[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73098-73212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22529]



[[Page 73097]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 204

October 24, 2023

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 84





Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain 
Hydrofluorocarbons Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act 
of 2020; Final Rule

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

[[Page 73098]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7714161e1959161b1b1e0418193712071659101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6407050d0a4a0508080d170b0a240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>. You may also visit EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction for further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' ``the Agency,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Acronyms and 
abbreviations that are used in this rulemaking that may be helpful 
include:

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
CH<INF>4</INF>--Methane
CO<INF>2</INF>--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
MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MMTEVe--Million Metric Tons of Exchange Value Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N<INF>2</INF>O--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
SF<INF>6</INF>--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-Time-Weighted 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?

[[Page 73099]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73100]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 subsector-specific 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 (MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e) \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 
MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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 CO<INF>2</INF>e and 
notes that the same values would be used if expressed in exchange 
value equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)-- Cumulative incremental emission reductions (MMTCO2e)--
                        2025-2050                                                2025-2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology transitions rule  Technology transitions high    Technology transitions      Technology transitions
         base case                additionality case            rule base case          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 ozone-depleting 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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e 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

[[Page 73101]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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] a b c d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Base case                                         High additionality case
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Incremental      Annual costs        Net benefits (3%    Incremental      Annual costs        Net benefits (3%
                                          climate    (negative values are   benefits, 3% or 7%     climate    (negative values are   benefits, 3% or 7%
             Discount rate                benefits         savings)             costs) \e\         benefits         savings)             costs) \e\
                                            (3%)    --------------------------------------------     (3%)    -------------------------------------------
                                       -------------                                            -------------
                                             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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits 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.
\c\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050.
\d\ The 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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e and 83 to 876 
MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Subsection (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.
    \8\ We note, however, that subsection (i)(4)(C) plainly does not 
require a finding that the environmental impacts of a rule exceed 
the economic costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 73102]]

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 air-conditioning 
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[dash]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[dash]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.

[[Page 73103]]

 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted previously in this document, ``regulated 
substance'' and ``HFC'' are used interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73104]]

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., Sec.  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 
(CO<INF>2</INF>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>12 13</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ World 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/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022.pdf.
    \12\ Ibid.
    \13\ A 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 
(MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 GWP-weighted terms, are HFC-134a, HFC-125, HFC-23, and 
HFC-143a.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ World 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.
    \15\ WMO, 2022.
    \16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HFCs excluding HFC-23 accounted for a radiative forcing of 0.025 W/
m\2\ in 2016 rising to 0.037 W/m\2\ in 2020. This radiative forcing was 
projected to increase by an order of magnitude to 0.25 W/m\2\ 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/m\2\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Velders, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the United States, HFCs are used primarily in refrigeration and 
air-conditioning 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Calculations 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-sinks-1990-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e in 2022 and 
282 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e 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 
MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e of HFCs in the United States. The annual avoided 
emissions are estimated at 22 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e in the year 2022 and 
171 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e 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

[[Page 73105]]

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--CO<INF>2</INF>, methane 
(CH<INF>4</INF>), nitrous oxide (N<INF>2</INF>O), HFCs, 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF<INF>6</INF>)--
``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In describing these 2009 Findings in this notice, EPA is 
neither reopening nor revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In describing these 2016 Findings in this notice, EPA is 
neither reopening nor revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>25 26 27 28</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ An 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. Pe[aacute]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. Yelek[ccedil]i, R. Yu and B. Zhou 
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press: 4.
    \25\ USGCRP, 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.
    \27\ National 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.
    \28\ NOAA 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 73106]]

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/technology-transition-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=CF<INF>2</INF> rather than 
C<INF>3</INF>F<INF>3</INF>H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA 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.
    \30\ Hereafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: trans-dichloroethylene (HCO-1130(E)) and 
hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HCFO-

[[Page 73107]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ WMO, 2022.
    \32\ 81 FR 32244 (May 23, 2016).
    \33\ 84 FR 64766 (November 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, well-reasoned 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-under-aim-act. Making the petitions available

[[Page 73108]]

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

[[Page 73109]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ These 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-transition-petitions-under-aim-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 foreign-trade 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

[[Page 73110]]

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 
(CO<INF>2</INF>)), 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 factory-completed 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

[[Page 73111]]

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 factory-
completed products. Most of those who commented on the proposed 
definition expressed concerns about the second sentence, which would 
apply to field-assembled equipment. These included concerns that the 
definition would effectively accelerate the timeline of the prohibition 
and render the one-year sell-through 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 air-conditioning 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 field-
assembled 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 self-contained 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

[[Page 73112]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The 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 
appliances), including the blowing agent. UNEP, 2010. Guidance on 
the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 refrigerant-specific, 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 non-inclusive 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

[[Page 73113]]

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 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73114]]

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 higher-GWP 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 ozone-
depleting 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As 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.
    \39\ After 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73115]]

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-limit-based 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Similarly, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73116]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Noting, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-GWP 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 
``long-continued 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

[[Page 73117]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Congress 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sector-level 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

[[Page 73118]]

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 Factory-Completed 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-[agrave]-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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]F (-30 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 
field-

[[Page 73120]]

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 
re-design 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 field-assembled 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 field-erected and field-charged system 
modified as part of a remodel or regular

[[Page 73121]]

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 air-conditioning 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 air-conditioning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ This 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 air-conditioning 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 Factory-Completed 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

[[Page 73122]]

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 sell-through 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 factory-
completed 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 sell-through 
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

[[Page 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 
forward-looking 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 sell-through, 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 non-compliant 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

[[Page 73124]]

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 sell-through 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

[[Page 73125]]

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 sell-through period is not needed for field-charged systems and 
recommended that EPA remove it.
    Response: As discussed in the section VI.A (Definitions), EPA is 
distinguishing factory-completed products from field-assembled 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.
    \46\ 40 CFR part 82, subpart I.
    \47\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Other commenters stated that countries should themselves 
determine when to transition to next-generation 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 next-generation refrigerants. 
Similarly, other commenters stated that other jurisdictions may not 
have trained

[[Page 73126]]

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, high-humidity 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ LD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 higher-GWP 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 high-GWP 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

[[Page 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 air-conditioning 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 car-dealerships 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

[[Page 73128]]

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 co-petitioners), 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, air-conditioning, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ AHRI 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 
CO<INF>2</INF> equivalent of the refrigerant in the refrigeration 
appliance is not increased.
    \51\ A discussion on the status of safety standards and building 
codes that may impact compliance dates is in section VI.E.2 of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73129]]

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 non-governmental 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The 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.
    \53\ An example is CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons and 
Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment report. Available at: 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73130]]

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-global-warming-potential 
technologies'' found in Volume 3 of the Progress 
Report.<SUP>55 56 57</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The 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).
    \56\ TEAP 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-may-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73131]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Inclusion of a substitute, either in the preamble or the 
docket, is for informative purposes only and is not intended as an 
EPA endorsement or recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 73132]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See memo titled, Technical Support Company Announcements of 
Increased Production of Low-GWP 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.
    \60\ U.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-BT-STD-0048-0098.
    \61\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the 
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM, 
November 2018. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See ``American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2019: 
Compliance and Consumer Cost Estimates'' document in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stand-alone 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

[[Page 73133]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Restrictions on the 
Use of Hydrofluorocarbons under Subsection (i) of the American 
Innovation and Manufacturing Act, available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 73134]]

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 standard-
setting 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 ground-level 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

[[Page 73135]]

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, lower-flammability 
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 [deg]F (60 [deg]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/m\3\. 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/m\3\, and have a maximum 
burning velocity of 10 cm/s or lower when tested in dry air at 73.4 
[deg]F (23.0 [deg]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/m\3\ or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ ASHRAE, 2022. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022: Designation and 
Safety Classification of Refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' ``High-probability'' 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

[[Page 73136]]

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 code-setting 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

[[Page 73137]]

efficiency standards subfactor and is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See the U.S. Department of Energy's Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program available at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program.
    \66\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See https://www.embraco.com/en/embraco-brings-to-ahr-expo-a-case-study-with-34-energy-savings-in-ice-machines.
    \68\ Technical 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.
    \69\ Based 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%.
    \70\ Based on ACIM type, energy use compared to baseline 
declined 0% to 8%, 20% to 22%, and 3% to 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 73138]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \72\ Available at www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73139]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See ``Overview of CFC and HCFC Phaseout'' document in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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
    \75\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the 
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM, 
November 2018. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean 
Air Act, 1990 to 2010; EPA 410-R-99-001 Nov 15, 1999.
    \77\ Approximately $36 billion and $111 billion, respectively, 
in 2020 dollars.
    \78\ Approximately $33.3 billion in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 73140]]

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 higher-GWP 
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),

[[Page 73141]]

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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, and an average annual 
additional consumption reduction of 28 to 43 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, from 
2025 through 2050 (see Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ These reductions would be in addition to the consumption 
reductions from the Allocation Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73142]]

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 [deg]C (-
80 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 
[deg]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 [deg]C (-22 
[deg]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 
[deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) but less than -
30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 
[deg]F).\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ The refrigerant HFC-134a has a boiling point slightly above 
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and R-717 has a boiling point slightly lower 
at -33.3 [deg]C. R-717, HFC-134a, and similar refrigerants like R-
450A and R-513A work above this temperature.
    \83\ The refrigerants R-404A and R-410A have bubble (boiling) 
points slightly above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73143]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ EPA 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.
    \85\ EPA 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.
    \86\ AHRI 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]C 
(-22 [deg]F), EPA is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2026. 
For IPR equipment with a refrigerant temperature entering the 
evaporator from -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 
lower-GWP refrigerants.<SUP>87 88</SUP> 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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ ASHRAE. (2022). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2022: Safety 
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
    \88\ UL 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 Motor-Compressor 
(Standard 60335-2-89, Edition 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
[deg]C to -30 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F to -22 [deg]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 
subsector-specific 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/m\3\). 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

[[Page 73144]]

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 low-GWP 
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

[[Page 73145]]

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 non-HFCs 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 non-
fluorinated 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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 non-
chiller 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 
[deg]C (-13 [deg]F) and a 2,200 GWP limit for IPR equipment with 
refrigerant evaporating temperatures from -25 [deg]C (-13 [deg]F) to -
45 [deg]C (-49 [deg]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

[[Page 73146]]

for IPR systems using flooded or liquid overfed evaporators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ European 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]C (-13 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) but greater than or 
equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C 
(-13 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), and all 
have a GWP below 150. In comparison, equipment with temperatures 
between -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 lower-GWP 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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) at this time.
    In the case of IPR equipment with refrigerant temperature entering 
the evaporator lower than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than -30 
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F) is considered part of IPR, and will have three 
years longer than proposed, until 2028, for new equipment to transition 
to substitute

[[Page 73147]]

refrigerants. Laboratory refrigerated equipment that operates at 
temperatures higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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

[[Page 73148]]

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

[[Page 73149]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 4th edition of UL Standard 60335-2-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-flammable 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ https://sustainability.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Public-Water-Reporting_Expanding-the-Operating-Envelope.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ By ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 73150]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Commenters 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-pressure 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

[[Page 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 subsector-
specific 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 SNAP-

[[Page 73152]]

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--Stand-Alone 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 [deg]F (0 [deg]C). Most are typically designed to maintain food and 
beverages at temperatures roughly between 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and 41 
[deg]F (5 [deg]C). Low-temperature stand-alone units are designed to 
maintain food and beverages at temperatures roughly between -40 [deg]F 
(-40 [deg]C) and 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]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 stand-alone 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 
stand-alone units on the basis that its preferred substitute, R-454A, 
is the only

[[Page 73153]]

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 stand-alone 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 <plus-minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)
    \95\ RTOC, 2022. TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) available 
at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 peer-
reviewed, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ True Manufacturing, 2019, Hydrocarbon (Natural Refrigerant) 
Brochure. Available at: https://www.truemfg.com/support/resource-center/#panel2.
    \97\ Carel, March 2020. Six Reasons to Use Propane as 
Refrigerant. Available at: https://www.carel.com/blog/-/blogs/six-reasons-to-use-propane-as-refrigerant.
    \98\ Mastrullo, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stand-alone equipment indicates 
their availability for use in this subsector, both in terms of 
technological achievability and commercial demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability TSD 
in the docket for a list of products in the affected sectors and 
subsectors using substitutes.
    \100\ See TEAP 2022 Assessment Report, section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, 
Vermont, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stand-alone 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,

[[Page 73154]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Ranges 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 HFC-only 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 SNAP-approved 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 lower-GWP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See www.energystar.gov/productfinder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stand-alone units, a delay in the 
January 1, 2025, compliance date is appropriate. In general, charge 
sizes for stand-alone units are relatively small, and stand-alone 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-

[[Page 73155]]

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 self-
contained 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ RB-276 is also known as Free Zone and HCFC Blend Delta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See the TSD on building codes in the docket for additional 
information on building codes and list of substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73156]]

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 self-contained 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 stand-alone 
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

[[Page 73157]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73158]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See section VI.F.1.a of this preamble for a description of 
cascade systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-fluorinated 
refrigerants, such as CO<INF>2</INF>, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ https://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/greenchill-certified-store-achievements.
    \111\ ATMOsphere (2023). Natural Refrigerants: State of the 
Industry. Available at: https://issuu.com/shecco/docs/2022_atmo_marketreport.
    \112\ Global Transcritical CO<INF>2</INF> 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-by-function-refrigeration-376006.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73159]]

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 higher-GWP 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 self-contained 
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

[[Page 73160]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
lower-GWP 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Building Codes TSD at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
stand-alone 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 
CO<INF>2</INF> supermarket systems. Information from industry 
commenters showed that four different types of CO<INF>2</INF> 
supermarket systems displayed lower energy consumption compared to the 
baseline system in the most populous city in the United States (New 
York), two CO<INF>2</INF> supermarket system types resulted in lower 
energy use in the second most populous city in the United States (Los 
Angeles), and one type of CO<INF>2</INF> supermarket system reduced 
energy consumption in all

[[Page 73161]]

cities shown, by 10% (Houston) to 35% (New York).\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ January 30, 2023. Available at https://www.regulations.gov 
in Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643-0209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-contained 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.<SUP>117 118</SUP> 
Industry safety standards and model building codes were also revised in 
2021 to allow the use of other lower-GWP 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Coca-cola, January 2014, Coca-cola Installs 1 Millionth 
HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of 
CO<INF>2</INF>. Available at: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler.
    \118\ PepsiCo, 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-ul-541-standard-refrigerated-vending-machines.
    \120\ NAMA, 2019. NAMA Foundation Annual Report 2019. Available 
at: https://namanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-NAMA-Foundation-Annual-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Coca-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-hfc-free-coolers-count-reaches-2-5-million/.
    \122\ ``NAMA Partners With DOE On More Energy-Efficient Vending 
Machines,'' Vending Times, Dec. 16, 2019. Available online at: 
https://www.vendingtimes.com/blogs/nama-partners-with-doe-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-fly-in-advocacy-summit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73162]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Refrigeration, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 low-GWP 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/CO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters generally supported EPA's proposed

[[Page 73163]]

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 SNAP-approved 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 [deg]F (-4.4 to -2.2 [deg]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 high-
temperature side of a chiller) in locations with access limited to 
trained service personnel only. In TSDs submitted with their petition, 
CARB

[[Page 73164]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Packages--Design and Build, Toromont [bond] CIMCO 
Refrigeration. Available at: https://www.cimcorefrigeration.com/packages-design-build.
    \127\ Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, CARB, October 
2020. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In areas where safety or toxicity reasons prevent the use of R-717, 
lower-GWP (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 [deg]F (-4.4 to -
2.2 [deg]C), it is inappropriate to adopt the temperature thresholds of 
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) that apply to 
chillers for comfort cooling and for IPR.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, CO<INF>2</INF>, 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

[[Page 73165]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-contained 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 
self-contained 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 self-contained 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.

[[Page 73166]]



                                             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  GWP less than 150...................  January 1, 2026.
                                                            1,000 pounds ice per
                                                            24 hours.
Self-contained....................  Continuous...........  Less than or equal to  GWP less than 150...................  January 1, 2026.
                                                            1,200 pounds ice per
                                                            24 hours.
Self-contained....................  Batch................  Greater than 1,000     Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R-  January 1, 2027.
                                                            pounds ice per 24      402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
                                                            hours.                 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.
Self-contained....................  Continuous...........  Greater than 1,200     Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R-  January 1, 2027.
                                                            pounds ice per 24      402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
                                                            hours.                 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.
Remote condenser..................  All..................  All..................  Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R-  January 1, 2027.
                                                                                   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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73167]]

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 self-contained 
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 self-
contained 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 split-systems 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0050 and EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-
0047, respectively, available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-contained 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

[[Page 73168]]

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 self-contained 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) self-contained 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 self-contained 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 self-contained 
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 non-flammable 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 self-contained 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 self-contained 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

[[Page 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).

[[Page 73170]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See, e.g., https://www.danfoss.com/en/about-danfoss/news/dcs/new-extension-of-danfoss-atex-lab-accelerates-the-use-of-sustainable-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
factory-charge 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 self-contained 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 lower-GWP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F (-30 [deg]C) and 61 [deg]F (16 [deg]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

[[Page 73171]]

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 cruise-shipping. 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., stand-alone 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 standard-sized 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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 ozone-
depleting 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.<SUP>133 134</SUP> EPA considers usage in the market as an 
indication of the commercial demands and technological achievability of 
a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Thermo 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-warming-potential-of-transport-refr.html.
    \134\ Carrier 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 cruise-shipping 
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,

[[Page 73172]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Refrigeration, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [deg]C (-58 
[deg]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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]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.<SUP>138 139 140</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Ibid.
    \137\ Carrier Transicold ``NaturaLINE'' products. Additional 
information available at: https://www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/worldwide/products/Container-Units/naturaline.
    \138\ Maersk Container Industry, Star Cool--Refrigerants. 
Available at: https://www.mcicontainers.com/products/star-cool/refrigerants.
    \139\ Carrier Transicold Offers Lower GWP Refrigerant Option for 
PrimeLINE[supreg] 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.
    \140\ Thermo King, Container Fresh and Frozen. Available at: 
https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/marine/refrigeration-units/container-fresh-and-frozen.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C), GWP limit 
of 700
b. for operating temperature in the range of -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C) to 
-103 [deg]F (-75 [deg]C), GWP limit of 2,000
c. for operating temperature below -103 [deg]F (-75 [deg]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 [deg]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 
[deg]C. This commenter also stated that refrigerants used in low 
temperature chillers (i.e., below -50 [deg]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 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C), in this final rule, EPA is not 
establishing GWP restrictions for refrigerated transport--intermodal 
containers with fluid temperatures below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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

[[Page 73173]]

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 self-contained 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 lower-GWP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 73174]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ TEAP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ For additional information, the EU legislation to control 
F-gases web page is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/eu-legislation-control-f-gases_en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (``water-cooled''), 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 
ice-skating 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 [deg]F (93 [deg]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,

[[Page 73175]]

such as those under sections 608 and 612 of the CAA.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ In describing these regulations promulgated under 
authorities of title VI of the CAA, EPA is neither reopening nor 
revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 three-year 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 [deg]C 
(-58 [deg]F). For chillers where the temperature of the fluid exiting 
the chiller is equal to or above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) but less than 
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 pre-charged 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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), but one year earlier than IPR 
chillers with exiting temperatures from -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]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

[[Page 73176]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and below -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and higher than or equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 
[deg]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

[[Page 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 
[deg]C (-80 [deg]F) or lower temperatures and whether industrial 
process refrigeration chillers that operate at less than -50 [deg]C (-
58 [deg]F) are exempt. Another commenter suggested that EPA exempt 
specialty applications for systems designed for exiting fluid 
temperatures of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 
[deg]C (-49 [deg]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 [deg]C (-
58 [deg]F) and how that applies in cases where the temperature may also 
rise above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) to as high as 5 [deg]C (41 
[deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and above but below -30 
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F) would have a compliance date of January 1, 2028, 
and if exiting fluid temperatures are equal to or greater than -30 
[deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]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, 
single-family 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 self-contained and 
split systems. Self-contained 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 
(``field-assembled''). Water-source and ground-source 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 multi-splits provide cooled or 
heated air directly from the indoor unit rather than providing the air 
through ducts.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Window air conditioners. These are self-contained products 
that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window.
    <bullet> PTACs and PTHPs. These are self-contained 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 73178]]

placed through a window or door to eject heat outside.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 air-
conditioning 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ California 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.
    \147\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.<SUP>148 149</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Turpin, J, R-454B Emerges as a Replacement for R-410A, 
ACHR News, August 2020. Available at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143548-r-454b-emerges-as-a-replacement-for-r-410a.
    \149\ Turpin, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 air-conditioning 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 ozone-depleting 
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

[[Page 73180]]

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 self-contained 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 air-conditioning 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 non-
residential 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 off-road) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
    \151\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 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; 
<SUP>152 153</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the 
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the 
docket.
    \153\ AEM, 2021. Appendix A: Machine Forms as Classified by AEM 
Membership. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Self-propelled agricultural machinery (including combines, 
grain and corn harvesters, sprayers, windrowers, and floaters) that are 
primarily used for harvesting, fertilizer, and herbicide operations;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 73181]]

vehicles manufactured exclusively for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ The 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.
    \157\ European 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 MY-based 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

[[Page 73182]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report. EPA, 2023. Available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/download-automotive-trends-report#Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 next-generation 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 high-pressure 
refrigerants such as HFO-1234yf or R-744 (e.g., explosion-proofing 
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.

[[Page 73183]]

    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, CO<INF>2</INF>, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Rigid polyurethane spray foam that is applied in situ, which 
includes insulation for building envelopes, roofing, walls, doors, and 
other

[[Page 73184]]

construction uses, as well as foam for building breakers for pipelines. 
Polyurethane spray foam is broken down further into high-pressure two-
component, low-pressure two-component, and one-component foam sealants. 
These three applications vary in the types of systems used to apply 
them (one-component or two-component, high-pressure or low-pressure), 
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 CO<INF>2</INF>, 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 non-fluorinated 
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. CO<INF>2</INF>, 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

[[Page 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 foam-blowing 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 CO<INF>2.</INF> 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 
CO<INF>2</INF> (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 
application-specific 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 lower-GWP 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

[[Page 73186]]

limitations, such as a requirement for non-flammability. EPA is aware 
of possible substitutes with lower GWPs; <SUP>161 162</SUP> but based 
on comments, EPA agrees additional time is needed to reformulate, test, 
and transition listed technical uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See email from HCPA to EPA, dated August 8, 2022.
    \162\ See Evaluation of Continued Need for HFC-134a in Specific 
Aerosol Propellant Applications memo in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-

[[Page 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 four-digit 
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 self-contained 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

[[Page 73188]]

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

[[Page 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 on-product 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

[[Page 73190]]

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 self-compliance 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ, ``Importers and Exporters of 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or 
Closed-Cell Foams.''
    \165\ EPA is not making any changes to 40 CFR part 98 in this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73191]]

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 MTCO<INF>2</INF>e 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Calculated as specified in 40 CFR 98.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ E-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, air-conditioning, 
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 closed-cell 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,

[[Page 73192]]

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 = [Sigma3]t St x Nt x 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.
S<INF>t</INF> = Mass of the regulated substance or blend containing 
a regulated substance per unit of equipment type t (charge per piece 
of equipment, kg).
N<INF>t</INF> = 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), S<INF>t</INF> 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, 
S<INF>t</INF> 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), S<INF>t</INF> 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), N<INF>t</INF> 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 closed-cell 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\

[[Page 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pre-notification system 
would not increase compliance or enhance enforcement efforts.
    Response: While EPA considers pre-notification 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

[[Page 73194]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ For the sake of comparison, results from both sets of 
analyses are included in the RIA addendum contained in the docket.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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 subsector-specific 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 MMTCO<INF>2e</INF> 
and 28 to 43 MMTCO<INF>2e</INF>, 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Consumption reductions            Emission reductions
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                                             High                            High
                                                     Base case     additionality     Base case     additionality
                                                                       case                            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

[[Page 73196]]

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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e 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] a b c d e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Base case                                High additionality case
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Annual costs    Net benefits                    Annual costs    Net benefits
                          Year                              Incremental      (negative     (3% benefits,    Incremental      (negative     (3% benefits,
                                                              climate       values are       3% or 7%         climate       values are       3% or 7%
                                                           benefits (3%)     savings)       costs) \e\     benefits (3%)     savings)       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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits 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.
\c\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050.
\d\ The costs presented in this table are annual estimates.
\e\ The 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-CO<INF>2)</INF>, methane (SC-CH<INF>4)</INF>, and nitrous oxide 
(SC-N<INF>2</INF>O)), 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

[[Page 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$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Incremental climate benefits by discount rate and statistic
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                                                                                 3% (95th
                                     5% (average)        3% (average)       2.5% (average)        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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits 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 (MTCO<INF>2</INF>e). 
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 MTCO<INF>2</INF>e, or MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, 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 HFC-
containing 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

[[Page 73198]]

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 whole-market 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 time-dependent 
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 
MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e in 2029, from 31.0 to 59.0 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e in 
2034, and from 31.0 to 62.5 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e in 2036, depending on 
the scenario. The cumulative reductions for the years 2025 through 2050 
ranged from 828 to 1,720 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, 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 MMTCO<INF>2</INF>e, 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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Net climate benefits  at 3%
                                           (average)  discount rate
                Year                 -----------------------------------
                                           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

[[Page 73199]]

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 
decision-maker and the public.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ EPA 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.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
    \171\ See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency. 
``Environmental Justice.'' Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \172\ The 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-during-development-action.
    \173\ The 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/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ 88 FR 25251 (Apr. 26, 2023).
    \175\ Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory Review, 
January 20, 2021. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review.
    \176\ Technical 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73200]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ The RIA for the Allocation Framework Rule is available in 
the docket for that rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0044-0227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ TRI 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.
    \179\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 substitute-producing 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

[[Page 73201]]

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 non-fluorinated 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,

[[Page 73202]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ UNEP. 2022 Assessment Report of the Environmental Effects 
Assessment Panel. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/EEAP-2022-Assessment-Report-May2023.pdf.
    \181\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
climate-change 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

[[Page 73203]]

refrigeration and comfort cooling systems using low-GWP 
refrigerant.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-250-million-accelerate-electric-heat-pump. 
See also https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-46-million-boost-energy-efficiency-and-slash-emissions-residential-and;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

[[Page 73204]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Costs are provided in 2022 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/self-contained 
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,

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 84 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Public Law 116-260, Division S, Sec. 103.


0
2. Add subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec.  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.

[[Page 73206]]

84.62 Technology transitions petition requirements.
84.64 Global warming potentials.

Subpart B--Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons


Sec.  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.


Sec.  84.52  Definitions.

    For the terms not defined in this subpart but that are defined in 
Sec.  84.3, the definitions in Sec.  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 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.
    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.


Sec.  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, self-contained 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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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, self-contained 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:

[[Page 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 [deg]F (-30 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than or equal 
to -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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, self-contained 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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and is less than or equal to -30 [deg]C (-22 
[deg]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; self-propelled 
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, low-

[[Page 73208]]

pressure two-component, and one-component 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 Sec.  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 air-
conditioning 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 air-conditioning 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 [deg]F (-30 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than or equal 
to -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-58 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 [deg]C (-22 [deg]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 
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and is less than or equal to -30 [deg]C (-22 
[deg]F), using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated 
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;

[[Page 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  84.56  Exemptions.

    (a) The regulations under this subpart, including Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  84.13(a), for a year or years for which that application receives 
an application-specific allowance as defined at Sec.  84.3.
    (b) The prohibitions on the manufacture, import, sale, 
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, or export of products in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  84.58  Labeling.

    (a) Effective upon the dates listed for each subsector in Sec.  
84.54(a) and (c), any

[[Page 73210]]

product, specified component, or system manufactured, imported, or 
installed within the refrigeration, air-conditioning, 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 Sec.  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 self-contained 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 self-contained 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 
on-product 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 Sec.  84.54(a) or (c).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  84.54, and 
are labeled in accordance with Sec.  84.58.
    (3) Reports for products and specified components in the 
refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump sector must also include 
the following information:
    (i) For each set of products or specified components with the same

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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:

[[Page 73212]]



                        Table 1 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         100-Year global
                     Substance name                          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,              1-13
 ketones)..............................................
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>