contain 

foam blowing agent, and are intended 

for use to blow foam, St shall be the 

mass of the regulated substance, or 

blend containing a regulated substance, 

in the container or foam blowing 

product, and all other factors in the 

equation above shall remain the same. 

For those foams that are considered 

the product itself (e.g., extruded 

polystyrene boardstock), St shall be the 

density of the regulated substance, or 

blend containing a regulated substance, 

in foam (amount per cubic foot of foam, 

kg of regulated substance per cubic 

foot), Nt shall be the total volume of 

foam imported or domestically 

manufactured annually (cubic feet of 

foam), and all other factors in the 

equation above shall remain the same. 

This equation is used in 40 CFR part 

98, subpart QQ for imports and exports 

of pre-charged equipment and closedcell foams that contain a fluorinated 

GHG, as defined under 40 CFR part 98, 

and is already in use and familiar to 

those currently subject to reporting 

under subpart QQ. 

EPA is also requiring that all entities 

subject to the reporting requirements in 

this rule provide necessary identifying 

information to EPA that includes: (1) 

The name of the importer or 

manufacturer, and the physical street 

address including city, State, and zip 

code; (2) the year covered under the 

report; (3) the date of submittal; (4) a 

signed and dated certification statement 

provided by the designated 

representative of the owner or operator; 

and (5) NAICS code(s) that apply. 

As proposed, EPA is requiring that 

reports be signed and attested. Entities 

subject to the proposed reporting 

requirements must provide a statement 

of certification that the data they 

provide are accurate. Reporters must 

also certify that their products use only 

allowed HFCs, do not exceed any 

applicable GWP limit, and are properly 

labeled. 

For equipment that is shipped 

without an HFC but is intended to use 

an HFC (e.g., dry-shipped specified 

components of a field-charged system), 

EPA is requiring that the manufacturer 

or importer report on (1) the sector and 

subsector of the equipment based on the 

categorization in this rulemaking, if 

known; (2) the number of units, by 

unique combination of intended charge 

size and HFC; (3) the HFC or HFC blend 

intended to be used in the sector and 

subsector; and (4) the expected quantity 

of HFC or HFC blend that the equipment 

would contain when fully charged. 

Requiring reporting from entities that 

are manufacturing or importing 

equipment that is intended for but does 

not contain HFCs or HFC blends will 

provide EPA with the full universe of 

relevant uses of HFCs or HFC blends in 

the covered sectors and subsectors 

including the quantity and type of HFCs 

used. It will allow the Agency to 

identify the entities that manufacture 

and import this equipment and support 

EPA’s efforts to assess compliance. EPA 

seeks to ensure a level playing field for 

the regulated community and views 

reporting as a central mechanism for 

ensuring compliant companies are not 

placed at a competitive disadvantage. 

Importers and manufacturers who fail to 

report required information or provide 

inaccurate information would be 

considered in violation. 

In addition to the required reporting 

elements being finalized, EPA had 

proposed that reporters provide (1) the 

GWP of the HFC or HFC blend used or 

intended for use in the products and (2) 

the date of manufacture or import. EPA 

is not finalizing requirements for either 

of these proposed reporting elements. 

First, EPA has the ability to calculate 

GWPs for provided HFCs and HFC 

blends. Removing this requirement will 

prevent unintentional reporting errors 

due to inaccurate GWP calculations, 

particularly as the AIM Act directs EPA 

to use values that are equivalent to AR4 

values, whereas other entities may 

calculate GWPs differently. Second, 

EPA is removing the requirement to 

report the exact date of manufacture or 

import as a necessary data element. 

Comment: Several commenters raised 

concerns about the Agency’s proposal to 

include date of manufacture or import 

in the reports. The commenters 

described this requirement as being 

unjustifiably burdensome and indicated 

that it would provide little to no value 

for assessing compliance. 

Response: EPA is mindful of the time 

and resources that reporters dedicate to 

fulfilling reporting requirements. Based 

on a review of the comments, EPA 

reconsidered and determined that the 

specific dates of import or manufacture 

will not be necessary. For other 

regulatory programs, knowing the 

specific day of import has utility in 

assessing compliance (e.g., for imports 

of bulk HFCs in accordance with the 

HFC Allocation program), but knowing 

the specific day that a product was 

manufactured or imported would not 

provide significant additional value to 

the Agency’s understanding of the 

market transition from using high-GWP 

HFCs. EPA is therefore removing these 

two data elements, GWP and date of 

import or manufacture from finalized 

reporting requirements. Because EPA is 

finalizing annual reporting, these 

reports would necessarily capture 

imports and production from a specific 

calendar year. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

requested that the Agency limit 

reporting to aggregated use of HFCs in 

equipment. These commenters raised 

concern about the detail requested in 

the reports and indicated that reporting 

more detailed information than a 

summary of the aggregated use of each 

chemical by subsector would be highly 

burdensome and costly for the reporters. 

EPA interprets ‘‘bulk use of HFCs’’ to 

mean reporting aggregated data, not the 

reporters’ purchases of bulk HFCs as 

defined in subpart A of this part.168


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73193 

Reporting ‘‘bulk use of HFCs’’ would 

not be sufficient for ensuring 

compliance and allowing for 

enforcement of subsection (i). The 

Agency must have enough information 

in the reports to assess if the products 

and equipment are being reported in the 

correct subsector and that they meet all 

the specifications related to the 

restrictions. For instance, for certain 

products the GWP limit changes based 

on factors such as charge size. If 

reporters do not provide information 

related to the charge size of the 

products, it will not be possible for the 

Agency to assess market demand and 

other relevant aspects for the 

Technology Transitions program. 

Additionally, the specific level of data 

requested is in alignment with data 

already submitted under GHGRP and 

has been required for over a decade. As 

a result, the Agency disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that the level of 

detail requested will be highly 

burdensome. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that the public release of certain data 

elements, such as information related to 

production and sales volumes and 

GWPs of proprietary blends for foams, 

could result in financial damage to 

companies. Commenters requested that 

EPA use a confidential platform, such as 

e-GGRT, for reporting and ensure that 

the data collected are properly secured 

and Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is treated as such. 

Additional commenters noted that 

aggregated data could be released 

publicly by the Agency. One commenter 

noted that Section 114 of the Clean Air 

Act provides that ‘emission data’ shall 

be publicly available and cannot be 

withheld from the public as confidential 

information. The commenter also noted 

that EPA has long-standing regulations 

that define ‘emission data’ expansively 

to include ‘a description of the device, 

installation, or operation constituting 

the source’ of those emissions. 

Response: The Agency understands 

the need to properly manage and secure 

CBI and is mindful of the concerns 

around specific data elements being 

released and will ensure that 

appropriate protections are in place for 

such data collected under this 

rulemaking. The Agency also agrees that 

there is substantial value in sharing 

reported data with the public. EPA 

plans to publicly share aggregated data 

collected under this rule through 

reports, or other public-facing material. 

EPA intends to protect CBI by 

aggregating data in public reports as 

well as implementing data reporting and 

management platforms appropriate for 

handling CBI. 

1. What is the frequency and timing of 

reporting? 

EPA is requiring annual reporting 

from domestic manufacturers and 

importers subject to the reporting 

requirements. EPA had proposed 

quarterly reporting to allow the Agency 

to review data throughout the year to 

identify trends and noncompliance on 

an ongoing basis. Quarterly reporting is 

also consistent with other reporting 

under the Allocation Framework Rule. 

EPA is requiring that reports be 

submitted to the Agency within 90 days 

of the end of the reporting period, rather 

than 45 days as proposed. 

Comment: EPA received significant 

comment in opposition to the proposed 

reporting frequency. Most commenters 

requested that the Agency instead 

finalize annual reporting. These 

commenters indicated that quarterly 

reporting would be overly burdensome 

and costly for reporters and requested 

annual reporting as a more feasible 

frequency. The commenters stated that 

quarterly reporting would be 

cumbersome for the Agency, and they 

did not believe it would provide greater 

clarity on the total impact of the HFC 

phasedown than annual reports and 

would not be necessary to ensure 

compliance with this rule. Commenters 

also noted that annual reporting is 

sufficient under other reporting 

programs across the Agency, such as the 

GHGRP. Additionally, some 

commenters raised concerns about the 

costs associated with quarterly reporting 

disproportionately harming small 

businesses. Some commenters were 

supportive of quarterly reporting as they 

believed it would allow EPA to spot 

trends faster than annual reporting and 

noted that it is consistent with other 

reporting requirements under the AIM 

Act. 

Response: After taking into 

consideration the information submitted 

in the comments on the proposed 

reporting frequency, EPA has decided 

that annual reporting will be sufficient 

for the Agency’s purposes and will be 

less burdensome to regulated entities. 

While EPA agrees that quarterly 

reporting could allow for more detailed 

trends analyses and is consistent with 

other AIM Act reporting such as for 

imports of bulk HFCs, EPA agrees with 

commenters that annual reports will 

provide the information necessary for 

the Agency to meet the goals of the 

Technology Transitions program and 

should assist with compliance of this 

rule. The Agency will be able to react 

to reports in a meaningful way with 

information collected on an annual 

basis. If as implementation on 

subsection (i) continues, the Agency 

determines that more frequent reporting 

is necessary, EPA would propose a 

change in reporting frequency. At this 

time, the Agency views annual reporting 

to be a reasonable timeframe that would 

meet the Agency’s information need and 

would be less burdensome than 

quarterly reporting. Therefore, the 

Agency is finalizing annual reporting. 

Comment: Several commenters raised 

concerns about their ability to submit 

reports within 45 days. These 

commenters stated that 45 days was not 

sufficient time to compile and report the 

necessary data. The commenters also 

noted that this is significantly shorter 

than the 90-day requirement in subpart 

QQ of the GHGRP and requested that 

EPA allow reporters 90 days to submit 

their reports. Commenters mentioned 

that the longer timeline has been proven 

to be sufficient in the GHGRP and that 

aligning these timelines would be 

beneficial for those that report under 

both programs. One commenter 

explicitly supported the 45-day 

reporting requirement. 

Response: EPA is mindful of the need 

for reporters to have sufficient time to 

compile and submit accurate and timely 

data. The Agency is also seeking to 

reduce burden by aligning with other 

existing requirements. EPA proposed 45 

days to match the timing of reports for 

the production and import of bulk HFCs 

under the Allocation Framework Rules. 

However, EPA finds it more appropriate 

to align with the reporting schedule of 

the GHGRP given the greater overlap of 

reporters between this rule and that 

program. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

to require reporters to provide 

notification to the Agency prior to an 

import. EPA is not finalizing such a 

requirement. 

Comment: Some commenters indicted 

that pre-notification for imported 

products could result in delayed 

shipments, could strain supply chains, 

and negatively impact price stability 

and product availability. These 

commenters believe that a prenotification system would not increase 

compliance or enhance enforcement 

efforts. 

Response: While EPA considers prenotification to be an important tool that 

EPA uses in a range of situations, the 

Agency agrees that for the purposes of 

implementing the Technology 

Transitions program under subsection 

(i) it is not necessary for EPA to require 

pre-notification at this time. EPA 

understands the concerns raised with 

regard to the timely import of compliant 

products; however, EPA has effectively 

used pre-notification processes with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73194 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

169For the sake of comparison, results from both 

sets of analyses are included in the RIA addendum 

contained in the docket. 

other programs and does not consider 

pre-notification to create barriers to 

timely imports. Pre-notification can be 

useful for ensuring compliance at the 

point of import. 

2. When do reporters need to begin 

reporting? 

The Agency received a request for 

clarity regarding the compliance date for 

the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. A commenter asked when 

EPA would consider the start date for 

reporting to be. The proposed rule did 

not clearly specify when the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements would begin to apply. 

EPA is requiring that the reporting 

period for all sectors and subsectors 

start on January 1, 2025. This means 

that the first reports must be submitted 

to the Agency by March 31, 2026. 

Starting the reporting period on the 

same day for all sectors and subsectors 

will allow the Agency to monitor the 

full scope of the transition resulting 

from this rule. For subsectors with 

initial restrictions starting on January 1, 

2025, the start date to the reporting 

period is needed to ensure compliance 

with the active restrictions. Reporting 

data provided from subsectors with 

restrictions starting after January 1, 

2025, will provide valuable data to help 

EPA assess the use of HFCs in 

subsectors prior to the compliance 

restrictions. This information will be 

helpful to the Agency in its efforts to 

better understand the landscape of HFC 

use across the country, and it will also 

allow for proactive efforts by the Agency 

to ensure that subsectors are adequately 

preparing for the transition to lower 

GWP HFCs. 

B. What recordkeeping is EPA requiring? 

EPA is requiring that entities that 

import or domestically manufacture 

products or specified components that 

use or are intended to use a regulated 

substance in the sectors and subsectors 

covered by this rule maintain records 

that form the basis of the reporting 

requirements. These entities must retain 

records for a minimum of three years 

and make them available to EPA upon 

request. The importer or domestic 

manufacturer must also retain records of 

the company or retailer to whom the 

product or specified component was 

sold, distributed, or in any way 

conveyed to. Information regarding 

where products and specified 

components have been distributed, sold, 

or conveyed to after import or 

manufacture may be necessary for 

tracking noncompliant equipment when 

it is identified and removing it from the 

market. 

In addition, EPA is requiring that 

importers retain the following records 

substantiating each of their imports: (1) 

A copy of the bill of lading for the 

import, (2) the invoice for the import, 

(3) the CBP entry documentation if 

applicable, (4) ports of arrival and entry 

through which the products passed, and 

(5) country of origin and if different the 

country of shipment to the United 

States. These provisions are consistent 

with the recordkeeping required for the 

subset of importers subject to subpart 

QQ of the GHGRP and will allow EPA 

to enforce the restrictions by tracking 

the movement and sources of 

noncompliant products when they are 

identified. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

supported the proposed recordkeeping 

requirements. These commenters 

indicated that retaining records for a 

period of three years is manageable for 

industry and requested that no 

additional data other than the items 

proposed be required for the purposes of 

recordkeeping. One commenter 

supported a recordkeeping period of 

five years instead of three years, as five 

years would align with the retention 

period of the HFC Framework rule. 

Response: The Agency agrees that 

there may be benefits to aligning with 

the five-year retention period under the 

HFC Framework. However, EPA notes 

that a requirement to retain records for 

three years is common practice across 

other programs at EPA and we consider 

it will be sufficient for ensuring 

compliance and allowing for 

enforcement actions under this rule. 

Covered entities may choose to retain 

records longer and may have other 

reasons why doing so is beneficial. 

However, EPA is only requiring records 

be retained for three years. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested the Agency clarify the 

requirement that the importer or 

domestic manufacturer must retain 

records of the company or retailer to 

whom the product was sold, distributed, 

or in any way conveyed to. These 

commenters noted that manufacturers 

and importers often do not know the 

end purchaser of a product and 

requested that EPA clarify that 

manufacturers and importers are not 

required to keep records of all sales 

throughout the distribution chain. 

Response: EPA is clarifying that this 

requirement only applies to the initial 

sale, distribution, or conveyance from 

the domestic manufacturer or importer 

to another entity. The Agency 

understands the complexity of 

distribution channels and does not 

intend for the manufacturer or importer 

to be required to retain records beyond 

the first conveyance. 

IX. What are the costs and benefits of 

this action? 

EPA estimated the costs and benefits 

of restricting HFCs consistent with this 

final rule. This analysis, presented in 

the RIA addendum contained in the 

docket, is intended to provide the 

public with information on the relevant 

costs and benefits of this action and to 

comply with executive orders. To the 

extent that EPA has relied upon costs 

and benefits estimates for purposes of 

analyzing factors under subsection 

(i)(4), as discussed in sections VI.E and 

VI.F of this preamble, EPA has 

summarized those estimates in the Costs 

and Environmental Impacts TSD. 

The RIA addendum also includes 

estimates of the social cost of HFCs in 

order to quantify climate benefits, 

chiefly for the purpose of providing 

useful information to the public and to 

comply with Executive Order 12866. 

Although EPA estimated the social costs 

of HFCs for purposes of that assessment, 

this action does not rely on these costs 

as a record basis for the Agency action, 

and EPA would reach the conclusions of 

this final rule in the absence of the 

social costs of HFCs. 

A. Assessment of costs and additional 

benefits utilizing transition options 

The RIA addendum follows a 

methodology that is consistent with the 

costs and benefits analysis of the 

Allocation Framework RIA, released in 

2021, and the Addendum to that RIA 

accompanying the 2024 Allocation Rule. 

In the Allocation Framework RIA and 

that Addendum, EPA calculates costs 

and benefits using a marginal abatement 

cost (MAC) curve to evaluate the 

availability and cost of abatement 

required to meet the AIM Act 

phasedown caps for production and 

consumption. Similarly, for this 

rulemaking, EPA quantified the costs 

associated with the transitions 

necessary for compliance, but based on 

the sector- and subsector-specific 

restrictions finalized in this rule as 

opposed to an overall production and 

consumption cap. Both approaches, as 

discussed in the RIA and this RIA 

addendum, respectively, also quantify 

the monetized climate benefits 

associated with the reduction in 

emissions over time as a result of 

decreased consumption of regulated 

substances.169


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73195 

Because the phasedown in HFC 

consumption and production has 

already been codified under the 

Allocation Framework Rule, with 

further changes under the 2024 

Allocation Rule, the full extent of 

consumption and emissions reductions 

as well as associated costs (or cost 

savings) estimated for this rule are not 

considered additional. Therefore, in 

calculating the impacts from this rule, 

we calculate the ‘‘incremental’’ costs 

and environmental impacts (either 

increased or decreased) relative to those 

previously estimated for the Allocation 

Framework Rule as updated by the 2024 

Allocation Rule RIA Addendum. 

EPA estimates that this rule will have 

incremental benefits relative to those 

assessed for the Allocation Rules, 

although—as discussed in the RIA 

addendum and the Costs and 

Environmental Impacts TSD—the extent 

of these benefits varies depending on 

the mix and timing of industry 

transitions made in order to achieve 

compliance in the affected sectors and 

subsectors. In its analysis of the 

Allocation Rules, EPA estimated that 

regulated entities would adopt specific 

technology transition options to achieve 

compliance with the statutory 

allowance cap step-downs. Industry is 

already making many of these 

transitions, and we expect that 

achieving the allowance cap step-downs 

will require many of the same subsectorspecific technology transitions that are 

required by this rule. However, this rule 

may in some cases require regulated 

entities to further accelerate transitions 

in specific subsectors, relative to what 

EPA previously assumed in its analysis 

of the Allocation Rules. Conversely, 

entities in a discrete set of subsectors 

not covered by this rule could 

conceivably forgo or delay adopting 

abatement options that were assumed to 

be undertaken to comply with the 

Allocation Rules. 

Given this uncertainty, EPA analyzed 

two scenarios to represent the range of 

potential incremental impacts resulting 

from this rule: a ‘‘base case’’ and ‘‘high 

additionality case.’’ Based on this 

approach, EPA estimates average annual 

incremental HFC emissions and 

consumption reductions from 2025– 

2050 of approximately 3 to 34 

MMTCO2e and 28 to 43 MMTCO2e, 

respectively. The annual incremental 

consumption and emissions avoided are 

shown in Table 5 for select years as well 

as on a cumulative basis. 

TABLE 5–INCREMENTAL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS, RELATIVE TO ALLOCATION RULE REFERENCE CASE

2025–2050 

[MMTCO2e] 

Year 

Consumption reductions Emission reductions 

Base case 

High 

additionality 

case 

Base case 

High 

additionality 

case 

2025 ................................................................................................................. ¥5 30 ¥54 7 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 23 50 ¥15 33 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 38 49 3 44

2040 ................................................................................................................. 22 30 25 38 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 37 45 28 37 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 39 47 32 40 

Cumulative total ........................................................................................ 720 1,113 83 876 

To calculate the climate benefits 

associated with consumption 

abatement, the consumption changes are 

expressed in terms of emission 

reductions. Emissions avoided in each 

year can be less than the consumption 

avoided in the same year because of the 

delay between when an HFC is 

produced or imported and when it is 

emitted to the atmosphere. 

As noted above, the base case scenario 

of incremental benefits shows overall 

emission reductions over the full-time 

horizon for implementation. However, 

the incremental emission reductions 

under the transition pathway evaluated 

for this rule are in some cases assumed 

to be more gradual than those EPA 

previously estimated to occur with 

implementation of the Allocation Rules. 

This is primarily because (1) the base 

case does not include certain actions to 

reduce consumption (and, 

consequently, reduce emissions) 

previously assumed in the Allocation 

Framework Rule reference case, 

including increased leak reduction and 

enhanced recovery of HFCs, and (2) the 

assumed timing of emission reductions 

achieved or forgone differs depending 

on assumed equipment lifetime and the 

subsector and technology being 

modeled. Overall, the abatement options 

analyzed for compliance with this rule 

result in more consumption reductions 

on a cumulative basis; however, some of 

the emission reductions come at a later 

time than the emission reductions from 

the Allocation Framework Rule 

reference case. As a result, when 

compared to the analysis of the 

Allocation Rules, the base case scenario 

results in slightly higher emissions in 

earlier model years while yielding 

greater emission reductions in later 

years and overall. 

Although the base case scenario is a 

reasonable projection of the potential 

impacts of this rule, there is reason to 

believe that it is a conservative one, and 

that the incremental emission reduction 

benefits associated with this rule could 

be substantially greater than reflected in 

the base case scenario. Previous 

regulatory programs to reduce chemical 

use in the affected industries show that 

regulated entities do not limit their 

response to the required compliance 

level; rather, regulated entities may take 

additional actions that transform 

industry practices for various reasons, 

including the anticipation of future 

restrictions, strengthening their 

competitive position, and supporting 

overall environmental goals. The 

industries affected by this rule have 

historically reached compliance with 

chemical phaseouts ahead of schedule. 

For instance, with a 1996 phaseout of 

CFCs, nearly all home refrigerators and 

motor vehicle air conditioners had 

transitioned from CFC–12 to HFC–134a 

by 1994. Likewise, with a 2010 phaseout 

of HCFC–22 for new equipment, air 

conditioners using R–410A were 

available more than 10 years earlier than 

required. For this reason, in the high 

additionality case we assumed certain 

abatement options not covered by this 

rule—but which were assumed in the 

prior accounting of benefits for the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73196 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Allocation Rules—are also included to 

illustrate the potential for incremental 

benefits. In both scenarios, on a 

cumulative basis this rule is expected to 

yield incremental emission reductions, 

ranging from 83 to 876 MMTCO2e 

through 2050 (respectively, about 2 

percent and 20 percent of the total 

emissions over that same time period in 

the Allocation Rules analyses). In the 

RIA addendum, we estimate the present 

value of these incremental benefits to be 

between $3.01 billion and $50.4 billion 

in 2020 dollars. 

Table 6 presents a summary of the 

annual incremental costs and net 

benefits of this rule for selected years in 

the time period 2025–2050, with the 

climate benefits discounted at 3 percent. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL INCREMENTAL CLIMATE BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY

TRANSITIONS RULE BASE CASE AND HIGH ADDITIONALITY CASE SCENARIOS FOR THE 2025–2050 TIMEFRAME

[millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] abcde

Year 

Base case High additionality case 

Incremental 

climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Annual costs 

(negative 

values 

are savings) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% or 7% 

costs) e

Incremental 

climate 

benefits (3%) 

Annual costs 

(negative 

values 

are savings) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% or 7% 

costs) e

2025 ......................................................... ¥$3,730 $73 ¥$3,803 $486 $532 ¥$46 

2029 ......................................................... ¥1,253 208 ¥1,461 2,451 498 1,953 

2034 ......................................................... ¥73 ¥28 ¥45 3,636 98 3,538 

2036 ......................................................... ¥613 ¥424 ¥190 3,121 ¥381 3,501 

2040 ......................................................... 2,448 ¥677 3,125 3,831 ¥618 4,449 

2045 ......................................................... 3,080 ¥587 3,667 4,164 ¥523 4,687 

2050 ......................................................... 3,869 ¥619 4,488 4,938 ¥549 5,488 

Discount rate 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

PV ........................... $3,013 ($4,549) ($2,073) $7,561 $5,086 $50,406 ($1,601) $1 $52,007 $50,405 

EAV ........................ 184 (278) (215) 462 399 3,081 (98) 0 3,179 3,081 

aBenefits include only those related to climate. Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–HFCs (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount 

rate). For purposes of this table, we show the effects associated with the model average at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not 

have a single central SC–HFC point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC– 

HFC estimates. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA addendum a consideration of climate effects calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts. b Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

cThe annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050. 

dThe costs presented in this table are annual estimates. 

eThe PV for the 7% net benefits column is found by taking the difference between the PV of climate benefits at 3% and the PV of costs discounted at 7%. Due to the intergenerational nature of climate impacts the social rate of return to capital, estimated to be 7 percent in OMB’s Circular A–4, is not appropriate for use in calculating PV of climate benefits. 

Climate benefits presented in Tables 5 

and 6 are based on changes (increases or 

reductions) in HFC emissions compared 

to the Allocation Framework Rule 

reference case (i.e., after consideration 

of benefits previously accounted for in 

Allocation Framework Rule RIA and 

2024 Allocation Rule RIA Addendum) 

and are calculated using four different 

global estimates of the social cost of 

HFCs (SC–HFCs): the model average at 

2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rates and the 95th percentile at 

a 3 percent discount rate. For the 

presentational purposes of Table 6, we 

show the incremental benefits 

associated with the average SC–HFCs at 

a 3 percent discount rate, but the 

Agency does not have a single central 

SC–HFCs point estimate. 

EPA estimates the climate benefits for 

this rule using a measure of the social 

cost of each HFC (collectively referred 

to as SC–HFCs) that is affected by this 

rule. The SC–HFCs is the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

HFC emissions in a given year, or the 

benefit of avoiding that increase. In 

principle, SC–HFCs includes the value 

of all climate change impacts, including 

(but not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health 

effects, property damage from increased 

flood risk and natural disasters, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. As with 

the estimates of the social cost of other 

GHGs, the SC–HFC estimates are found 

to increase over time within the 

models—i.e., the societal harm from one 

metric ton emitted in 2030 is higher 

than the harm caused by one metric ton 

emitted in 2025—because future 

emissions produce larger incremental 

damages as physical and economic 

systems become more stressed in 

response to greater climatic change, and 

because gross domestic product (GDP) is 

growing over time and many damage 

categories are modeled as proportional 

to GDP. The SC–HFCs, therefore, 

reflects the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one 

metric ton. The SC–HFCs is the 

theoretically appropriate value to use in 

conducting benefit-cost analyses of 

policies that affect HFC emissions. 

The gas-specific SC–HFC estimates 

used in this analysis were developed 

using methodologies that are consistent 

with the methodology underlying 

estimates of the social cost of other 

GHGs (carbon dioxide (SC–CO2), 

methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O)), collectively referred to as 

SC–GHG, presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the Interagency Working Group 

on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(IWG) (IWG 2021). As a member of the 

IWG involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, EPA 

agrees that the TSD represents the most 

appropriate methodology for estimating 

the social cost of greenhouse gases until 

revised estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. Therefore, EPA views the SC– 

HFC estimates used in analysis to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73197 

appropriate for use in benefit-cost 

analysis until improved estimates of the 

social cost of other GHGs are developed. 

As discussed in the February 2021 

TSD, the IWG emphasized the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four 

estimates (model average at 2.5, 3, and 

5 percent discount rates, and 95th 

percentile at a 3 percent discount rate). 

In addition, the TSD explained that a 

consideration of climate benefits 

calculated using discount rates below 3 

percent, including 2 percent and lower, 

is also warranted when discounting 

intergenerational impacts. As a member 

of the IWG involved in the development 

of the February 2021 TSD, EPA agrees 

with this assessment for the purpose of 

estimating climate benefits from HFC 

reductions as well, and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. 

Table 7 presents the sum of 

incremental climate benefits across all 

HFCs reduced for the Technology 

Transitions Rule for 2025, 2029, 2034, 

2036, 2040, 2045, and 2050 in the base 

case scenario. 

TABLE 7—INCREMENTAL CLIMATE BENEFITS FOR THE FINAL RULE FOR SELECT YEARS FROM 2025–2050 (BASE CASE

SCENARIO) a b

[Billions of 2020$] 

Year 

Incremental climate benefits by discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th percentile) 

2025 ................................................................................. ¥1.6 ¥3.7 ¥5.0 ¥9.9 

2029 ................................................................................. ¥0.5 ¥1.3 ¥1.7 ¥3.3 

2034 ................................................................................. 0.0 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.2 

2036 ................................................................................. ¥0.5 ¥0.6 ¥0.7 ¥1.7 

2040 ................................................................................. 1.0 2.4 3.2 6.5 

2045 ................................................................................. 1.4 3.1 4.0 8.2 

2050 ................................................................................. 1.8 3.9 5.0 10.2 

aBenefits include only those related to climate. See Table 6–3 in the RIA addendum for the full time series of climate benefits using the SC– 

HFC. b Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–HFCs (model average 

at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; and 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). The IWG emphasized, and EPA agrees 

with, the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four estimates. As discussed in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021), a consideration of climate benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, are also warranted when discounting intergenerational 

impacts. 

EPA estimates that the present value 

of cumulative net incremental benefits 

evaluated from 2025 through 2050 

ranges from $7.6 billion to $52.0 billion 

at a 3 percent discount rate, or $5.1 

billion to $50.4 billion at a 7 percent 

discount rate. These comprise 

cumulative incremental climate benefits 

due to reducing HFC emissions (with a 

present value ranging from $3.01 billion 

to $50.4 billion) as well as cumulative 

incremental compliance savings (with a 

present value ranging from $1.6 billion 

to $4.5 billion at a 3 percent discount 

rate or -$1 million to $2.1 billion at a 7 

percent discount rate). 

The estimation of incremental 

benefits due to reductions in HFC 

emissions resulting from the restrictions 

involved three steps. First, the 

difference between the consumption of 

HFCs realized under this rule and the 

consumption that would have been 

expected based on the analysis in the 

Allocation Framework RIA as adjusted 

by the Addendum for the 2024 

Allocation Rule was calculated for each 

year of the restrictions in metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). 

Although the Allocation Framework 

Rule only required allowances for 

domestic bulk consumption (i.e., in that 

rule, EPA defines consumption, with 

respect to a regulated substance, to 

mean bulk production plus bulk imports 

minus bulk exports), the consumption 

reduction estimates in the Allocation 

Framework RIA included reductions in 

imported products containing HFCs. 

Second, using EPA’s Vintaging Model, 

the changes in consumption were used 

to estimate changes in HFC emissions, 

which generally lag consumption by 

some time as HFCs incorporated into 

equipment and products are eventually 

released to the environment. Finally, the 

climate benefits were calculated by 

multiplying the HFC emission 

reductions for each year by the 

appropriate social cost of HFC to arrive 

at the monetary value of HFC emission 

reductions. 

The incremental climate benefits of 

this rule derive mostly from preventing 

the emissions of HFCs with high GWPs, 

thus reducing the damage from climate 

change that would have been induced 

by those emissions. The emission 

reductions attributed to this rule are 

only those beyond the reductions 

previously estimated for the Allocation 

Framework Rule as updated by the 2024 

Allocation Rule, due to more rapid and/ 

or comprehensive transitions to HFC 

substitutes in certain sectors or 

subsectors than would otherwise occur 

in the Allocation Framework Rule 

reference case. The reduction in 

emissions follows from a reduction in 

the production and consumption of 

HFCs measured in millions of MTCO2e, 

or MMTCO2e, that would occur as a 

result of the restrictions in this rule. It 

is assumed that all HFCs produced or 

consumed would be emitted eventually, 

either in their initial use (e.g., as 

propellants), during the lifetime of HFCcontaining products (e.g., off-gassing 

from closed-cell foams or leaks from 

refrigeration systems), or during 

servicing—including the reuse of HFC 

recovered and possibly reclaimed—or 

disposal of HFC-containing products. 

However, because the emissions lag the 

consumption in time, all the 

consumption reductions are not realized 

as emission reductions during the time 

period analyzed; hence, the cumulative 

emission reductions calculated are 

lower than the cumulative consumption 

reductions. 

EPA recognizes the shortcomings and 

limitations associated with the current 

interim IWG estimates and underlying 

methodology. Since the SC–HFC 

estimates are based on the same 

methodology underlying the SC–GHG 

estimates presented in the IWG 

February 2021 TSD, they share 

limitations that are common to those 

SC–GHG estimates. The limitations 

were outlined in the February 2021 TSD 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73198 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and include that the current scientific 

and economic understanding of 

discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower. 

Additionally, the Integrated Assessment 

Models (IAMs) used to produce these 

estimates do not include all of the 

important physical, ecological, and 

economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature, and the science underlying 

their ‘‘damage functions’’—i.e., the core 

parts of the IAMs that map global mean 

temperature changes and other physical 

impacts of climate change into 

economic (both market and nonmarket) 

damages—lags behind the most recent 

research. 

The modeling limitations do not all 

work in the same direction in terms of 

their influence on the SC–HFC 

estimates. However, as discussed in the 

February 2021 TSD, the IWG has 

recommended that, taken together, the 

limitations suggest that the SC–GHG 

estimates likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. 

Therefore, as a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 TSD, EPA agrees that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates represent the 

most appropriate estimate of the SC– 

GHG until revised estimates have been 

developed reflecting the latest, peer 

reviewed science. 

B. Scoping Analysis of Imports of 

Products 

In the Technology Transitions Rule 

RIA addendum, EPA examined the 

scope of HFCs supplied in and emitted 

from equipment and products that are 

imported to the United States 

containing HFCs. We explained that the 

Allocation Framework Rule program 

does not require the expenditure of 

allowances when importing products 

with HFCs to the United States. We also 

indicated in the Allocation Framework 

Rule that subsection (i) of the AIM Act 

provided authority that would be 

appropriate to address such imports. In 

this rule, under subsection (i) of the 

AIM Act, restrictions apply equally to 

imported and domestically 

manufactured products that contain 

regulated substances or blends 

containing a regulated substance. 

In the RIA addendum, we reiterate 

that while the Allocation Framework 

Rule did not restrict imports of products 

containing HFCs, the analysis 

performed for that rule as well as the 

2024 Allocation Rule assumed a wholemarket approach. In other words, 

transitions that were selected by the 

models to meet HFC consumption 

reductions were assumed to apply 

equally to imported products and 

domestically manufactured products. 

We were not at the time able to 

distinguish the two because the models 

used (i.e., the Vintaging Model and the 

Marginal Abatement Cost model) are 

agnostic as to the location of product 

manufacture. The models are used to 

project demand for and emissions from 

products containing HFCs in the United 

States or HFC emitting processes carried 

out in the United States. 

To understand the historical and 

potential future scope of imports in 

products, and the effects that the 

restrictions could have, EPA evaluated 

additional information to analyze eight 

scenarios as explained in Annex D to 

the RIA addendum. The scenarios 

derived from two approaches to 

estimate what HFCs or substitutes are 

contained in the imported products, two 

scenarios for how future imports would 

grow, and two methods of evaluating 

the substitutes that would be used in 

imported products to comply with the 

restrictions. From these calculations of 

reductions in the supply of HFCs inside 

products, we applied a simplified 

emission model to estimate the timedependent emission reductions, which 

due to the multi-year use of some 

products lag the initial supply. We used 

these emission reduction estimates, by 

HFC over time, and the same SC–HFCs 

factors from the Allocation Framework 

RIA, to derive climate benefits. The 

climate benefits were not used for 

decisional purposes and are provided 

for informational and illustrative 

purposes only. As described in the RIA 

addendum, these estimates are provided 

as a scoping analysis and are considered 

in whole just a subset of the climate 

benefits achieved from other actions 

taken under the AIM Act. 

As detailed in Annex D to the RIA 

addendum, annual reductions in the 

supply of HFCs in imported products 

ranged from 30.0 to 50.4 MMTCO2e in 

2029, from 31.0 to 59.0 MMTCO2e in 

2034, and from 31.0 to 62.5 MMTCO2e 

in 2036, depending on the scenario. The 

cumulative reductions for the years 

2025 through 2050 ranged from 828 to 

1,720 MMTCO2e, equal to about 12 to 25 

percent of the projected reductions in 

the Allocation Rules analysis and about 

10 to 23 percent of the combined 

projected reductions due to the 

Allocation Rules plus the incremental 

reductions due to this Technology 

Transitions Rule. 

The emission reductions lag the 

reductions in supply as previously 

explained in this section but increase 

significantly as products and systems 

reach the end of their lifecycle and 

HFCs are emitted. The cumulative 

emission reductions for the years 2025 

through 2050 ranged from 317 to 598 

MMTCO2e, equal to about 7 to 13 

percent of the projected reductions in 

the Allocation Rules analysis and about 

6 to 13 percent of the combined 

projected reductions in the Allocation 

Rules analysis plus the incremental 

reductions due to this Technology 

Transition Rule. 

Climate benefits of the emission 

reductions are shown in Table 8. As 

noted in this section, these benefits are 

not considered additional to the 

Allocation Framework Rule or to this 

rule and are shown to inform the reader 

of the scope of the benefits from 

restricting imported products using 

HFCs. 

TABLE 8—CLIMATE BENEFITS FROM

RESTRICTING IMPORTS OF REGULATED PRODUCTS FOR 2025–2050 

[Billions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] 

Year 

Net climate benefits 

at 3% 

(average) 

discount rate 

Range of eight 

scenarios 

2025 .......................... 0 

2029 .......................... 0 to 0.2 

2034 .......................... 0 to 0.3 

2036 .......................... 0.1 to 0.5 

2040 .......................... 2.2 to 3.0 

2045 .......................... 3.0 to 4.5 

2050 .......................... 4.0 to 7.3 

X. How is EPA evaluating 

environmental justice? 

EPA provides the following 

discussion of its assessment of 

environmental justice impacts in 

relationship to this rulemaking. This 

analysis is intended to provide the 

public with information on the potential 

environmental justice impacts of this 

action. This analysis was not used for 

purposes of EPA’s consideration of the 

statutory factors under AIM Act 

subsection (i)(4) or any determinations 

EPA has made in this action. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 

14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021) 

establish Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Executive Order 

14096, signed April 21, 2023, builds on 

the prior Executive Orders to further 

advance environmental justice (88 FR 

25251). 

Executive Order 12898’s main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73199 

170EPA recognizes that E.O. 14096 (88 FR 25251, 

April 21, 2023) provides a new terminology and a 

new definition for environmental justice, as 

follows: ‘‘the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of income, 

race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or 

disability, in agency decision-making and other 

Federal activities that affect human health and the 

environment so that people: (i) Are fully protected 

from disproportionate and adverse human health 

and environmental effects (including risks) and 

hazards, including those related to climate change, 

the cumulative impacts of environmental and other 

burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural 

or systemic barriers; and (ii) have equitable access 

to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment 

in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, 

and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.’’ 

For additional information, see https://www.federal

register.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/ 

revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-toenvironmental-justice-for-all. 

171See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Environmental Justice.’’ Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

172The criteria for meaningful involvement are 

contained in EPA’s May 2015 document ‘‘Guidance 

on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of an Action.’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, 17 Feb. 2017. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

guidance-considering-environmental-justice-duringdevelopment-action. 

173The definitions and criteria for 

‘‘disproportionate impacts,’’ ‘‘difference,’’ and 

‘‘differential’’ are contained in EPA’s June 2016 

document ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.’’ 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental

justice/technical-guidance-assessingenvironmental-justice-regulatory-analysis. 

174 88 FR 25251 (Apr. 26, 2023). 

175Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing 

Regulatory Review, January 20, 2021. Available at: 

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

presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizingregulatory-review. 

176Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis, June 

2016. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_

v5.1.pdf. 

177The RIA for the Allocation Framework Rule is 

available in the docket for that rulemaking at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQOAR-2021-0044-0227. 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on people of 

color and low-income populations in 

the United States. EPA defines 170

environmental justice as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.171 Meaningful 

involvement means that: (1) Potentially 

affected populations have an 

appropriate opportunity to participate 

in decisions about a proposed activity 

that will affect their environment and/ 

or health; (2) the public’s contribution 

can influence the regulatory Agency’s 

decision; (3) the concerns of all 

participants involved will be considered 

in the decision-making process; and (4) 

the rule-writers and decision-makers 

seek out and facilitate the involvement 

of those potentially affected.172 The 

term ‘‘disproportionate impacts’’ refers 

to differences in impacts or risks that 

are extensive enough that they may 

merit Agency action. In general, the 

determination of whether there is a 

disproportionate impact that may merit 

Agency action is ultimately a policy 

judgment which, while informed by 

analysis, is the responsibility of the 

decision-maker. The terms ‘‘difference’’ 

or ‘‘differential’’ indicate an analytically 

discernible distinction in impacts or 

risks across population groups. It is the 

role of the analyst to assess and present 

differences in anticipated impacts 

across population groups of concern for 

both the baseline and proposed 

regulatory options, using the best 

available information (both quantitative 

and qualitative) to inform the decisionmaker and the public.173

Executive Order 14096 calls on 

agencies to make achieving 

environmental justice part of their 

missions and further declares a policy to 

‘‘advance environmental justice and 

help create a more just and sustainable 

future for all.’’ 174 The January 2021 

Presidential Memorandum on 

Modernizing Regulatory Review calls 

for procedures to ‘‘take into account the 

distributional consequences of 

regulations, including as part of a 

quantitative or qualitative analysis of 

the costs and benefits of regulations, to 

ensure that regulatory initiatives 

appropriately benefit, and do not 

inappropriately burden disadvantaged, 

vulnerable, or marginalized 

communities.’’ 175 EPA also released its 

June 2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for 

Assessing Environmental Justice in 

Regulatory Analysis’’ to provide 

recommendations that encourage 

analysts to conduct the highest quality 

analysis feasible, recognizing that data 

limitations, time and resource 

constraints, and analytic challenges will 

vary by media and circumstance.176

The Allocation Framework Rule, 

among other things, established the 

framework for the phasedown of HFCs 

in the United States, which will achieve 

significant benefits by reducing the 

production and consumption of HFCs 

on a GWP-weighted basis. In that 

rulemaking, EPA described the 

environmental justice analysis 

conducted in support of this rule and 

summarized the public health and 

welfare effects of GHG emissions 

(including HFCs), including information 

that certain parts of the population may 

be especially vulnerable to climate 

change risks based on their 

characteristics or circumstances, 

including the poor, the elderly, the very 

young, those already in poor health, the 

disabled, those living alone, and/or 

indigenous populations dependent on 

one or limited resources due to factors 

including but not limited to geography, 

access, and mobility. Potential impacts 

of climate change raise environmental 

justice issues. Low-income 

communities, for example, can be 

especially vulnerable to climate change 

impacts because they tend to have more 

limited capacity to bear the costs of 

adaptation and are more dependent on 

climate-sensitive resources such as local 

water and food supplies. In corollary, 

some communities of color, specifically 

populations defined jointly by both 

ethnic/racial characteristics and 

geographic location, may be uniquely 

vulnerable to climate change health 

impacts in the United States. 

Many of the environmental justice 

implications of this rule are similar to 

those addressed at length in the RIA 177

developed for the Allocation Rules. The 

analysis of potential environmental 

justice concerns for the Allocation Rules 

focused mainly on characterizing 

baseline emissions of air toxics that are 

also associated with chemical feedstock 

use for HFC production. As detailed in 

the RIA for the Allocation Rules, the 

phasedown of high-GWP HFCs in the 

United States will reduce GHG 

emissions, thereby reducing damages 

associated with climate change that 

would have been associated with those 

emissions. EPA expects that this rule 

will also reduce GHG emissions, which 

will benefit populations that may be 

especially vulnerable to damages 

associated with climate change. We also 

expect that the restriction on use of 

certain HFCs will increase the 

production of HFC substitutes. 

However, there continues to be 

significant uncertainty about how the 

transition to lower-GWP substitutes and 

market trends independent of this 

rulemaking could affect production of 

predominant HFC substitutes, such as 

hydrocarbons, ammonia (R–717), and 

HFOs at individual facilities and how 

those changes in production could affect 

associated air pollutant emissions, 

particularly in communities that are 

disproportionately burdened by air 

pollution. Some predominant HFC 

substitutes, such as HFOs, use the same 

chemicals used in the manufacture of 

HFCs as feedstocks in their production 

or release the same chemicals as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73200 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

178TRI tracks the management of certain toxic 

chemicals that may pose a threat to human health 

and the environment. U.S. facilities in different 

industry sectors must report annually how much of 

each chemical is released to the environment and/ 

or managed through recycling, energy recovery, and 

treatment. Facilities submit a TRI Form R for each 

TRI-listed chemical it manufactures, processes, or 

otherwise uses in quantities above the reporting 

threshold. 

179The CDR program, under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, requires manufacturers (including 

importers) to provide EPA with information on the 

production and use of chemicals in commerce. 

Under the CDR rule, EPA collects information on 

the types, quantities, and uses of chemical 

substances produced domestically and imported 

into the United States. The information is collected 

every four years from manufacturers of certain 

chemicals in commerce generally when production 

volumes are 25,000 pounds or greater for a specific 

reporting year. 

byproducts, potentially raising concerns 

about local exposure. Due to the 

limitations of the current data, we 

cannot make conclusions about the 

impact this rule may have on 

individuals or specific communities 

near facilities producing HFC 

substitutes. For the purpose of 

environmental justice, however, it is 

important to understand the 

characteristics of the communities 

surrounding these facilities to better 

ensure that future actions, as more 

information becomes available, can 

improve outcomes. 

EPA’s 2016 Technical Guidance does 

not prescribe or recommend a specific 

approach or methodology for 

conducting an environmental justice 

analysis, though a key consideration is 

consistency with the assumptions 

underlying other parts of the regulatory 

analysis when evaluating the baseline 

and regulatory options. Therefore, for 

this rule, EPA followed the format used 

for the Allocation Framework RIA to 

analyze the demographic characteristics 

and baseline exposure of the 

communities near facilities producing 

HFC substitutes. The complete analysis 

is described in the RIA addendum 

developed for this rule, which is 

available in the docket. EPA relied on 

public data from the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI),178 GHGRP, Chemical 

Data Reporting (CDR) Program,179

EJScreen (an environmental justice 

mapping and screening tool developed 

by EPA), Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online, Census data, and 

information provided by industry 

stakeholders to identify the facilities. In 

addition, updated Air Toxics Screening 

Assessment (AirToxScreen, formerly 

National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA)) data from 2019 for census 

tracts within and outside of a 1-, 3-, 

5-, and 10-mile distance were used to 

approximate the cumulative baseline 

cancer and respiratory risk due to air 

toxics exposure for communities near 

the production facilities. 

With the restriction on use of certain 

HFCs, EPA anticipates that the 

production of HFC substitutes will 

increase. Accordingly, for the 

environmental justice analysis for this 

rule, EPA identified 14 facilities 

producing predominant HFC substitutes 

that may be impacted by this rule and 

where production changes may impact 

nearby communities. The relatively 

small number of facilities that may be 

affected by this rule enabled EPA to 

assemble a uniquely granular 

assessment of the characteristics of the 

facilities and the communities where 

they are located. Overall, this rule will 

reduce GHG emissions, which will 

benefit populations that may be 

especially vulnerable to damages 

associated with climate change. 

However, the manner in which 

producers transition from high-GWP 

HFCs could drive changes in future risk 

for communities living near facilities 

that produce HFC substitutes, to the 

extent the use of toxic feedstocks, 

byproducts, or catalysts changes, and 

those chemicals are released into the 

environment with adverse local effects. 

The environmental justice analysis, 

which examines racial and economic 

demographic and health risk 

information, found heterogeneity in 

community characteristics around 

individual facilities. The analysis 

showed that more individuals identified 

as African American or Black and as 

Hispanic with respect to race live in 

proximity to the identified facilities 

compared with the national average or 

the rural area national average. 

Importantly, the comparison to the rural 

area national average is more striking 

because so many of the facilities are 

rural. While median income is not 

significantly different for the 

communities near the facilities (slightly 

lower than the national average but 

slightly above or equal to the rural 

median income), there are more very 

low-income households in these 

communities. Additionally, total cancer 

risk and total respiratory risk is higher 

than either the rural national average or 

the overall national average in 

communities near the facilities. The 

analysis shows that the risks are higher 

for those within the 1-mile average 

radius and decrease at the 3-mile, 5- 

mile, and 10-mile radii. 

EPA notes that the averages may 

obfuscate potentially large differences in 

the community characteristics 

surrounding individual production 

facilities. Analysis of the demographic 

characteristics and AirToxScreen data 

for the 14 identified facilities shows that 

there are significant differences in the 

communities near these facilities. The 

racial, ethnic, and income results are 

varied but, in almost all cases, total 

cancer risk and total respiratory risk are 

higher for the communities in proximity 

to the sites than to the appropriate (rural 

or overall) average when compared with 

the national or State results. 

Additionally, some facilities are in 

communities that are quite different 

from the aggregate results discussed in 

this section above. The aggregate results 

show that the communities near the 

facilities tend to have slightly fewer 

neighboring individuals identified as 

White and more identified as African 

American or Black and as Hispanic with 

respect to race, in several cases. In 

several cases, however, the communities 

near specific facilities have higher 

percentages of White individuals than 

either the State or national averages. 

This is true for the HFC substituteproducing facilities in San Dimas, CA; 

Sibley, LA; El Dorado, AR; Gregory and 

Manvel, TX; along with those in Iowa, 

Illinois, and West Virginia. 

EPA included a demonstration of a 

microsimulation approach in the RIA 

addendum to analyze the proximity of 

communities to potentially affected 

facilities. Microsimulation is a 

technique relying upon advanced 

statistics and data science to combine 

disparate survey and geospatial data. It 

has long been used in economic and 

social science research and by EPA (in 

the context of understanding the 

implications of underground storage 

tank impacts on groundwater). Recent 

advances in data science and 

computational power have increased the 

availability of microsimulation for 

applications such as environmental 

justice analysis. The demonstration 

analysis included in the RIA addendum 

contributes to understanding 

communities that may warrant further 

environmental justice analysis. 

In the proposed rule EPA sought 

comment on the use of microsimulation 

approaches and techniques for 

regulatory impact analysis and other 

program activities. Among other things, 

EPA sought information on what 

microsimulation tools are appropriate 

for better understanding the burdens 

faced by communities, and in what 

circumstances. The demonstration 

analysis presented in the RIA 

addendum uses a dataset of ‘‘synthetic 

households’’ based on geospatial data 

combined through microsimulation 

techniques with information from the 

U.S. Decennial Census and the 

American Communities Survey. EPA 

requested comment on other surveys or 

other geospatial datasets should be the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73201 

180UNEP. 2022 Assessment Report of the 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel. Available 

at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/ 

EEAP-2022-Assessment-Report-May2023.pdf. 

181The EEAP is an advisory body to the Montreal 

Protocol Parties that evaluates the consequences of 

stratospheric ozone depletion and additional areas 

of potential importance to the Montreal Protocol. 

focus of EPA efforts to combine with the 

American Communities Survey and/or 

Decennial Census data; how 

microsimulation tools supplement other 

EPA tools for understanding 

demographics, multiple burdens facing 

communities, and assessing the impact 

of EPA programs; and how 

microsimulation and other techniques 

to use current survey information can be 

used to identify data gaps which might 

be filled with refinements or 

improvements to existing survey tools. 

EPA noted in the Allocation 

Framework Rule, and reiterates here, 

that it is not clear the extent to which 

these baseline risks are directly related 

to potential future HFC substitute 

production, but some feedstocks, 

catalysts, and byproducts are toxic, 

particularly with respect to potential 

carcinogenicity (e.g., carbon 

tetrachloride). All HFC substitute 

production facilities are near other 

industrial facilities that could contribute 

to the cumulative AirToxScreen cancer 

and respiratory risk, and, at this time, it 

is not clear how emissions related to 

HFC substitute production compare to 

other chemical production at the same 

or nearby facilities. Because of the 

limited information regarding where 

substitutes will be produced and what 

other factors might affect production 

and emissions at those locations, it is 

unclear to what extent this rule may 

affect baseline risks from hazardous air 

toxics for communities living near HFC 

substitute production facilities. 

Additionally, as mentioned 

previously, emissions from facilities 

producing fluorinated and nonfluorinated substitutes may also be 

affected by the phasedown of HFCs. For 

the 2024 Allocation Rule, EPA updated 

the environmental justice analysis that 

was previously conducted for the 

Allocation Framework RIA to help 

understand how the implementation of 

the HFC phasedown may affect 

production and emissions at facilities 

that produce HFCs. EPA followed the 

analytical approach used in the 

Allocation Framework RIA to provide 

updated data on the total number of TRI 

facilities near HFC production facilities 

and the cancer and respiratory risks to 

surrounding communities. This update 

included the use of the most recent data 

available for the AirToxScreen data set 

from 2019, replacing the 2014 NATA 

data used in the previous analysis. 

Additionally, EPA updated the list of 

HFC production facilities as part of the 

HFC Allocation analysis to include a 

ninth facility that reported production 

of HFCs in 2022. Finally, EPA has 

updated the list of toxic chemicals 

potentially used as a feedstock or 

catalyst or released as a byproduct of 

HFC production based on information 

reported to EPA under the Allocation 

Framework Rule (see 40 CFR 

84.31(b)(1)). 

Comment: EPA received two 

comments related to the use of 

microsimulation in the EJ analysis. The 

first commenter asserted that it is 

imperative that the Agency recognize 

the limitations of any output from 

microsimulation analyses and ensure 

such data are utilized within the context 

of their limitations and that these 

analyses should be a starting point to 

inform further dialogue and analysis 

rather than being used as the sole basis 

for future regulatory action. The second 

commenter stated that they appreciate 

EPA’s use of microsimulation models to 

better model the environmental justice 

impacts of this rule and encourages EPA 

to explore longitudinal American 

Community Survey datasets in any 

forecasting it attempts. IPUMS may be a 

helpful resource for tracking this data 

over time. 

Response: EPA continues to explore 

the use of microsimulation approaches 

to better understand the characteristics 

of communities. IPUMS is one of several 

datasets EPA is considering for 

additional analyses. The Agency 

recognizes that these analyses have 

limitations and is not currently 

contemplating using them as the sole 

basis for future regulatory action under 

the AIM Act. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA should fully evaluate the health 

and environmental risks of HFC and 

HFO usage in addition to the impacts on 

communities near facilities particularly 

with regard to PFAS and trifluoroacetic 

acid (TFA) from HFCs and HFOs as an 

area of concern. 

Response: With regard to PFAS, EPA 

notes that currently, there is no single 

commonly agreed definition of PFAS, 

and whether HFCs or HFOs are 

classified as PFAS depends on the 

definition being used. EPA’s PFAS 

roadmap, available at https://

www.epa.gov/pfas, sets timelines for 

specific actions and outlines EPA’s 

commitments to new policies to 

safeguard public health, protect the 

environment, and hold polluters 

accountable. This rule does not in any 

way establish a definition of PFAS, nor 

do the listing decisions depend on a 

specific definition. As described in 

section VI.E, substitutes identified as 

available for use in the subsectors 

covered in this rulemaking have, for the 

most part, also been evaluated under the 

SNAP program. In evaluating 

alternatives, SNAP uses a comparative 

risk framework, and considers potential 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

concern regarding atmospheric 

decomposition of certain HFCs and 

HFOs to TFA, EPA notes that TFA is a 

perfluorinated acid. Where TFA has 

been included in a particular definition 

of PFAS, it is often part of a class of 

chemicals containing more than 4,730 

substances. According to the United 

Nations Environment Program’s 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

(EEAP) about 256 PFAS are in 

commercial use, with widely differing 

physical, chemical, and biological 

properties.180 An EEAP 2022 

Assessment Report 181 explained that 

one source of TFA in the environment 

is the degradation of some HFCs, 

HCFCs, HFOs, and HCFOs, other 

potential sources of TFA include 

geogenic sources; effluents and releases 

from the manufacture of fluorinated 

chemicals; combustion, and degradation 

of fluorinated chemicals in commercial 

and household waste; and biological 

and environmental degradation of 

chemicals such as certain 

pharmaceuticals and pesticides. The 

2022 EEAP Report indicates that while 

TFA ‘‘is unlikely to cause adverse 

effects in terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms, [continued] monitoring and 

assessment are nevertheless advised due 

to uncertainties in the deposition of 

TFA and its potential effects on marine 

organisms.’’ The report notes that ‘‘TFA 

does not bioaccumulate nor is it toxic at 

the low to moderate exposures currently 

measured in the environment or those 

predicted in the distant future.’’ Because 

the HCFCs and HFCs are long-lived in 

the atmosphere, they distribute globally 

and TFA from these substances is more 

evenly deposited. The HFOs and HCFOs 

have shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere 

and deposition of TFA from these 

substances is likely to be more 

localized. This will result in greater 

concentrations near the locations of 

release. This is unlikely to present a risk 

to humans or the environment in these 

locations but changes in concentration 

in surface water (or soil) would respond 

rapidly to releases. The 2022 EEAP 

report states, ‘‘[monitoring] of the 

environment for residues of TFA would 

provide an early warning if trends in 

concentration indicate rapid increases.’’ 

EPA reiterates that the SNAP program, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73202 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

which is one of the sources the Agency 

considered when determining 

availability of alternatives, considers 

ecotoxicity as a criterion when 

evaluating alternatives under its 

comparative risk framework, and the 

Agency has considered the potential 

impacts of TFA in past actions where 

SNAP found HFO–1234yf acceptable in 

certain end uses. The myriad studies 

EPA referenced all concluded that the 

additional TFA from HFO–1234yf did 

not pose a significant additional risk, 

even if it were assumed to be used as 

the only refrigerant in all refrigeration 

and air conditioning equipment (76 FR 

17492–17493, March 29, 2011). The 

Agency intends to continue its approach 

to evaluating the potential risks from 

TFA in future. 

Comment: One commenter, echoing 

comments submitted on the Allocation 

Rule, noted that EPA should monitor 

indirect pollution impacts (e.g., 

increased truck traffic and increased 

diesel exhaust) on communities 

impacted by the proposed rule. 

Response: This rule promulgated 

under subsection (i) will require 

manufacturers to restrict the use of 

HFCs in certain subsectors. Those 

restrictions on the use of HFCs will, 

along with the rule implementing the 

phasedown under subsection (e), likely 

have the effect of increasing the 

production of HFC substitutes. We do 

not disagree that this increase in 

production may result in changed traffic 

conditions near facilities producing 

HFC substitutes, but EPA did not 

propose to monitor indirect pollution 

impacts near facilities producing 

substitutes, nor are we finalizing such 

monitoring at this time. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA should directly engage with 

the communities’ surrounding facilities 

that produce HFC substitutes. EPA 

should hold in-person informational 

workshops in potentially affected 

communities, provide for relevant 

translation services to disseminate 

information about potential impacts, 

and ensure that community feedback is 

representative. This commenter also 

recommends that after this rule is 

finalized, EPA should provide effective 

technical assistance and promote 

compliance in an equitable manner by 

holding informational workshops and 

providing translation services to 

members of the regulated community, 

including small businesses in 

underserved and Tribal communities. 

Response: EPA reached out to EJ 

organizations when developing the 

proposed rule. EPA specifically invited 

EJ groups to public meetings on this rule 

and shared information using 

established channels. EPA received 

comments from environmental 

organizations, States, and other 

stakeholders raising EJ concerns. As a 

part of implementation of this rule, EPA 

will continue outreach to stakeholders 

to ensure a smooth implementation of 

this rule. 

Comment: A wide range of 

commenters said that EPA should, as a 

part of its EJ analysis, assess or consider 

the potential for a negative impact on 

the availability and cost of equipment 

for underserved communities; low- and 

medium-income households whose 

ability to purchase and maintain air 

conditioning may be negatively 

impacted; and small businesses, 

especially retailers in rural and urban 

food deserts, such that they cannot 

afford to replace equipment. The 

commenters note that small food retail 

stores including ‘‘Mom and Pop’’ shops 

have slim profit margins and may be 

forced to continue to operate old leaky 

equipment with lower energy efficiency 

performance or purchase refurbished 

equipment without energy efficiency 

and refrigerant upgrades because they 

cannot afford new equipment. One 

commenter noted that underserved and 

Tribal communities could be impacted 

by losing access to nutritious food as the 

cost of refrigeration in business 

increases. Some of these commenters 

requested that EPA review the potential 

financial costs of this rulemaking on 

small or locally owned businesses, such 

as convenience stores, markets, other 

small local businesses, and the 

communities they serve. One 

commenter requested that EPA should 

disclose whether small businesses 

potentially impacted are located in 

underserved communities and consider 

financial assistance options for 

compliance with this rule. Some of 

these commenters also noted that 

underserved communities are already 

experiencing worse health outcomes 

and increased mortality from climatechange induced extreme heat events and 

that EPA should assess whether this 

regulation would result in an increase in 

cost for cooling homes, schools, and 

workplaces. 

Response: EPA responds to comments 

regarding potential costs to food 

retailers in section IV.F.1.c.iv. EPA 

disagrees that this rule will result in 

store closures or the loss of access to 

food. EPA is not requiring the retrofit or 

early replacement of equipment that 

operates using GWPs over the 

thresholds specific in this rule. Rather, 

it effectively requires that lower-GWP 

equipment be phased in once existing 

equipment reaches the end of its useful 

life. EPA has outlined provisions in this 

rule allowing for consumers and small 

businesses to replace components of 

existing equipment for the purposes of 

repair and extending the useful life of 

equipment without having to upgrade to 

a lower-GWP system. EPA’s intention is 

to permit ordinary servicing and repair 

of equipment and not to apply 

restrictions in a way that would prevent 

such maintenance. Store owners may 

replace broken or inefficient HFC 

components and save money by 

repairing leaks in their existing systems. 

Further, EPA has revised this rule to 

clarify that importers and manufacturers 

can continue to supply components and 

parts for existing systems so that these 

systems can be serviced throughout 

their useful life. 

Regarding the opening of new stores, 

EPA responds that food retailers, 

especially smaller format stores like 

convenience stores and markets, can 

choose the most appropriate design 

options for their retail footprint (e.g., 

centralized DX system, cascade system, 

remote condensing units, stand-alone 

displays and cases, or combinations 

thereof). A company’s decision to open 

a new store specifically in underserved 

communities is based on many 

socioeconomic factors outside the scope 

of this rule. The incremental upfront 

cost of using lower-GWP refrigeration 

equipment compared to HFC equipment 

is unlikely to be determinative in that 

business decision. For most retail food 

refrigeration equipment, EPA estimates 

that the transition to lower-GWP 

alternatives will result in a net cost 

savings (after accounting for energy 

efficiency gains and savings on the cost 

of refrigerant). In the RIA addendum, 

EPA has provided details on these 

estimated savings in tables A–4 and A– 

5. EPA has conducted a small business 

impact assessment and has not found 

that a substantial number of small 

businesses would be significantly 

impacted. 

For transitions in residential air 

conditioning, EPA estimates that 

window units that are compliant with 

this rule will result in moderate cost 

savings (after accounting for energy 

savings and refrigerant cost savings) 

relative to existing equipment, while 

unitary AC systems that are compliant 

with this rule will have a moderate cost 

increase relative to existing systems. 

While financial assistance is beyond 

the scope of this rule and the authority 

of subsection (i) of the AIM Act, there 

are multiple programs, rebates, and 

incentives available for the design and 

installation of energy efficient 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73203 

182See https://www.energy.gov/articles/bidenharris-administration-announces-250-millionaccelerate-electric-heat-pump. See also https://

www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-46-millionboost-energy-efficiency-and-slash-emissionsresidential-and; 

183 In the report on the 1977 Amendments that 

revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress 

noted that the Administrator’s determination that 

the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ exception applies 

would be appropriate for any action that has scope 

or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. 

Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

refrigeration and comfort cooling 

systems using low-GWP refrigerant.182

Comment: One commenter noted that 

retail operations in disadvantaged 

communities are the most likely to 

experience supply disruptions and even 

store closures as a result of the limited 

availability of equipment and trained 

personnel and the significant costs 

associated with bringing existing stores 

into compliance with the new 

requirements. The same commenter also 

noted that disadvantaged communities 

are already struggling with a technician 

shortage, and it is impossible to open a 

store that uses refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment that cannot be 

maintained. 

Response: To clarify, this rule does 

not require any retailers to replace 

existing equipment with new 

equipment, nor does it place restrictions 

on the continued servicing, repair, and 

maintenance of existing equipment. 

Rather, when retailers are replacing 

equipment that has reached the end of 

its useful life, that equipment must meet 

the new restrictions, where applicable. 

In setting those restrictions, and 

assessing which substitutes are available 

for use in new equipment in impacted 

subsectors, EPA considered affordability 

for small business consumers as well as 

contractor training costs. In addition, 

EPA understands that RACHP 

equipment manufacturers, trade 

associations, trade schools, unions, and 

other groups are providing training for 

technicians for equipment that uses 

newer refrigerants. EPA monitored 

previous transitions from ODS 

refrigerants to HFC refrigerants and in 

many cases to other alternatives. These 

transitions did not result in large-scale 

shortages of equipment or technicians. 

EPA acknowledges as a general matter 

that over the past several years the 

global pandemic has affected supply 

chain and employment for many 

economic sectors. However, EPA is not 

aware, nor did the commenters provide 

specific information that would indicate 

that this rule would lead to additional 

shortages in technicians or create a 

situation where properly trained 

RACHP technicians would be unable to 

service newer equipment. 

XI. Judicial Review

The AIM Act provides that certain

sections of the CAA ‘‘shall apply to’’ the 

AIM Act and actions ‘‘promulgated by 

the Administrator of [EPA] pursuant to 

[the AIM Act] as though [the AIM Act] 

were expressly included in title VI of 

[the CAA].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(C). 

Among the applicable sections of the 

CAA is section 307, which includes 

provisions on judicial review. Section 

307(b)(1) provides, in part, that petitions 

for review must only be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When 

the agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, but 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ For locally or regionally 

applicable final actions, the CAA 

reserves to the EPA complete discretion 

whether to invoke the exception in (ii). 

The final action herein noticed is 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). It 

defines and interprets terms under the 

AIM Act, establishes approaches to 

issuing use restrictions under the AIM 

Act, and applies nationally applicable 

regulations for sectors and subsectors 

using regulated substances as defined by 

the AIM Act. The rule also establishes 

regulatory requirements applicable to all 

entities seeking to submit a petition 

under subsection (i) of that Act, and 

nationally applicable regulations for 

labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

In the alternative, to the extent a court 

finds the action to be locally or 

regionally applicable, the Administrator 

is exercising the complete discretion 

afforded to him under the CAA to make 

and publish a finding that the action is 

based on a determination of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).183 In 

deciding to invoke this exception, the 

Administrator has taken into account a 

number of policy considerations, 

including his judgement regarding the 

benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit’s 

authoritative centralized review, rather 

than allowing development of the issue 

in other contexts, in order to ensure 

consistency in the Agency’s approach to 

implementing EPA’s national 

regulations in 40 CFR part 84. The final 

action treats all affected entities 

consistently in how the 40 CFR part 84 

regulations are applied. The 

Administrator finds that this is a matter 

on which national uniformity is 

desirable to take advantage of the D.C. 

Circuit’s administrative law expertise 

and facilitate the orderly development 

of the basic law under the AIM Act and 

EPA’s implementing regulations. The 

Administrator also finds that 

consolidated review of the action in the 

D.C. Circuit will avoid piecemeal

litigation in the regional circuits, further

judicial economy, and eliminate the risk

of inconsistent results for different

regulated entities. The Administrator

also finds that a nationally consistent

approach to the issues addressed in this

rule constitutes the best use of agency

resources. The Administrator is

publishing his finding that the action is

based on a determination of nationwide

scope or effect in the Federal Register

as part of this action. For these reasons,

this final action is nationally applicable,

or alternatively, the Administrator is

exercising the complete discretion

afforded to him by the CAA and finds

that the final action is based on a

determination of nationwide scope or

effect for purposes of CAA section

307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing that

finding in the Federal Register. Under

section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions

for judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia by

December 26, 2023.

XII. Severability

This final rule includes definitions 

and interpretations of terms under the 

AIM Act, new regulatory requirements 

regarding submitting a petition under 

subsection (i) of that Act, and new 

restrictions for sectors and subsectors 

using regulated substances as defined by 

the AIM Act, many of which were the 

subject of petitions granted under 

subsection (i). The rule also establishes 

labeling and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to support the 

enforcement of the new restrictions. 

Therefore, this final rule is multifaceted 

and addresses many separate issues for 

independent reasons, as detailed in each 

respective section of this preamble. 

Each interpretation, requirement, and 

use restriction is supported by separate 

analysis and discussion. While this rule 

contains separate parts that we intended 

to operate independently of one another 

and to be severable from each other, we 

took the approach of including all the 

parts in one rulemaking rather than 

promulgating multiple rules. 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order

Review

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73204 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

184Costs are provided in 2022 dollars. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, 

EPA submitted this action to OMB for 

Executive Order 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0643). EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Addendum: Impact of the Technology 

Transitions Rule,’’ is also available in 

the docket and is briefly summarized in 

section IX of this preamble. 

B. 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 EPA prepared has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2742.02. You 

can find a copy of the ICR 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. 

Subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act 

states that section 114 of the CAA 

applies to the AIM Act and rules 

promulgated under it as if the AIM Act 

were included in title VI of the CAA. 

Thus, section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 

which provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to require recordkeeping 

and reporting in carrying out provisions 

of the CAA, also applies to and supports 

this rulemaking. 

EPA is establishing labeling 

requirements to products and specified 

components that use an HFC, or a blend 

containing an HFC, in the sectors and 

subsectors covered by this rule. EPA is 

also establishing recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for any entity 

that domestically manufactures or 

imports products or specified 

components to allow the Agency to 

review data and identify noncompliance 

with GWP restrictions and monitor the 

import and manufacture of such 

equipment. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Respondents and affected entities are 

individuals or companies that 

manufacture, import, sell, distribute, 

offer for sale or distribution, or export 

equipment and install systems within 

the sectors or subsectors addressed by 

this rule that uses or is intended to use 

certain HFCs that are defined as a 

regulated substance under the AIM Act, 

or blends that contain a regulated 

substance. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (AIM Act and section 114 of 

the CAA). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

51,209,764. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Total estimated burden: 19,715 hours 

(per year) in the first year; 17,050 hours 

per year in all following years. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: 184 $7,170,856 

(per year) in the first year, $6,832,015 

per year thereafter, includes $5,137,952 

annualized capital or operation & 

maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for 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. 

EPA addresses comments related to the 

collection of information in section VIII. 

C. 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 

subject to the requirements of this 

action include manufacturers and 

importers of equipment and products 

within the affected subsectors (e.g., 

manufacturers of stand-alone/selfcontained air conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment, manufacturers 

of aerosol products, and manufacturers 

of foam products and appliances 

containing foam) and end-users of 

equipment within affected subsectors 

(e.g., supermarkets, warehouse clubs/ 

superstores, convenience stores). EPA 

estimates that approximately 162 of the 

51,047 potentially affected small 

businesses could incur costs in excess of 

one percent of annual sales and that 

approximately 110 small businesses 

could incur costs in excess of three 

percent of annual sales. Because there is 

not a significant percentage of small 

businesses that may experience a 

significant impact, it can be presumed 

that this action will have no SISNOSE. 

Details of this analysis are presented in 

Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 

Restrictions on the Use of 

Hydrofluorocarbons under Subsection 

(i) of the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act, which is available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0643. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action contains a Federal 

mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for the private 

sector in any one year. This action 

contains no unfunded Federal mandate 

for State, local, or Tribal governments as 

described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a 

written statement required under 

section 202 of UMRA. The statement is 

included in the docket for this action 

and is briefly summarized here. This 

rule is estimated to result in average 

annual cost to the private sector of $99 

million for the period 2025 through 

2050. This rule is also estimated to 

result in average annual savings to the 

private sector of $430 million over the 

same time period, for a net average 

annual savings of approximately $330 

million. When adjusted for inflation, the 

$100 million UMRA threshold 

established in 1995 is equivalent to 

approximately $184 million in 2022 

dollars, the year dollars for the cost 

estimates in this final rule. While EPA 

has estimated net savings for affected 

subsectors in aggregate, the costs of this 

rule to some portions of the private 

sector are estimated to exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold in 

some years. This action is not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. EPA is not aware of Tribal 

businesses engaged in activities that 

would be directly affected by this 

action. Based on the Agency’s 

assessments, EPA also does not believe 

that potential effects, even if direct, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73205 

would be substantial. Accordingly, this 

action 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. EPA periodically 

updates Tribal officials on air 

regulations through the monthly 

meetings of the National Tribal Air 

Association and will share information 

on this rulemaking through this and 

other fora. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies 

to include an evaluation of the health 

and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is significant under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and 

the environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action has a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

Accordingly, we have evaluated the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

climate change on children. 

GHGs, including HFCs, contribute to 

climate change. The GHG emission 

reductions resulting from 

implementation of this rule will further 

improve children’s health. The 

assessment literature cited in EPA’s 

2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings 

concluded that certain populations and 

life stages, including children, the 

elderly, and the poor, are most 

vulnerable to climate-related health 

effects. The assessment literature since 

2016 strengthens these conclusions by 

providing more detailed findings 

regarding these groups’ vulnerabilities 

and the projected impacts they may 

experience. 

These assessments describe how 

children’s unique physiological and 

developmental factors contribute to 

making them particularly vulnerable to 

climate change. Impacts to children are 

expected from heat waves, air pollution, 

infectious and waterborne illnesses, and 

mental health effects resulting from 

extreme weather events. In addition, 

children are among those especially 

susceptible to most allergic diseases, as 

well as health effects associated with 

heat waves, storms, and floods. 

Additional health concerns may arise in 

low-income households, especially 

those with children, if climate change 

reduces food availability and increases 

prices, leading to food insecurity within 

households. More detailed information 

on the impacts of climate change to 

human health and welfare is provided 

in section III.B of this preamble. 

H. 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. 

This action applies to certain regulated 

substances and certain subsectors that 

use regulated substances, none of which 

are used to supply or distribute energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The human health or environmental 

conditions that exist prior to this action 

result in or have the potential to result 

in disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. EPA carefully evaluated 

available information on HFC substitute 

production facilities and the 

characteristics of nearby communities to 

evaluate these impacts in the context of 

this rulemaking. Based on this analysis, 

EPA finds evidence of environmental 

justice concerns near facilities that 

produce substitutes for HFCs from 

cumulative exposure to existing 

environmental hazards in these 

communities. However, the Agency 

recognizes that the phasedown of HFCs 

and use restrictions in this final rule 

may cause significant changes in the 

location and quantity of production of 

HFCs and their substitutes, and that 

these changes may in turn affect 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants at 

chemical production facilities. Thus, 

given uncertainties about where and in 

what quantities HFC substitutes will be 

produced, EPA cannot determine the 

extent to which this rule will exacerbate 

or reduce existing disproportionate 

adverse effects. 

EPA believes that it is not practicable 

to assess whether this action is likely to 

result in new disproportionate and 

adverse effects on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. A 

summary of the Agency’s approach for 

considering potential environmental 

justice concerns as a result of this 

rulemaking can be found in Section X 

of the preamble, and our environmental 

justice analysis can be found in the RIA 

addendum, available in the docket. 

Based on the analysis, EPA determined 

that this rule will reduce emissions of 

potent GHGs, which will reduce the 

effects of climate change on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns, including public health and 

welfare effects. As noted in Section X of 

this preamble, the Agency will continue 

to evaluate the impacts of this program 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns and consider further 

action, as appropriate, to protect health 

in communities affected by HFC 

substitute production. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to Subtitle E of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also 

known as the Congressional Review Act 

or CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 

report to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. This action is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 84 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Climate change, Emissions, Imports, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 84 

as follows: 

PART 84—PHASEDOWN OF 

HYDROFLUOROCARBONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 84 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Public Law 116–260, Division 

S, Sec. 103. 

■ 2. Add subpart B, consisting of 

§§ 84.50 through 84.64, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart B—Restrictions on the Use of 

Hydrofluorocarbons 

Sec. 

84.50 Purpose. 

84.52 Definitions. 

84.54 Restrictions on the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons. 

84.56 Exemptions. 

84.58 Labeling. 

84.60 Reporting and recordkeeping. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73206 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

84.62 Technology transitions petition 

requirements. 

84.64 Global warming potentials. 

Subpart B—Restrictions on the Use of 

Hydrofluorocarbons 

§ 84.50 Purpose. 

The purpose of the regulations in this 

subpart is to implement subsection (i) of 

42 U.S.C. 7675, with respect to 

establishing restrictions on the use of a 

regulated substance in the sector or 

subsector in which the regulated 

substance is used, and to provide 

requirements associated with the 

submission of petitions seeking such 

restrictions. 

§ 84.52 Definitions. 

For the terms not defined in this 

subpart but that are defined in § 84.3, 

the definitions in § 84.3 shall apply. For 

the purposes of this subpart: 

Blend containing a regulated 

substance means any mixture that 

contains one or more regulated 

substances. 

Export means the transport of a 

product or specified component using a 

regulated substance from inside the 

United States or its territories to persons 

outside the United States or its 

territories, excluding United States 

military bases and ships for onboard 

use. 

Exporter means the person who 

contracts to sell any product or 

specified component using a regulated 

substance for export or transfers a 

product or specified component using a 

regulated substance to an affiliate in 

another country. 

Importer means any person who 

imports any product or specified 

component using or intended for use 

with a regulated substance into the 

United States. Importer includes the 

person primarily liable for the payment 

of any duties on the merchandise or an 

authorized agent acting on his or her 

behalf. The term also includes: 

(1) The consignee; 

(2) The importer of record; 

(3) The actual owner; or 

(4) The transferee, if the right to 

withdraw merchandise from a bonded 

warehouse has been transferred. 

Install means to complete a fieldassembled system’s circuit, including 

charging with a full charge, such that 

the system can function and is ready for 

use for its intended purpose. 

Manufacture means to complete the 

manufacturing and assembly processes 

of a product or specified component 

such that it is ready for initial sale, 

distribution, or operation. 

Product means an item or category of 

items manufactured from raw or 

recycled materials which performs a 

function or task and is functional upon 

completion of manufacturing. The term 

includes, but is not limited to: 

appliances, foams, fully formulated 

polyols, self-contained fire suppression 

devices, aerosols, pressurized 

dispensers, and wipes. 

Retrofit means to upgrade existing 

equipment where the regulated 

substance is changed, which— 

(1) Includes the conversion of 

equipment to achieve system 

compatibility; and 

(2) May include changes in lubricants, 

gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or 

equipment components for that 

purpose. Examples of equipment subject 

to retrofit include air-conditioning and 

refrigeration appliances, fire 

suppression systems, and foam blowing 

equipment. 

Sector means a broad category of 

applications including but not limited 

to: refrigeration, air conditioning and 

heat pumps; foams; aerosols; chemical 

manufacturing; cleaning solvents; fire 

suppression and explosion protection; 

and semiconductor manufacturing. 

Specified component for purposes of 

equipment in the refrigeration, air 

conditioning, and heat pump sector 

means condensing units, condensers, 

compressors, evaporator units, and 

evaporators. 

Subsector means processes, classes of 

applications, or specific uses that are 

related to one another within a single 

sector or subsector. 

Substitute means any substance, 

blend, or alternative manufacturing 

process, whether existing or new, that 

may be used, or is intended for use, in 

a sector or subsector with a restriction 

on the use of regulated substances and 

that has a lower global warming 

potential than the GWP limit or 

restricted list of regulated substances 

and blends in that sector or subsector. 

System means an assemblage of 

separate components that typically are 

connected and charged in the field with 

a regulated substance or substitute to 

perform a function or task. 

Use means for any person to take any 

action with or to a regulated substance, 

regardless of whether the regulated 

substance is in bulk, contained within a 

product, or otherwise, except for the 

destruction of a regulated substance. 

Actions include, but are not limited to, 

the utilization, deployment, sale, 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, discharge, incorporation, 

transformation, or other manipulation. 

§ 84.54 Restrictions on the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons. 

(a) No person may manufacture or 

import any product in the following 

sectors or subsectors that uses a 

regulated substance as listed in this 

paragraph: 

(1) Effective January 1, 2025, selfcontained residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pump products using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 700 or greater; 

(2) Effective January 1, 2025, 

residential dehumidifiers using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(3) Effective January 1, 2025, 

household refrigerators and freezers 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 150 or 

greater; 

(4) Effective January 1, 2025, retail 

food refrigeration—stand-alone units 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 150 or 

greater; 

(5) Effective January 1, 2025, vending 

machines using a regulated substance, 

or a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 150 or greater; 

(6) Effective January 1, 2025, 

refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers with the temperature of the 

refrigerant entering the evaporator (for 

direct heat exchange systems) or the 

temperature of the fluid exiting (for 

chillers) of ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) or higher 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(7) Effective January 1, 2025, selfcontained products in refrigerated 

transport—road and refrigerated 

transport—marine subsectors using any 

of the following: R–402A, R–402B, R– 

404A, R–407B, R–408A, R–410B, R– 

417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–438A, R–507A, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation) or GHG–X5; 

(8) Self-contained automatic 

commercial ice machines as follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2026, ice maker 

products with a harvest rate as 

determined in accordance with 10 CFR 

431.134, using a regulated substance, or 

a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 150 or greater as follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73207 

(A) Batch type, as defined in 10 CFR 

431.132, with a harvest rate less than or 

equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per 24 

hours; 

(B) Continuous type, as defined in 10 

CFR 431.132, with a harvest rate less 

than or equal to 1,200 pounds of ice per 

24 hours; 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2027, batch 

type ice maker products, as defined in 

10 CFR 431.132, with a harvest rate 

greater than 1,000 pounds of ice per 24 

hours, as determined in accordance 

with 10 CFR 431.134, and continuous 

type ice machine products, as defined in 

10 CFR 431.132, with a harvest rate 

greater than 1,200 pounds of ice per 24 

hours, as determined in accordance 

with 10 CFR 431.134, using any of the 

following: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, 

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

408A, R–410A, R–410B, R–411A, R– 

411B, R–417A, R–417C, R–420A, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R– 

442A, R–507A, HFC–134a, R–125/290/ 

134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, RS– 

24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), GHG–X5, G2018C, or 

Freeze 12; 

(9) Self-contained refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing products as 

follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2027, products 

outside the scope of UL 621, ‘‘Ice Cream 

Makers,’’ Edition 7, dated May 07, 2010, 

with revisions through September 16, 

2020, as of December 26, 2023, with 

refrigerant charge sizes less than or 

equal to 500 g using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2027, products 

outside the scope of UL 621, ‘‘Ice Cream 

Makers,’’ Edition 7, dated May 7, 2010, 

with revisions through September 16, 

2020, as of December 26, 2023, with 

refrigerant charge sizes greater than 500 

g, using any of the following: R–402A, 

R–402B, R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R– 

407C, R–407F, R–407H, R–408A, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–411A, R–411B, R– 

417A, R–417C, R–420A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–427A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R– 

507A, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, R–125/ 

290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, 

RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), GHG–X5, or Freeze 12; 

and 

(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, for 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing products within the scope of 

UL 621, ‘‘Ice Cream Makers,’’ Edition 7, 

dated May 7, 2010, with revisions 

through September 16, 2020, as of 

December 26, 2023, using any of the 

following: R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, 

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

407H, R–408A, R–410A, R–410B, R– 

411A, R–411B, R–417A, R–417C, R– 

420A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

426A, R–427A, R–428A, R–434A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, HFC–134a, 

HFC–227ea, R–125/290/134a/600a (55/ 

1/42.5/1.5), RB–276, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), 

GHG–X5, or Freeze 12. 

(10) Chillers, when a stand-alone 

product, as follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers 

for comfort cooling using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 700 or greater; 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers 

for ice rinks using a regulated substance, 

or a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 700 or greater; 

(iii) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers 

for industrial process refrigeration 

where the temperature of the fluid 

exiting the chiller is greater than ¥22 °F 

(¥30 °C) using a regulated substance, or 

a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 700 or greater; 

(iv) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers 

for industrial process refrigeration 

where the temperature of the fluid 

exiting the chiller is greater than or 

equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and less than 

or equal to ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(11) Effective January 1, 2027, selfcontained products in data center, 

information technology equipment 

facility, and computer room cooling 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(12) Industrial process refrigeration 

products, other than chillers, as follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2026, products 

with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 

pounds or greater and with the 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator higher than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 150 or 

greater; 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2026, products 

with a refrigerant charge capacity less 

than 200 pounds and with the 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator higher than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 300 or 

greater; 

(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, where 

the temperature of the refrigerant 

entering the evaporator is greater than or 

equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and is less 

than or equal to ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), using 

a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(13) Motor vehicle air-conditioning as 

follows: 

(i) Effective October 24, 2024, for 

Model Year 2025 and subsequent model 

year light-duty passenger cars and 

trucks (vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating less than 8,500 lb) using 

or intended to use a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) For Model Year 2028 and 

subsequent model year medium-duty 

passenger vehicles, heavy-duty pick-up 

trucks, and complete heavy-duty vans, 

as defined by the Federal Highway 

Administration at 40 CFR 86.1803–01, 

which have air conditioning equipment 

that will not be modified by upfitters 

using or intended to use a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, certain 

nonroad vehicles (agricultural tractors 

greater than 40 horsepower; selfpropelled agricultural machinery; 

compact equipment; construction, 

forestry, and mining equipment; and 

commercial utility vehicles) using or 

intended to use a regulated substance, 

or a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 150 or greater; 

(14) Effective January 1, 2025, foam 

products (but not including foam 

products in paragraph (a)(15) of this 

section) in the following subsectors 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 150 or 

greater: 

(i) Rigid polyurethane appliance 

foam, commercial refrigeration foam, 

laminated boardstock, marine flotation 

foam, sandwich panels, and slabstock; 

(ii) Flexible polyurethane; 

(iii) Integral skin polyurethane; 

(iv) Polystyrene—extruded 

boardstock, billet, and extruded sheet; 

(v) Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock; 

(vi) Polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock; 

(vii) Polyolefin; and 

(viii) Rigid polyurethane spray foam 

(i.e., high-pressure two-component, lowVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Oct 23, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24OCR2.SGM 24OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73208 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

pressure two-component, and onecomponent foam sealants). 

(15) Effective January 1, 2026, foam 

products in the formulations specified 

in paragraphs (a)(14)(i) through (viii) of 

this section that are for use in space and 

military applications, except spray and 

pour foams that are for use in space 

vehicles as defined in § 84.3, which are 

not subject to a use restriction. 

(16) Aerosol products as follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2025, all 

aerosol products using a regulated 

substance with a global warming 

potential of 150 or greater, except 

products that use HFC–43–10mee 

(1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentane) 

or HFC–245fa (1,1,1,3,3- 

pentafluoropropane) as an aerosol 

solvent or those that use HFC–134a in 

the following specific uses; 

(A) Cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from 

electrical equipment or electronics; 

(B) Refrigerant flushes; 

(C) Products for sensitivity testing of 

smoke detectors; 

(D) Lubricants and freeze sprays for 

electrical equipment or electronics; 

(E) Sprays for aircraft maintenance; 

(F) Sprays containing corrosion 

preventive compounds used in the 

maintenance of aircraft, electrical 

equipment or electronics, or military 

equipment; 

(G) Pesticides for use near electrical 

wires or in aircraft, in total release 

insecticide foggers, or in certified 

organic use pesticides for which EPA 

has specifically disallowed all other 

lower-GWP propellants; 

(H) Mold release agents and mold 

cleaners; 

(I) Lubricants and cleaners for 

spinnerets for synthetic fabrics; 

(J) Duster sprays specifically for 

removal of dust from photographic 

negatives, semiconductor chips, 

specimens under electron microscopes, 

and energized electrical equipment; 

(K) Adhesives and sealants in large 

canisters; 

(L) Document preservation sprays; 

(M) Wound care sprays; 

(N) Topical coolant sprays for pain 

relief; 

(O) Products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2028, all 

aerosol products using a regulated 

substance with a global warming 

potential of 150 or greater. 

(b) Effective three years after the dates 

listed for each subsector in paragraph (a) 

of this section, no person may sell, 

distribute, offer for sale or distribution, 

make available for sale or distribution, 

purchase or receive for sale or 

distribution, or attempt to purchase or 

receive for sale or distribution, or export 

any product that uses a regulated 

substance as listed in paragraph (a). 

(c) No person may install any system, 

nor have any such system be installed 

through their position as a designer, 

owner, or operator of that system, in the 

following sectors or subsectors that uses 

a regulated substance as listed in this 

paragraph (c): 

(1) Effective January 1, 2025, 

residential or light commercial airconditioning or heat pump systems 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater, except for variable refrigerant 

flow air-conditioning and heat pump 

systems; 

(2) Effective January 1, 2026, variable 

refrigerant flow systems for use as 

residential and light commercial airconditioning or heat pumps, using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(3) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers 

for comfort cooling using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 700 or greater; 

(4) Effective January 1, 2025, ice rinks 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(5) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers 

for industrial process refrigeration 

where the temperature of the fluid 

exiting the chiller is greater than ¥22 °F 

(¥30 °C) using a regulated substance, or 

a blend containing a regulated 

substance, with a global warming 

potential of 700 or greater; 

(6) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers 

for industrial process refrigeration 

where the temperature of the fluid 

exiting the chiller is greater than or 

equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and less than 

or equal to ¥30 °C (¥22 °F) using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(7) Effective January 1, 2025, 

refrigerated transport—intermodal 

containers with the temperature of the 

refrigerant entering the evaporator (for 

direct heat exchange systems) or the 

temperature of the fluid exiting (for 

chillers) of ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) or higher 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 

(8) Effective January 1, 2025, 

refrigerated transport—road or 

refrigerated transport—marine systems 

using any of the following: R–402A, R– 

402B, R–404A, R–407B, R–408A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–438A, R– 

507A, R–125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/ 

1.5), RS–44 (2003 formulation) or GHG– 

X5; 

(9) Effective January 1, 2026, cold 

storage warehouse systems as follows: 

(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that 

are not the high temperature side of a 

cascade system, using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity less than 200 pounds, using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 300 or 

greater; 

(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using 

a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, on the 

high temperature side of the system 

with a global warming potential of 300 

or greater; 

(10) Industrial process refrigeration 

systems, other than chiller systems, as 

follows: 

(i) Effective January 1, 2026, systems 

with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 

pounds or greater and with the 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator higher than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), 

that are not the high temperature side of 

a cascade system, using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) Effective January 1, 2026, systems 

with a refrigerant charge capacity less 

than 200 pounds and with the 

refrigerant temperature entering the 

evaporator higher than ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), 

using a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 300 or 

greater; 

(iii) Effective January 1, 2026, the high 

temperature side of cascade systems 

with the refrigerant temperature 

entering the evaporator higher than 

¥30 °C (¥22 °F) using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 300 or greater; 

(iv) Effective January 1, 2028, where 

the temperature of the refrigerant 

entering the evaporator is greater than or 

equal to ¥50 °C (¥58 °F) and is less 

than or equal to ¥30 °C (¥22 °F), using 

a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 700 or 

greater; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73209 

(11) Effective January 1, 2026, remote 

condensing units in retail food 

refrigeration systems as follows: 

(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that 

are not the high temperature side of a 

cascade system, using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity less than 200 pounds using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 300 or 

greater; 

(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using 

a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, on the 

high temperature side of the system 

with a global warming potential of 300 

or greater; 

(12) Effective January 1, 2027, 

supermarket systems as follows: 

(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that 

are not the high temperature side of a 

cascade system, using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 150 or greater; 

(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge 

capacity less than 200 pounds using a 

regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, with a 

global warming potential of 300 or 

greater; 

(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using 

a regulated substance, or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, on the 

high temperature side of the system 

with a global warming potential of 300 

or greater; 

(13) Effective January 1, 2027, data 

center, information technology 

equipment facility, and computer room 

cooling systems using a regulated 

substance, or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, with a global 

warming potential of 700 or greater; 

(14) Effective January 1, 2027, 

automatic commercial ice machines 

with a remote condenser using any of 

the following: R–402A, R–402B, R– 

404A, R–407B, R–408A, R–410B, R– 

417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–438A, R–507A, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation), or GHG–X5. 

(15) Effective January 1, 2027, 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment with a remote 

condenser using any of the following: 

R–402A, R–402B, R–404A, R–407A, R– 

407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–407H, R– 

408A, R–410A, R–410B, R–411A, R– 

411B, R–417A, R–417C, R–420A, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

427A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

R–125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), 

RB–276, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation), GHG–X5, or 

Freeze 12. 

(d) The compliance date for the 

installation of a system in paragraph (c) 

of this section for the industrial process 

refrigeration systems with a January 1, 

2026, compliance date, retail food— 

supermarket, cold storage warehouse, 

and ice rink subsectors is extended one 

year beyond the specified compliance 

date when an approved building permit 

issued prior to October 5, 2023, 

specifies the use of a restricted regulated 

substance, or blend containing a 

regulated substance, in a system 

detailed in that permit. 

(e) The following actions, upon 

charging the system to full charge, are 

considered an installation of a 

refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat 

pump system under paragraph (c) of this 

section: 

(1) Assembling a system for the first 

time from used or new components; 

(2) Increasing the cooling capacity, in 

BTU per hour, of an existing system; or 

(3) Replacing 75 percent or more of 

evaporators (by number) and 100 

percent of the compressor racks, 

condensers, and connected evaporator 

loads of an existing system. 

(f) Effective upon the dates listed for 

each subsector in paragraphs (a) and (c) 

of this section, no person may 

manufacture, import, sell, distribute, 

offer for sale or distribution, make 

available for sale or distribution, 

purchase or receive for sale or 

distribution, or attempt to purchase or 

receive for sale or distribution, or export 

any product or specified component 

that is not labeled in accordance with 

§ 84.58. 

(g) Every product or system using or 

intended to use a regulated substance or 

blend containing a regulated substance 

that is manufactured, imported, sold, 

distributed, offered for sale or 

distribution, made available for sale or 

distribution, purchased or received for 

sale or distribution, or attempted to be 

purchased or received for sale or 

distribution, or exported in 

contravention of paragraphs (a) through 

(f) of this section constitutes a separate 

violation of this subpart. 

(h) No person may provide false, 

inaccurate, or misleading information to 

EPA when reporting or providing any 

communication required under this 

subpart. 

(i) No person may falsely indicate 

through marketing, packaging, labeling, 

or other means that a product or 

specified component uses or is intended 

to use a regulated substance, blend 

containing a regulated substance, or 

substitute that differs from the regulated 

substance, blend containing a regulated 

substance, or substitute that is actually 

used. 

(j) Section (k) of the AIM Act states 

that sections 113, 114, 304, and 307 of 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413, 7414, 

7604, 7607) shall apply to this section 

and any rule, rulemaking, or regulation 

promulgated by the Administrator 

pursuant to this section as though this 

section were expressly included in title 

VI of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7671 et seq.). 

Violation of this part is subject to 

Federal enforcement and the penalties 

laid out in section 113 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

§ 84.56 Exemptions. 

(a) The regulations under this subpart, 

including §§ 84.54, 84.58, 84.60, and 

84.62, do not apply to: 

(1) Equipment in existence in the 

United States prior to December 27, 

2020; and 

(2) Any product using a regulated 

substance or a blend containing a 

regulated substance, or intended to use 

a regulated substance or a blend 

containing a regulated substance, in an 

application listed at § 84.13(a), for a year 

or years for which that application 

receives an application-specific 

allowance as defined at § 84.3. 

(b) The prohibitions on the 

manufacture, import, sale, distribution, 

offer for sale or distribution, or export 

of products in § 84.54(a) and (b) do not 

apply to components that use, or are 

intended to use, any regulated 

substance. 

(c) The prohibitions on the sale, 

distribution, offer for sale or 

distribution, or export of products in 

§ 84.54(b) do not apply to: 

(1) Products after a period of ordinary 

utilization or operation by a consumer; 

or 

(2) Products within the disposal or 

recycling chain. 

(d) The prohibition on the import of 

used products in § 84.54(a) does not 

apply to: 

(1) Systems in use by a conveyance in 

trade travelling into U.S. jurisdiction 

including refrigeration, air-conditioning, 

and heat pump systems in operation 

aboard ships, planes, motor vehicles, 

and intermodal containers; 

(2) Products in the possession of a 

consumer for personal use; or 

(3) Products imported solely for 

recycling or disposal. 

§ 84.58 Labeling. 

(a) Effective upon the dates listed for 

each subsector in § 84.54(a) and (c), any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73210 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

product, specified component, or 

system manufactured, imported, or 

installed within the refrigeration, airconditioning, and heat pump sector 

using any regulated substance, or blend 

containing any regulated substance, 

regardless of global warming potential 

must have a permanent label compliant 

with paragraph (d) of this section 

stating: 

(1) The chemical name(s) or American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers designation 

of the regulated substance(s) or blend 

containing a regulated substance; 

(2) The full date, or at minimum the 

four-digit year, of manufacture. For 

field-charged system installations, this 

shall be the date of first charge and the 

label shall be completed at first charge. 

For MVACs listed in § 84.54(a)(13)(i) 

and (ii), the model year may be used 

instead of the date of manufacture. 

(3) An indication of the full 

refrigerant charge capacity, either as the 

specific charge size of the system, or the 

charge size as it relates to the threshold 

for the relevant subsector. This means 

an indication that the charge is either 

two hundred pounds or more, or less 

than two hundred pounds, in the 

following subsectors: 

(i) Industrial process refrigeration 

(without chillers); 

(ii) Retail food refrigeration— 

supermarket systems; 

(iii) Retail food refrigeration—remote 

condensing units; and 

(iv) Cold storage warehouses. 

(4) An indication of the charge size of 

the equipment or the charge size as it 

relates to the threshold for selfcontained refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing products. This means an 

indication that the charge is greater than 

or equal to 500 grams, or less than 500 

grams. 

(5) An indication of the harvest rate, 

either as the specific harvest rate of the 

equipment, or the harvest rate as it 

relates to the threshold for selfcontained automatic commercial ice 

machines, and the type of ice machine 

(either batch or continuous). This means 

an indication that that harvest rate is 

either greater than 1,000 pounds of ice 

per day or less than or equal to 1,000 

pounds of ice per day for batch type ice 

makers, and an indication that the 

harvest rate is either greater than 1,200 

pounds of ice per day or less than or 

equal to 1,200 pounds of ice per day for 

continuous type ice makers. 

(6) An indication of the designed 

exiting fluid temperature range for 

industrial process refrigeration chillers 

and the designed refrigerant 

temperature range when it enters the 

evaporator for industrial process 

refrigeration systems without chillers. 

(b) Effective upon the date listed for 

each subsector in § 84.54(c), or the 

earliest date should the specified 

component be used in multiple 

subsectors, any specified component 

manufactured or imported and intended 

for use in those subsectors that uses or 

is intended to use any regulated 

substance, or blend containing any 

regulated substance, regardless of global 

warming potential, must have a 

permanent label compliant with 

paragraph (c) of this section containing 

the information in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. For specified components 

that are intended for use with a 

regulated substance or blends 

containing a regulated substance that 

exceed the applicable GWP limit or HFC 

restriction, the label must state ‘‘For 

servicing existing equipment only’’ in 

addition to the other required labeling 

elements. 

(c) Effective upon the dates listed for 

each subsector in § 84.54(a) and (c), any 

product manufactured, imported, or 

installed within the foam or aerosol 

sectors using any regulated substance, 

or blend containing any regulated 

substance, regardless of global warming 

potential, must have a permanent label 

compliant with paragraph (d) of this 

section stating: 

(1) The chemical name(s) or American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers designation 

of any regulated substance(s) or blend 

containing a regulated substance used; 

(2) If an HFC with a GWP higher than 

the limit is used or if multiple HFCs are 

used, either the weights of the HFC(s) 

relative to the other blowing agents, 

propellants, solvents, or to the other 

HFCs must be on the label, or the label 

must state ‘‘GWP<150.’’ 

(3) The full date, or at minimum the 

four-digit year, of manufacture. 

(d) The permanent label must be: 

(1) In English; 

(2) Durable and printed or otherwise 

labeled on, or affixed to, an external 

surface of the product; 

(3) Readily visible and legible; 

(4) Able to withstand open weather 

exposure without a substantial 

reduction in visibility or legibility, if 

applicable; and 

(5) Displayed on a background of 

contrasting color. 

(e) The requirements of this section 

may be met through the use of existing 

labels required under other authorities 

that contain the necessary information. 

The labeling requirements may also be 

met by providing the required 

information in packaging materials or 

through an on-product QR code. The 

packaging must be present with the 

product or specified component at the 

point of sale and import. The QR code 

must direct to the required information 

and meet all the requirements of the onproduct label. The QR code must be 

functional and include adjacent text to 

indicate the purpose of the QR code. 

(f) For products sold or distributed, 

offered for sale or distribution, or made 

available electronically through online 

commerce, the label must be readily 

visible and legible in either photographs 

of the products, photographs of 

packaging materials that contain the 

required information, or an item 

description that contains the required 

information. 

(g) Any product or system, using a 

regulated substance manufactured, 

imported, or installed after the 

compliance date for that sector or 

subsector, that lacks a label will be 

presumed to use a regulated substance 

with a global warming potential that 

exceeds the limit or is specifically listed 

in § 84.54(a) or (c). 

§ 84.60 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) Reporting. (1) Effective January 1, 

2025, any person who imports or 

manufactures a product or specified 

component within a sector or subsector 

listed in § 84.54 that uses or is intended 

to use a regulated substance or blend 

containing a regulated substance must 

comply with the following reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements: 

(i) Reports must be submitted 

annually to EPA within 90 days of the 

end of the reporting period; 

(ii) Reports must be submitted 

electronically in a format specified by 

EPA; 

(iii) Each report shall be signed and 

attested; 

(2) Each report must include: 

(i) The reporting entity’s name, 

address, contact person, email address, 

and phone number of the contact 

person; 

(ii) The year covered under the report 

and the date of submittal; 

(iii) All applicable NAICS code(s); 

and 

(iv) A statement of certification that 

the data are accurate and that the 

products use regulated substances, or 

blends containing regulated substances, 

that meet the requirements of § 84.54, 

and are labeled in accordance with 

§ 84.58. 

(3) Reports for products and specified 

components in the refrigeration, airconditioning, and heat pump sector 

must also include the following 

information: 

(i) For each set of products or 

specified components with the same 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 73211 

combination of charge size and 

regulated substance(s), the report must 

specify the subsector of the product or 

specified component based on the 

categorization in § 84.54; the identity of 

the regulated substance or blend 

containing a regulated substance, the 

charge size (including holding charge or 

no charge, if applicable), and the 

number of units imported, 

manufactured, and exported; 

(ii) For products and specified 

components that include closed-cell 

foam containing a regulated substance, 

the report must include the identity of 

the regulated substance(s) in the foam, 

the mass of the regulated substance(s) in 

the foam, and the number of products 

manufactured, imported, or exported 

with the same combination of mass and 

identity of regulated substance(s) within 

the closed-cell foam. 

(iii) Total mass in metric tons of each 

regulated substance or blend containing 

a regulated substance contained in all 

products or specified components 

manufactured, imported, and exported 

annually. 

(4) Reports for products in the foam 

sector must also include the following 

information: 

(i) For containers or foam blowing 

products that contain foam blowing 

agent and are intended for use to blow 

foam, the report must specify the 

subsector of the product based on the 

categorization in § 84.54, the identity of 

the regulated substance(s) contained in 

the product, the mass of the regulated 

substance(s) used, and the number of 

units manufactured, imported, or 

exported. 

(ii) For each set of products, other 

than containers described in paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) of this section, with the same 

combination of density and identity of 

regulated substance(s), the report must 

specify the subsector of the product 

based on the categorization in § 84.54, 

the identity of the regulated substance(s) 

contained in the foam, the volume of 

foam, and the number of units 

manufactured, imported, or exported; 

and 

(iii) Total mass in metric tons of each 

regulated substance contained in all 

products manufactured, imported, and 

exported annually. 

(5) Reports for products in the aerosol 

sector must also include the following 

information: 

(i) For each set of products with the 

same combination of regulated 

substance(s) and quantity of regulated 

substance(s), the report must specify the 

subsector of the product based on the 

categorization in § 84.54, the identity of 

the regulated substance(s), their 

percentages if more than one regulated 

substance is used, and the number of 

units manufactured, imported, or 

exported; and 

(ii) Total mass in metric tons of each 

regulated substance contained in all 

products manufactured, imported, and 

exported annually. 

(6) Any failure by a domestic 

manufacturer or importer of a product 

or specified component that uses or is 

intended to use a regulated substance or 

a blend containing a regulated substance 

to report required information or 

provide accurate information pursuant 

to this section shall be considered a 

violation of this section. 

(b) Recordkeeping. (1) Each domestic 

manufacturer or importer of a product 

or specified component within a sector 

or subsector listed in § 84.54 that uses 

or is intended to use a regulated 

substance or blend containing a 

regulated substance must retain the 

following records for a minimum of 

three years from the date of creation of 

the record and must make them 

available to EPA upon request: 

(i) Records that form the basis of the 

reports required in paragraph (a) of this 

section; and 

(ii) The entity to whom the product or 

specified component using a regulated 

substance were sold, distributed, or in 

any way conveyed to. 

(2) In addition to the records in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

importers of products and specified 

components using or intended to use a 

regulated substance or a blend 

containing a regulated substance must 

retain the following records for each 

import for a minimum of three years 

from the date of creation of the record 

and must make them available to EPA 

upon request: 

(i) A copy of the bill of lading; 

(ii) The invoice; 

(iii) The U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection entry documentation; 

(iv) Port of entry; 

(v) Country of origin and the country 

of shipment to the United States. 

§ 84.62 Technology transitions petition 

requirements. 

(a) Each petition sent to the 

Administrator under subsection (i) of 

the AIM Act shall include the following 

elements: 

(1) The sector and subsector(s) for 

which restrictions on use of the 

regulated substance would apply. 

(2) For each sector and subsector 

identified in a petition, the restriction 

on the use of a regulated substance 

through any of the following: 

(i) A global warming potential limit 

that will apply to regulated substances 

or blends containing regulated 

substances with global warming 

potentials at or above that limit; 

(ii) Identification of the regulated 

substance(s) or blend(s) containing a 

regulated substance to be restricted and 

its global warming potential according 

to § 84.64; or 

(iii) Another form of restriction with 

an explanation for why a restriction 

under paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 

section would not be appropriate. 

(3) For each restriction on the use of 

a regulated substance contained in a 

petition, the effective date on which the 

regulated substance use restriction 

would commence and information 

supporting the identified effective date. 

(4) Address whether the 

Administrator negotiate with 

stakeholders in accordance with the 

negotiated rulemaking procedure 

provided for under subchapter III of 

chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 

including an explanation of their 

position to support or oppose the use of 

the negotiated rulemaking procedure. 

(5) For each requested restriction, to 

the extent practicable, information 

related to the considerations provided 

in subsection (i)(4) of 42 U.S.C. 7675 to 

facilitate the Agency’s review of the 

petition. 

(b) Any petition submitted to the 

Administrator must be submitted 

electronically using the methods 

prescribed by the Administrator. 

§ 84.64 Global warming potentials. 

(a) The global warming potential of a 

regulated substance is the exchange 

value for the regulated substance listed 

in subsection (c) of the AIM Act and in 

appendix A to this part 84. 

(b) For blends containing a regulated 

substance, the global warming potential 

of the blend is the sum of the global 

warming potentials of each constituent 

of the blend multiplied by the nominal 

mass fraction of that constituent within 

the blend. The global warming potential 

of each constituent shall be as follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73212 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b) 

Substance name 

100-Year global 

warming 

potential 

2-chloropropane ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Acetone .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.5 

Acetone/isopentane blend ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Dimethyl ether .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Formic acid ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

HCFO–1224yd(Z) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

HCFO–1233yd(Z) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

HCFO–1233zd(E) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

HCO–1130(E) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

HFE–347pcf2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 987 

HFE–449s1 (HFE–7100) ................................................................................................................................................................... 297 

HFE–569sf2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 

HFO–1234yf ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

HFO–1234ze(E) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

HFO–1336mzz(E) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 

HFO–1336mzz(Z) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Hydrocarbons (C5–C20) .................................................................................................................................................................... 1–2.7 

Methoxytridecafluoroheptane (MPHE) isomers ................................................................................................................................. 2.5 

Methyl formate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Methylal (dimethoxymethane) ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Oxygenated organic solvents (esters, ethers, alcohols, ketones) .................................................................................................... 1–13 

R–170 (ethane) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.5 

R–290 (propane) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.3 

R–600 (butane) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

R–600a (isobutane) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

R–717 (ammonia) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

R–744 (carbon dioxide) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

R–1150 (ethylene) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3.7 

R–1270 (propylene) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.8 

Saturated light hydrocarbons (C3–C6) .............................................................................................................................................. 1–4 

(c) For constituents of a blend 

containing a regulated substance that do 

not have a global warming potential as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the constituent and its nominal 

mass fraction in the blend shall be 

excluded from the calculation in 

paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2023–22529 Filed 10–23–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2